April 28, 2026 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:10] Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this April 28th, 2026 Planning Board meeting. My name's Laura Kaplan, I'm the chair. We'll do a little roll call, starting here in the room to my right, if you could just say your name. Audio Henson theme. Max Lord. And online, we have… Jason Roberts? Thank you, Mason. And has ML joined? She may be in the lobby. Okay, I think we are expecting Board Member Robles, ML Robles, to join us here shortly. She's joining now. Wonderful. And absent tonight are Mark McIntyre and Kurt Nordbach. We have a light but fun agenda tonight.

[1:02] We will have one public hearing item, and that is a site review for 777 Broadway. And then at the end of the meeting, we'll do a little bit of board business and check in on the planning for our upcoming board retreat. So we'll start the meeting here tonight with, public participation, as we always do. This is a chance for anyone from the public to address the board for 3 minutes on any topic that we are not having a hearing about tonight. So that would be, everything except for 777 Broadway. So I will turn it over… to the staff member who is running the public participation. Is Vivian with us, or is that you tonight, Thomas? I'll be running the, public participation, and first I'm going to read this slideshow that. It talks about some basic guidelines covering public participation. First of all, we want you to know that the City has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members.

[2:04] Staff and Board and Commission members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement process, you can visit our website here. And the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupt or otherwise impede the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. And participants are required to identify themselves using the name they are commonly known by. And individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. When we get to the public participation opportunity, you can let us know you'd like to speak by using the raise hand icon on the bottom of your screen on Zoom.

[3:04] Or if you're in person here, you can sign up using the sign-up forms over on the side of the room. And if you don't see this raised hand icon. You might need to click the reactions icon and expand it, and then you'll see the raise hand icon. And with that, we'll go ahead and move into open comment, which is a period where you can address any matters that are not on the night's agenda. And I don't believe we have anybody signed up in the room for open comment. So we'll go ahead and move to online participants. If you're online and would like to give comment… Please go ahead and raise your hand. Seeing none, I'll pass it back to you, Chair. Thank you so, so much, Thomas. Okay, the public participation portion of our agenda is now closed. That was item 2 on the agenda.

[4:00] We just got a raised hand. Should we allow it? Yes, go right ahead. We have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you'll have 3 minutes. Please go ahead and speak when you're ready. Bye. Regarding planning, and regarding corruption, and regarding citizen and resident Survival in this community. You know, I have to tell you. What the city and the county did to me with an energy retrofit was despicable. I have tried for 25 years to get a geothermal heat pump. And now all my hopes and dreams are gone. Absolutely gone. The city spent who knows how much? $50,000, free money for me, destroying my hopes of ever getting geothermal heat pump. They filled my attic full of an air handler that they could have put a mini-split on for $7,000. They probably spent $35,000 putting this air handler in.

[5:06] You should be ashamed. Being part of the planning board, being part of the city, and watching. A resident get treated this way. I don't care whose fault it was. It's destroyed my life. I have an outbuilding and ADU. You like people developing ADUs? Well, I'm waiting for GEO. And now what do I do? I have to pop up my attic with this huge air handler that's 30% less efficient than a mini-split, a simple mini-split they could have stuck on my place. The taxpayer's money! $55,000 worth of stuff. For nothing They blocked my side yard setback. I can't circumnavigate my house. When I have a fire here, I'm not going to be able to get water to it.

[6:01] I'm just stunned. Stunned that any human being in this city could be treated this way. Left out of an energy retrofit. And I've worked on renewable energy and energy efficiency issues for 35 years. And I was completely left out. Unbelievable. Then, I go to a… A… candidate form in North Boulder. I've supported municipalization. I worked on it for 10 years. We had 4 ballot measures. Sam Weaver, Bob Yates, and Alice Jackson from Excel met by chance at a football game, and nixed our whole project. Sam Weaver! Sam Weaver. He was one of the two lead techs with Tom Asprey on municipalization. Do you know how much we need energy efficiency? Do you know how much every planning board thing that comes up here is about energy efficiency? And yet, what's the reality of what gets done? I… Rachel Friend lied that I followed and shoved her, and that's what I get for it.

[7:13] Done. Thank you, Lynn. And seeing no other raised hands for the open comment opportunity, we have… we have one here. We have Robert Bachelor. Robert, this item, or this opportunity, is for items that are not on the agenda, so just a reminder. And, if you would like to address other, Topics, we can go ahead and allow you to speak, and you'll have 3 minutes. It looks like that hand has been lowered, so I'm gonna pass it back to you, Chair. Okay. Thank you, Thomas, and thank you, Lynn, for your comments tonight.

[8:02] Alright, so the public participation at the beginning of the meeting is now closed. We move on to item 3, approval of minutes. We have no minutes to approve tonight. Moving on to the floor. Hello, hello. This, this Robert Batchelder, I couldn't find the mute signal. I gotcha. So, Robert, do you want to speak on something that is not 777 Broadway? Yes. So I gotta wait till later? Is that the idea? No, this would be the right time. Next, we'll. We'll go ahead and… we understand technical issues. We'll go ahead and reopen the public hearing, and Thomas will give you 3 minutes. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I've been working on the Boulder Botanical Gardens for the last few months. I'm from California. I'm a descendant of, Sand Creek soldiers, and I'm the only one to step forward, right now, and that's the only reason we weren't able to appear earlier to propose the botanical gardens and get our funding together. At the same time, we've been kind of

[9:11] ambushed. Because… from what I understand, They're gonna start, doing excavation work at Hogan Pancost for the tennis courts. And, I'm just real concerned that, the Cheyenne are being left out, because the city isn't using the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. to initiate some contact with a Cheyenne who Lived on that land. That's my problem, and I'd like to be able to stop this project temporarily until we can get a site review of the property by an archaeologist. So… That's kind of what my point is. So…

[10:05] That's all I really have to say. Thank you, Robert. Thanks for being here with us tonight, and… Seeing no other raised hands at this time, I will now pass it back to you, Chair. Okay, thank you. And thank you, Robert. We did have a hearing about that project that you're talking about over on the property, formerly known as Hogan Pancost. I do have interest in following up with staff about Robert's comments, but perhaps not at this time, unless, Brad, you're able to address that. Yes, I'm happy to just do it while it's fresh. Brad Mueller, Planning and Development Services Director. We are aware of the interests of some of the tribal representatives. It's a mixture of voices we're hearing from, and they are coordinating

[11:06] or I should say our Parks and Rec Department has regular contact with a number of folks who have an interest in that area. We have explained in other forums that the comprehensive plan doesn't operate at the level of that type of specificity, and of course, with your engagement, you know that those are high-level policies. We did, as a matter of practice with the update to the comprehensive plan, reach out to the tribal nations. The feedback that we got is to work through the existing channels that we've got as a city. We've got robust communication with those those communities in other settings, and that really proved to be the best way to continue our conversation, so there isn't… Anything… In the comprehensive plan, or the mechanism for that, other than that, of course, there's a very important land acknowledgement that's part of the draft, and we certainly recognize the importance of that.

[12:04] But there is very direct communication happening, between some of the communication And, folks, with those interests and parks and recreation. Okay, thank you. And the question about an archaeological survey, I assume that that is. That would have to be, determined as, part of the review. It is not typically mandatory. So we don't know that we would have the ability to require that, but I imagine that's ongoing discussion with Parks. I mean, it's a city project, is it not? So, what does it mean to have the ability to require it or not? Well, we as a department would not require it. Whether we, the city, as owner of that property, undertook that voluntarily, I can't… I can't represent what Park's thinking might be at this time on that.

[13:02] Okay, thank you for that update, Brad. And, again, thank you, Lynn and Robert, for your comments tonight. So we're gonna move on to the other items on our agenda. Excuse me. Item 4 is call-up items. We have none tonight, which brings us to our public hearing item. And so I will read the title of that, and then I will ask board members if they have any, conflicts of interest or disclosures to make ex parte disclosures. So if we could pull up the, the slide. the slideshow for this public hearing item. It is called… Public hearing and consideration of a site review for the redevelopment of 777 Broadway with new residential uses. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing residential building and proposes 63 units. Including 1, 2, 3, and 4-bedroom units, totaling 81,647 square feet.

[14:02] The proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for 55 feet in height, modifications to setbacks, and a solar access exception, reviewed under case number LUR2025-00014. So before we go to Allison for the staff presentation, any board members have any disclosures to make regarding ex parte communications or any potential conflicts of interest? I see none in the room. Mason or ML, you'll have to speak up. Okay, I see none. Wonderful. All right, we'll move on. Allison, I'm turning it over to you. Thank you, and thank you 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 briefly cover the information that was 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.

[15:08] The project was first presented to Planning Board as a concept plan in November of 2024, and also reviewed by the Landmarks Board at the same time. At that time, the board concluded that the project aligned with BBC BVCP policies and were supportive of high-density residential at the proposed height. The board did suggest improved on-site open space, variation to building height, and improved multimodal connections. City Council did not call up the item, but referred the project to go before DAB. The applicant proceeded with a site review application in March 2025, and presented their project to DAB in January of 2026. Staff has reviewed the application and is recommending approval before Planning Board tonight. City Council will have the option to call it Planning Board's decision, which is scheduled for next month. The site review is required based on the size of the development and requested modifications, including height modification up to 55 feet. Setback modification to the front yard and interior side yards, and a solar access exception.

[16:00] The height modification requires a decision by Planning Board. The site was posted, and public notification was provided per code. Public comments were received and have been included in the packet. Overall, neighbors expressed concern about traffic impacts, the proposed height, number of parking spaces, and construction impacts. The subject site is located on the southern side of Broadway, with access from 20th Street to the west, and Broadway to the north. The parcel is designated as high-density residential, which consists of attached dwelling units with an anticipated density of more than 14 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned RH5, which is defined here on the slide. The surrounding area is zoned RH5 to the north, south, and west, and the area across the street from Broadway is zoned P for public. The site is adjacent to residential uses to the west, Boulder Valley School District property or the New Vista High School to the south, and University of Colorado campus to the north and east. The larger contact to the west is mixed NC residential, comprised of detached dwelling units, attached dwelling units, and duplexes and triplexes.

[17:06] The Basemar Shopping Center is located at the intersection of Broadway and Baseline, which is about a quarter mile from the subject property. The size and scale of the surrounding developments along Broadway ranges from 3 stories to 9 stories in height, with smaller-scale residential buildings further west. The total site is 1.27 acres, and the existing property at 77 Broadway contains International Crossroads, a student housing development. The existing two-story building has a hipped roof and moderate eaves, and was originally constructed in 1957. The site currently connects to the multi-use path, which crosses the property along the northern edge, immediately adjacent to Broadway, and provides site access for pedestrians, bikes, and non-vehicle users. There are two shared driveways on the subject property. One of the accesses to the north is from Broadway and shared with the adjacent property to the west, or the Lux at 855 Broadway. And you can see on the screen, a red arrow denoting, that shared drive, as well as the access from Broadway between the two properties.

[18:05] Another access exists from 20th Street. The flag portion of the property is covered by an existing access easement that provides parking and vehicle access for the San Marco condos at 830 20th Street, the 20th Street Village condos at 812 20th Street, and then the Lux. And then again, the shared access drives and routes are showed with, red arrows on the slides. And the proposal being discussed tonight is for the redevelopment of the site with 63 dwelling units and varying size and unit type. The design features ground floor courtyard, rooftop, roof deck amenity spaces, private balconies, and outdoor amenities. Parking is located within the footprint of the building, and long-term bike parking is accessible from the multi-use path. As part of the proposed redevelopment, the Broadway access will be partially closed to prohibit vehicle access to the subject site, while maintaining vehicle access to the adjacent property to the west. The subject site's only vehicle access point will be from 20th Street and then into the parking garage.

[19:02] Pedestrian access will be from the entrances along the multi-use path, and bicycle users have convenient access to long-term bike parking directly adjacent to the multi-use path. With short-term bike parking adjacent to the northern entries. Overall, the building orientation and programming has been designed to facilitate pedestrian access from Broadway and the multi-use path, while avoiding non-vehicle access from 20th Street due to existing access easements. 41 vehicle parking spaces are proposed, with a total of 235 long-term and short-term bike parking spaces. The long-term bike parking area can accommodate 203 bikes, where 95 spaces is required per code. And as stated in the applicant's Transportation Demand Management Plan, or TDM plan, the long-term bike parking will accommodate a variety of bike styles, including cargo and e-bikes. Other TDM strategies to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles include NECO passes for residents, an e-scooter corral, alternative transportation fund, and bike repair station. The site is also located immediately adjacent to a multi-use path and less than 200 feet from a bus stop along Broadway.

[20:07] The RH5 zone requires a minimum of 15% open space for lots with residential units, which equates to about 8,300 square feet. And the proposal provides 16,000 square feet of open space that engages with the public realm and provides spaces for residents and visitors to gather. The open space provides a mix of communal and semi-private areas that support daily use, including a bocce ball court, two ground floor gathering spaces with outdoor cooking and games, two roof decks on the fourth and fifth levels, and private balconies. The internal courtyard is more tucked away from the public realm, while second ground floor space is proposed adjacent to the path. With short walls and decorative metal panels to provide privacy and noise buffers while providing enough transparency to enhance the pedestrian experience. The subject site is within an urban context located along a major arterial and near other higher-intensity residential uses in the University of Colorado. The building's shape and orientation positions two corners close to the Broadway multi-use path, one corner with a residential entry and the other corner with long-term bike parking and building access.

[21:09] The center entry is positioned further away from Broadway with a clearly visible pedestrian walkway and landscaping to frame the entry. Primary materials are limited to brick and cementitious siding, with metal accents and transparent panels. Materials are applied in a manner to express building form and function. Overall building entries along the public realm are well-defined, but architectural details like awnings, glazings, and material transitions, and parking areas are located within the footprint of the building. To provide variety to the form and height of the building, the design features varying forms, including 3-, 4-, and 5-story volumes. The lowest portions of the building are on the edges, which create a cascading effect toward the middle of the building. All balconies are integrated into the building form with a material finish that matches other building detailing elements. The subject site is subject to Solar Access Area 2, which is designed to protect rooftops for solar collection in areas of planned density.

[22:05] The proposed development shades a portion of the BVSD property, as shown here in the yellow triangle, the bottom left. And they are therefore requesting a solar access exception. Staff found the request supportable, given that the encroachment is insignificant relative to the total size of the neighboring lot, and therefore will not impact the BVSD property from receiving solar gains in the future. Additionally, the property received approval for such encroachment from BVSD. And the request is to achieve the intended FAR and density for the zone while accommodating site constraints like easements and the lot shape. As mentioned, the project is going through a height modification for up to 55 feet, and is eligible for the height modification per subparagraph 9214H6C, and therefore subject to additional criteria for buildings requesting a height modification. And that brings us for the, to the key issue for discussion, which is the proposed project consistent with the site review criteria, section 9214H.

[23:08] And overall, staff finds that the project is consistent with the criteria. The project promotes alternatives to the automobile, provides common open space areas, and incorporates landscaping design that includes a variety of plants. The building and siding and design is compatible with the character of the area and the surrounding area, and the building design successfully creates visual interest and a vibrant pedestrian experience. And I just have the motion language here on the slide. And I will now open up for any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Allison, for that, quick but informative presentation, as well as for the great job you did on the packet. All right, so we are now doing questions from the board. I neglected to review the overall sequence of events here. So we just had the staff presentation, we'll do Q&A for staff, followed by the applicant's presentation, Q&A for the applicant, and then finally, we will follow with the board's deliberation and decision.

[24:09] So, questions for our staff tonight. Who's got them from the board? I see ML's hand up. Yes, I do have some questions for Ellison. Thank you, Allison, for the presentation. I have… my questions start with, the setbacks. So… what I'm wondering about, and this is… In regards to… The site design criteria. safe access, etc, etc, and I'm concerned or wondering about that multi-use path. That goes along Broadway. So the setback… Can you explain the setback? along that multi-use path, it looks like the property line goes into the path?

[25:04] Yeah, so a portion of the multi-use path is on the subject property. So the setback requests would be measured from the building to the property line. I believe the request is for 18 feet, when the requirement is 25. And on the plans, it looks like the distance between You know, some of the… The northernmost building edge is about 8 feet between the building edge and the multi-use path, but the applicant might be able to provide some more numbers on The distance between the building itself and the multi-use path. So, I'm confused about what you just said. They're asking for an 18-foot setback. Modification, and yet… It gets reduced down to 8 feet in some places. Just between the building and the multi-use path, since the multi-use path is on the subject property. I see what you're saying. So at the shortest, that is where my question was going. At the closest, it's 8 feet.

[26:04] And at that point, The building is… hmm… How tall? At that exact point. Or just… along the… along that path, it looks like… when I'm looking at the drawings, it looks like it's basically a four-story building with a small setback at the fourth floor and small setback at the fifth floor. It's not really a big ol' stepping building. It's basically one footprint that goes Up to the proposed height. Yeah, it'll be 4 stories at that northernmost edge along the multi-use path, and then steps back to the 5th 5th floor. Did staff have any concerns about, Transportation safety, people walking, bikes, scooting, whatever, along that path, and the proximity of the building?

[27:03] That was not a concern that came up during staff's review. Okay. Let me see… I have… One other question, regards to open space, the… I don't know if you want to put up the open space drawing, but… It looks like there is something that is colored open space that is in the southwest corner of the property. And what I'm wondering is, how do people even get there, and does it count as open space? Yeah, let me pull up the plans. I believe you're, referring to the… there's a stormwater detention area, Let me just pull up that slide… Okay.

[28:10] And are you referring to this area, or more to the west, or… No, down south? South? Over here. That little green guy down there. Yeah, that'll be the… there's a rain garden with landscaping. people get there? It's near the entrance to the garage. And it's… it's more meant for stormwater, treatment than… Not active open space. Though… can kind of… Inaccessible open space be considered open space? In a way that it provides passive open space, and our code does allow for landscaping to count towards our open space regulations, so, As long as it's consistent with 9911 for our open space, it can count towards their usable open space area.

[29:04] Because I… when I looked at it, I didn't see an access to it at all. Do you see an access to it? It's adjacent to the garage entry, and there is a… there is an access right Here, a building entrance. But it's… I don't think it's designed to be accessible to… Residence as a gathering space, since it's a rain garden. It does. Looks like the applicant might want to speak to that, so ML, maybe you could loop back to your question. And just in looking at the plans, it doesn't look like it was actually considered as open space for the purpose. of calculating open space, but… Oh, okay, that's even… You guys can verify that when you present. Okay, and my last question is about the trees. And I got kind of confused looking at that chart. So how many total trees are currently on the site? How many are being removed? How many are being replaced?

[30:03] And how many are being retained? I don't have that information off the top of my head, but I can pull up the the planting schedule, and I think the applicant can also address that. In their presentation. But they will be required to, meet 15% above our landscaping requirements. As part of the site review criteria, including trees. So… what am I hearing? The actual numbers? You'll get them later in the presentation, or what? Yeah, I think the applicant can probably touch on that in their presentation. Okay, how many trees, how many are being removed? How many are being replaced? And how many are being retained? Those are my questions. Great. That's it. Thanks so much. Thank you, ML. Mason, did you have any questions for staff? Nope. None from Max.

[31:01] Claudia. Alright, two main topics here. First, I want to talk about vehicle access from both points, so I just want to make sure I understand what's happening. first with the vehicle access from Broadway. They're proposing to close off part of that driveway, is that correct? That's correct, just the portion that serves 777 Broadway. Okay, so there is… still a, a curb-cut turning point for the neighboring building there? Yeah, correct. that, Entryway connect, then, in any way to the redeveloped property, or is that going to be cut off? they won't connect. Okay. Okay. And… Yeah. So then the… The second question is about the 20th Street access. And I know there's been some concern from neighboring property owners around that. Can you clarify, does the applicant control or own that particular strip? Like, I want to understand who owns it, who has an easement.

[32:07] It's on the subject property for 777 Broadway. Okay. So they would own that strip, but there is a private access agreement between, I believe it's those four properties. As far as the terms of that easement, I'm not as familiar with who's responsible for what. The applicant might be able to address that, but the flag itself is the… on the subject property. the subject property, okay. So other than emergency vehicle access, are there any standards in our code that a private access drive needs to adhere to, right? So we're treating that as the main entrance to the site. Yeah, we can't require any sort of, like, improvements or anything within the private access easement. Okay, so that's not anything in our code. It does need to meet things like site trains. the safety, requirements that are found in the design and construction standards. We just can't do things like make them landscape it, or put sidewalks, walkways, things like that.

[33:05] Thanks, Charles. And then, I guess an extension of that question, the curb cut and the actual access point on 20th Street. can we require any additional improvements there if we deem them necessary to meet site review requirements? So this is… this is where that access drive interfaces with the public sidewalk and the public street. I believe… Could, but I'd… Might have to… If we can require, improvements to the curb cut on 20th Street. Regardless of the easements. I hear the, applicant beat me to the punch, but the DCS is the controlling factor here for the curb cuts, so that is the…

[34:01] extent that we can hold folks to. Okay. It sounds like it was designed per the DCS, but again, I think they can speak to that as part of their presentation. I may follow up on that. The other thing I wanted to check in on is bike parking. And in our packet, we had an email, it was quite old, I think from an earlier round of review, potentially, but we had an email from Community Cycles about what they perceived as crowding in the long-term bike storage area. And I just wanted to check in on where we are with that. What I'm seeing in the drawings and what I'm seeing described in the current plans looks larger than, I think, what Community Cycles was talking about, so has that been addressed or altered since that comment came in? Yeah, that's correct. The bike parking initially was located in the southwest corner of the garage, sort of where one of the building entrances And… During the last round of review, the bike parking was relocated to the north, where it is now, in a much larger space.

[35:04] New location, different access. Did they also increase the size of that space, or change the configuration internally? I don't know off the top of my head how much it changed numbers or the configuration, but I might have the applicant touch on… And I'm also curious, then, has staff run the numbers on, like, the required minimum spacing for those bike parking spaces? Yes. And they've got it the 6 by 2 feet? Yes. Okay. Great. I think that's all I have. Thank you, Claudia. I have just a couple. Allison, could you walk us through the open spaces on the property? Are there renderings for the three primary open space amenity areas on the ground floor? It says there's a bocce court with movable seating, etc. There's a semi-private gathering space to the north of the building, along the multi-use path, and then there's a central courtyard to the south.

[36:02] And there's also a breezeway. And I would love to just get a walkthrough of those three central areas and the breezeway, and maybe that's more appropriate for the applicant presentation. But, Allison, if you've got it, I'd love to… love to see it. quickly show you what I… what was included in the renderings, And then they might have more drawings, too, to show. I don't believe there's a rendering of the… the bocce ball court area. But the first one… I'm just gonna kinda zoom in, it might be a little hard to see, but this would be the first. The kind of gathering area to the north. I believe there's an internal… view here. So this would be the one that's along the multi-use path. The multi-use path is over here, and then the breezeway entry to the internal space is kind of behind the… or right here, actually, you can see. That breezeway? Bear.

[37:00] And I don't think there's any on this one… I think that's right. So the breezeway goes under the building. There are floors above it? Correct. Oh, yeah. Back it open. Yeah, the breezeway's… you can kind of see it through here. Bop. I believe the applicant will also have some more… Images to show. Oh, here we go, I just didn't zoom out enough. So this is the interior courtyard. And then this is the breezeway, and only a portion of the breezeway is counting towards open space. And that will connect to Broadway over here. Okay, thank you, and you said there's not a rendering of the bocce Ball area. That's kind of the strip along the… was that the west side? correct? I don't believe there's one included in their applicant package.

[38:00] Okay. And then, just with regard to the additional requirements for the height bonus, that interior courtyard, there are some criteria for that. Could you just kind of walk us through… and we know that it's not a hard and fast checklist, but these are items that we can consider. So, one of… the first one is the width of the space is no less than the height of the building walls enclosing the space. Does one of these courtyards meet that criteria? Yes. And the central one does. And how wide is it? I have, it's about… the building heights are about 50 when measured from the grade. And, the dimension I've… the width is about 50. So it's about the same. Yep. Okay. It does have seating and other design elements. Southern exposure and sunlight. I believe it does get… it doesn't have the southern exposure, but since the whole east side's open, it does have sunlight. Okay.

[39:00] Do any of the rooftop decks have southern exposure? Yes. This one. Okay, thank you. I apologize, everyone, for the coughing. I am not contagious, but I… I am a menace, because I'm coughing all the time. The space is visible from an adjoining public sidewalk. Yeah, with how the… the site is oriented with Broadway going… Kind of curving down, and how open the BBSD property is, you can see that internal courtyard from the sidewalk. Okay, and you can see the front courtyard as well. Yeah. Okay. And, at least one tree is planted per 500 square feet of space. They are planted in the ground. Or they could be in vaults if they're over parking garages. Correct. And it meets that requirement? Yes. Yeah, the renderings don't show the trees, because staff asked them to take the trees out of their renderings, so… but there are plantings in that courtyard. Okay, thank you.

[40:05] That's all of my questions. Anything else from board members? Did that trigger anything for anybody? I'm looking on the Zoom as well. I don't think I see any hands up. Okay, then we can move on to the applicant presentation. Allison, can you remind us how many minutes we have allotted for the applicant presentation? 15. 15. Could we get a 15-minute timer, please, Thomas? So, welcome to our applicant team tonight. I'll give you the same instructions that we tell everybody, which is we're very much looking forward to your presentation. You've heard a lot of questions from us. We encourage you not to slow down your presentation to answer our questions. Go ahead and get through your presentation, and then we can have additional Q&A at the end that does not count towards your 15-minute time limit. And with that, I'll turn it over to you. And, I'll just need you guys to accept the panelists' request on Zoom. Setting up, just a quick introduction here. My name is Seth Saco, and I'm a project manager with the development team here.

[41:05] And pardon, you're gonna have to speak pretty directly into the mic so that it goes on the recording. Perfect. My name is Seth Seco, and I'm with the development team. I have Evan Borf with Tabernacle Architecture, and also with the applicant team, we have Curtis Stevens with Sinitas Group. And Carol Adams with Studio Terra. So, a big thank you to Allison, and Kalani, and Charles, and that whole team. We've been through a few rounds of this, but we think we've arrived at a very good solution here, so… With that, Evan, I'll give you the floor. Thank you, thank you.

[42:02] Well, good evening. As Seth introduced the team here, my name is Evan Borf. Representing Tabernacle. Architecture and Design, the architect of record for the project. Thank you for your time this evening in reviewing our project, and thank you to staff. We've worked a lot over the last year and a half The iterative process, has been very fruitful, and has resulted in a design that will serve the community well, and one that we are quite pleased to present tonight. The staff report summarizes where we are very well, so I just want to spend a little time kind of sharing the history of the design. The process we have navigated, as well as the feedback that has been instrumental in refining our design. So before we jump into the… a brief timeline, I just want to revisit the proposal. It's a 203-bedroom student housing development comprised of 63 units located at 777 Broadway across the street from the University of Colorado Boulder. The site is just over one and a quarter acres in size.

[43:03] The project was first submitted to concept review in July of 2024, and came before Planning Board in November of 2024, with another architect. Also, in November, the site was granted demolition approval from the Landmarks Board. Tabernacle was engaged in December of 24 to study the concept review feedback and press forward with the design. Last year, we have worked very closely with staff over four site review submissions. Prior to meeting with the Design Advisory Board in December of 2025. The design team then utilized all the feedback we have received over the past year and a half to prepare our fifth site review submission, which is in front of the board tonight. So, as we first revisited the design following concept review with fresh eyes, the first item we studied was the building siding in relationship to the site context. Including our neighbors, the views from the site, the landscape and topography, as well as the arrangement of site utilities. The property is uniquely challenged, flagpole shape.

[44:04] property at a prominent entry to Boulder. The setbacks were first determined by the multi-use path and the shared utility access easement. Neighboring properties utilities use our site to connect their services to Broadway, and we had the ability to decide where this would occur on our site. We located a 25-foot shared easement along our western property boundary, as this is our only true architectural neighbor. The utility easement cannot have any structures or walls, so we leverage this area into a green corridor separating our property from the neighboring property. The building form is a result from the layering of other requirements, including pedestrian access, emergency first responder access, rain gardens, open space, and vehicular access. By siding our building to the south and east, we were able to maximize our setbacks to allow physical and visual separation from the neighboring structure to our west, also avoiding solar access encroachments at this location, while minimizing our setbacks adjacent to undeveloped open space to our south.

[45:10] The building siding strategy results in successfully avoiding a solar encroachment to the adjacent residential building to our west, but does, however, result in an encroachment to the property to the south, owned by the Boulder Valley School District. These exhibits shown represent 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. shadows during both winter and summer solstice. Our site review application is requesting the solar access exemption, as our design casts shadows beyond the solar fence onto a portion of the new Vista High School property seen here. Again, because of the setbacks in building siding, we were able to successfully avoid that encroachment with our neighbor to the west. But our application does include written acknowledgement from the property owner to our south. Once we were comfortable with the building siding, we visited the feedback we received from Planning Board regarding our concept review submission, and we addressed four key items that arose. Open space access and arrangement, our TDM plan, building height variation, and building massing.

[46:15] Regarding the open space, the concept review plan included second-level terraces that were only accessible to certain dwelling units. We sought to consolidate this terraced open space into two upper-floor outdoor amenity spaces. This allows the design to reduce massing and leverage the views in the most prominent locations on the site. Ground floor open space includes the green corridor we have developed on our western property boundary, our north amenity courtyard, which acts as the front door to the development, and our southern courtyard, located at the heart of the project. The design boasts nearly 21,000 square feet of actual open space, where only just over 8,000 square feet is required. The current plan also sought to reduce the amount of vehicular pavement located on-site by programming the majority of parking beneath the footprint of the structure.

[47:08] At concept review, the board encouraged the project team to develop a robust TDM plan for site review. The natural benefits of the site are in providing student housing along a multi-use path across the street from campus. To avoid vehicular dependencies, the development seeks to tap into existing network of transportation. This is possible through contributions to the Alternative Transportation Fund, participating in the NECO Bus Pass program, and locating an e-scooter corral or lime grove on our site adjacent to the multi-use path. The design seeks to remove any friction from residents accessing these services so that these alternative modes of transportation become their primary choice and part of their daily routine. Site circulation is a key contributor to encouraging residents to seek pedestrian or bicycle modes of travel first.

[48:01] The site review application proposed to remove our vehicular access along Broadway, highlighted in red, directing all vehicle traffic to 20th Street. With our inability to provide a sidewalk out towards 20th Street due to shared drive aisle access from adjacent properties, we focused on designing thoughtful pedestrian experiences and access points towards Broadway. This allows the design to orient all pedestrian and bicycle traffic through our north courtyard adjacent the multi-use path. The elevator and our primary stair access are also oriented towards our north courtyard. Pedestrian traffic, shown in the blue dotted lines, are completely separated from vehicular traffic on site. There's also visual separation and a change in grade from our courtyards, and breezeway to the parking areas to further divide these spaces. Short-term vehicular access is accommodated via dedicated loading and rideshare parking spaces to ensure these activities requiring vehicles are accounted for and located off of any right-of-way and not impeding adjacent properties.

[49:09] Staff also shared some of the public comments received from our, following our first site review submission that assisted in the refinement improvements of our TDM plan. This includes, long-term bicycle rooms in our second submission, actually, that were disconnected and not fully adjacent to the primary pedestrian areas, while the short-term bicycle parking was distributed across three smaller locations along Broadway. After further studies of the bike parking and taking the public feedback into consideration. The bicycle parking space developed into a much larger, consolidated room adjacent to the north courtyard. Key updated features include an e-scooter corral adjacent to the multi-use path. One long-term bike space per bedroom, consolidated short-term bike parking at the north courtyard, long-term and short-term cargo stalls, infrastructure for e-bikes within the long-term parking, and a bicycle repair station.

[50:10] Additional feedback from Planning Board at our concept review encouraged the team to consider variations in height and to explore simple, detailed facades and massing to reduce large fields of materials. The next few slides show the comparison to our concept reviews. And how we've progressed in our current design. Both our concept design and our current design play off the horizontal datum established by our neighbor. This design strategy allows the building massing and height to feel contextually appropriate as we step down from our tallest form in the center to 4 and 3 stories at each end. The design utilizes the topography, architectural detailing, and framing and material transitions to break down massing and reinforce the varying heights. To reduce the perceived height, the building steps its volume down as it approaches the public realm at both ends near Broadway. We carve out both fourth and fifth floor area and program these spaces with outdoor amenity space, allowing both ends of the design to respond to the human scale in a harmonious manner.

[51:14] With the current building siding and massing, we were able to pull more building massing away from Broadway and reduce its overall perceived height with the introduction of the North Pedestrian Courtyard. The north courtyard results in negative space, where buildable area is sacrificed to offer a visual transition from Broadway and the multi-use path. to the 5-story volume in the center. This cascading effect works from 3 stories from the left-hand side of the image to 5 stories and back to 4 stories on the right-hand side. The design takes advantage of the site's topography by nestling the building into the grade such that the 4-story mass on the right-hand side is perceived as a three-story volume and ties contextually back into the urban fabric.

[52:01] We're gonna jump to some staff and design advisory board comments. The current design is a result of the natural design process and refinement through great feedback from staff and the design advisory board. Key elements we focused here on were consistent with the planning board concept reviewed feedback through the process. And narrowed down through our conversations with staff and DAB. To achieve a greater and more impactful variety of forms and height, and through DAB feedback, the vertical circulation elements were reanalyzed and removed from the ends of the building. This allowed the design to internalize those vertical spaces that have utilitarian need, and replace them with accessible spaces that are able to be sculpted. Variety of forms and heights was an area that we worked with staff and DAB on the most through the design process. Key design considerations led to the removal of 4th and 5th floor areas from the two primary ends of the building along Broadway. After the relocation of vertical circulation and the removable of rentable building area, the stepped end cap design achieves a successful variety of form and height.

[53:10] In closing, we have included pedestrian-level views of the design as we travel south along Broadway in the multi-use path. This view does capture a little bit of people playing bocce ball on that right-hand side in between our neighboring property. This is to highlight our contextual building height in this view, and how design relates to our neighbor. This view also shows how the building is strategically carved into the topography to reduce its perceived height as a three-story volume, despite having 4 stories of built space. The improved landscape design along Broadway, along the Broadway right-of-way opens up to the negative space highlighted previously and serves as the main entry into the development through the north courtyard. As we enter this courtyard, we are visually connected all the way through the property. We have views of the ground-level amenity and leasing space.

[54:00] The covered breezeway amenity space, and into the south courtyard, which is activated by outdoor seating and grilling areas. Surrounding the seating areas within the north courtyard are low knee walls with decorative metal screens to help visually protect and reduce street noise to its users. This same detail is used around the parking areas of the property to mitigate any negative use of the parking area beneath the building. As we continue down Broadway and look back towards the development, the position of the fourth floor outdoor amenity space stands out. By sacrificing additional dwelling units at levels 4 and 5, the design is able to step down to a 3-story volume at this outermost elevation. Because of the site's unique location, there are many views into the property, despite being sited a great distance from the public realm. Through material placement, simple detailing, massing breaks, negative space, height variations, the design is responsive and considerate of how it's being perceived from those various vantage points.

[55:03] Additional 5th floor buildable space is sacrificed to create a more dramatic building mass, even at the rear of the property. And lastly, a view from the multi-use path adjacent to the New Vista High School property, further showcasing the variety of forms, heights, detailing perceived from quite a distance, serving as part of the gateway into Boulder. That concludes my presentation. Thank you again for your time this evening, and we look forward to answering some of those questions. Thank you so much. And now it's time for questions from the board for the applicant team. Who'd like to start? Mason has a hand up. Yeah, I really only have one kind of broad question. I'm hoping you can… can talk to a little bit more on the TDM plan. one, just how it's uniquely suited for the expected tenants of this building, and what's expected to happen to the TDM plan post, the 3-year time period I saw on some of the,

[56:09] Things that were included in it. I think that 3-year time frame refers to the NECO bus pass, Yes. intended for… I think students already have, bus access, and this is intended to be a student housing development. Any NECO bus passes beyond the, 3 years would be primarily for staff, which I believe we have off-site leasing staff, and seasonal. So we don't view that as a, as a negative impact, as students would remain, having access to the NECO bus pass. So, essentially, what I heard was… I'm sorry, it was a little bit quiet from my end. There's also construction on my window, so apologies, but,

[57:02] the three-year… I do understand the student development, but I didn't hear was a little bit of how the TDM was built specifically for the students. I did hear that the… you're not worried about the three-year sunsetting, you're really not expecting much use. And then, what… for the employees, what's gonna continue with them after 3 years? So, on-site leasing agents, would not occur at this property. They'd be off-site leasing. We understand that the NECO bus program is already available to students. So the 3-year sunset would only affect non-students, which we wouldn't have non-student residents at the property. Thank you. Thank you. Who's next? Questions for the applicant?

[58:01] Claudia. Alright, I've got two. You might anticipate one of these. Do your plans contain any reconstruction of or upgrades to the access drive from 20th Street? And I'm in particular interested in any potential safety improvements. Curtis Stevens, Sinitas Group, civil engineer. So the design right now includes, by code, required. to need to replace the existing curb cut with a design and construction standards, which in this case would be a CDOT with Type 1 ramp. To meet both accessible requirements, and… because the current ramp does not meet accessibility, it does the slope, problem that we have present everywhere, and… the new design… Is using that standard because it fits within the right-of-way and property line constraints, and not impacting the trees while meeting code.

[59:00] And we have to keep the height of the walk where it is, so we don't allow any excess water on 20th to accidentally come into our property. Okay. Yeah, so there's… there's, like, jargon here that I'm having a hard time visualizing, but let me ask you what I'm… what I'm, like, really interested in here is, if I'm a pedestrian on 20th Street, and I'm going to be crossing this driveway, what is my experience as a pedestrian gonna be, given what you're planning? now, and I don't know if we have my… plans of the civil sheets, but right now, you know, it's just the attached walk, and when you hit the curb cut, the slope of the walk kind of does this, and then you go back. Okay. The new design is what you see, where the… flat ADA-compliant walk goes around kind of jogs around in order for us to get the ramp up that is required for drainage, so we don't create a drainage problem, but we provide that pedestrian path through. And then… We do have to meet the site triangles of having those 15 feet from the pedestrian back, which we do. Okay. We're required to. Beyond that… oh, there it is.

[60:11] You can kind of see the path going around, which is to meet ADA requirements to get the slope, and manage our drainage issues out on 20th Street. And you can see where the property corners are, I'm just kinda… Wiggling it in and trying not to kill any… there's a north and south. Is there… is there any grade change for cars driving over there? Yes. Okay. So the walk is 6 feet, or not 6 feet, boy, that would be bad. 6 inches above… it's at top of curb height, so it's 6 inches, so you have that… Okay, so I'm looking at, like, speed control for cars that would be coming in there. Yes, it is. It's designed as a curb ramp with the bump, because we don't like the… the smooth… Okay, fabulous, thank you. And then, are you planning any additional speed control measures along that drive?

[61:05] actually are not, because we are incredibly constrained by the easements and the parking for the… it's a 30-foot piece of property, there's an easement on the whole width. and the neighbor's parking is all along there. Okay. And essentially, that affects that our whole pe… well, we own it, or… My client owns it. The whole area is backup zone for the neighbor's parking, so we can't… Can't do a whole lot in there, honestly. We are adding some drainage improvements Okay. To try and improve things. And we've met with, you know, Mr. Lowry from you know, Chief Lowry of the Fire Department many times to, sort things out. Alright, thank you. It's all very informative. I had one more question, if I might. Alright, we're gonna go over to another side of the building now, the bocce court.

[62:02] If I understand right, the access that you're planning to that somehow is only from the multi-use path by Broadway. how do you see that working, and did you consider other means of access? Like, why did you end up on that means of access? That's a great question. Let me see if I can pull up a… A site plan at this location, and honestly, the civil plans do a better job, kind of, storytelling this area. Our neighboring property to the west, it's sheet drained, so as rain flows, it's following through our site, and with our building, we need to route that around. As our building is also nestled into the site to reduce that perceived building height, we're not able to get out unless we hit our heads on, the roof structure, the ceiling structure of the parking area. And we're not allowed to go into the easement with a retaining wall because of the sanitary easement. So we… we've… yeah, we've fought with this quite a bit on how to get access out there and…

[63:05] I understand right that you're talking about, like, if you were to come through the parking area, for example, you can't actually construct an exit. We can't get vertically enough before we hit our heads within our building footprint, and we also are constrained by the utility easement, so I can't get outside of my building. To avoid the ceiling, right? Got it. And then gain access there. So, yeah, what is… what is your best… way of mitigating that around the multi-use path side? Like, how are you designing that to actually get people out there? we are leveraging the multi-use path as that connectivity. We view that green corridor as an amenity space, so we wanted to activate it in some way. I don't think that was a requirement to activate that area, but we thought it would be, you know. A nice space to, you know, leverage. Thank you, Claudia. ML.

[64:04] Thank you. Thank you, applicant, for your presentation. I appreciate the perspectives from the pedestrian experience. I think that was one of my… concerns at concept review. So… I'm curious about the setbacks and the impact of the reduced setbacks to the southern Side of the building, the one that, I… that abuts to the new Vista field. Can you, tell me, how much… So, is there gonna be, two questions. One, is there going to be a fence? Along that… clearly the elevations didn't show a fence. Along there. And if there is.

[65:00] What amount of room is left between Edge of the property and or fence, and the building And would anybody ever be… Looks like there's a patio or something out there. Using that area for any Access. Let me pull up another good site exhibit here. In regards to the fence, so the aerial that I'm going to pull up is a little out of date from what's built at New Vista High School currently. New Vista High School does have a new fence located on their property. We don't propose an additional fence on our property. We do have Walled structures kind of containing our parking areas, which provide the adequate screening, you know, visually, but also physical separation. Let's see if I can share…

[66:03] I'm thinking about that, easternmost building that has, apartments. Facing that area? I'm sorry, what was the question? So, the question is, with your proposed plan, what is… The space between… The fence along the New Vista property and the building And is there any intent that that would be… Cause those are… that's an… those are apartments right there. And then I think I saw a deck or a balcony or something. I don't know what your site floor plan is.

[67:01] Let me… Go ahead. There's… from… This is a site, to be honest, where I was the guy of no, and having to say no to so many things, because all the site constraints. In this case, there's a 6-foot area in there, and it's being used, it's part of the stormwater area, because we've got, really, all the upstream buildings that are all paved also coming through there, and we are distributing our water into the school, matching historic. And that little area, I think you're seeing Hatched ML, is actually… it's part of our, stormwater… Dispersion feature, it's in… where the water discharges and gets spread out into the grass, and we've kind of coordinated that with a neighbor to match historic. And then the units are actually on the second floor level there, so they're not at ground level, so there's. Oh. Excess, yeah. So that's parking? That's directly, along that… that reduced setback, which is… the drawing said 4 feet.

[68:00] Exactly, it's parking, but it's partially buried parking, so this just basically provides a screen and deals with our stormwater water quality improvement. link. Okay. I was looking at that, and it was not making sense, and I didn't see… any clar… I didn't get any clarity there. Is that it right there? Correct, that's that elevation, this elevation abuts the southern property line. so, it is adjacent to the new Vista field. Correct. Okay. I get it. I think that it's above grade, makes a lot of sense for… I don't know, what did I see, a patio there or something on the floor plan. So, perfect. That's my question. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? I have just one. I read in your statement, a package concierge will be a feature that eliminates the need for management to coordinate delivery vehicles. Can you explain that?

[69:07] Yes, this is kind of a trending service in the multifamily space, both, you know, market-rate apartments as well as student housing. We know and love Amazon and all the packages, right, that come to properties such as this. Package concierge, reduces those daily trips, so what happens is our residents have access to an off-site facility. It's, you know, provided by ownership. And they can order their packages, they get sent to this third-party site, and then they can coordinate a single, delivery to their doorstep. So trying to reduce those daily trips from delivery vehicles. Okay, and then that gets delivered to a common space on the property, or where do all the packages go? You can coordinate it. I believe either way, the kind of pop-in service is directly to your doorstep.

[70:02] Okay, thank you. Alright, last call for any questions for the applicant team. Oh, we didn't address your tree question. I think we're… we have, 14 trees on site that we're removing, and, adding 30 trees to the development. Okay, I think that was ML's question. ML, did you want to respond? I was looking at the trees, at the tree question after I was done thinking, hmm… it seemed like there were a lot more, given that chart, so that… that… my head was spinning, I'm going, what… how many trees are there? So you're removing 14, and you are… replacing What did you say? Removing 14 and adding 30. And how many are you retaining? We're gonna… we're gonna tap into Ms. Carroll here to address your question. I just wondered how many trees are gonna be kept. Carol Adams with Studio Terra. So, there's a lot of trees in that tree chart, because the.

[71:03] the arborist… Per code, they need to go outside the property line and, map all those trees, so there's a lot of trees on that chart that aren't on the property. So, you'll see, if you look at the chart, it'll say off-property, off-property. Right. So, on the property, there's 14 trees, several of which are in terrible condition. phone. And then the rest of the new trees total 30. So you're removing every tree on the property? Pretty much, but, we're also… there's no existing street trees along this… Property at all today. And we've been working closely with the City Landscape Architect and the Forestry Department. to get trees planted in there, because it's a little bit of a unique condition. It's a… it's a drainage ditch in between the multi-use path and Broadway, and so Curtis has been able to grade it in such a way that it meets the engineering needs. We get sort of a platform to get the trees in there, so we… we're adding…

[72:03] all new street trees along there, which none exist today. So, it's gonna be… it's gonna be quite an improvement. How many of those new trees are up on the upper floor, I'm not even sure those are counted in the 30, but if they are, I can't remember. I think there's probably 4 up there. Okay. So, yeah. Appreciate you remembering the tree question. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We will move on to public comment on this agenda item. So, I will turn it over to Thomas to manage the public comment about 777 Broadway. Thank you, Laura. We do have one person signed up in the room to speak. We have Russ Chitwood. Russ, if you would like to approach the podium, you'll have 3 minutes to speak. And I'll just rem… Oh, sorry. Oh, I was just gonna remind him to please turn the microphone on there. There's a long button on the bottom. Just press it once, and then the…

[73:01] The tip should light up red. And I'll just remind all members of the public, whether in the room or online, we do ask that if you have some kind of, especially a financial connection, like you're an adjacent property owner, or you are a consultant to the applicant team, to please disclose that. And say your name. Thank you. Will do. Yeah, hi, Russ Chitwood. I'm actually a board member on, San Marcos South, which is the property due west. Of, of this one, It's the U… it's kind of the U shape on the side there, and it's definitely a very unique, property, geography there. So I recognize that. Yeah, we just, a few concerns that came up, with our board that we want to just discuss. You know, we weren't sure the easement… was owned by, by 777. I think that's news to us. Because we've been doing a lot of the maintenance, I think snow removal.

[74:02] all that, and we just had concerns about, you know, construction traffic and all that, because that's going to be the primary way in and out. We've got student population there, obviously, on both sides, for 3 different buildings while this is going on, so just wanted to understand. What that schedule's gonna be. You know, we're open to any agreements around the maintenance of that west area, too. you know, one thing that I didn't notice was addressed, we actually have a pool there, a small pool that's to the east of our property, right abutting some of our parking structures, which looks like that's going to be just to the west. And there might be a party deck now right above our pool. We're worried about, you know, is there any… Issues there, windows looking straight down to that, party deck cannonballing, things like that, so… Just wanted to look at that. One thing that comes to mind is the parking situation. There's 41 spaces allocated here for 203 units.

[75:10] We have, one… Parking space per unit for ours that are assigned. And it's already a battle, for parking in that area, obviously, around the hill. It could turn into a tow truck fest there if, people are trying to take our spaces away, while people are away. So we're just a little concerned that the lack of parking there is gonna… Turn into a bit of a parking war in that zone. And, the other thing I'd also just… Encourage you to use, Xcel Energy Energy Efficient Building Program rebates, and City of Boulder, rebates were available. Thank you.

[76:01] Thank you, and we have no other individuals signed up to speak in the room, so we can move to our online participants. Thank you, and Thomas, before you move to the online participants, I want to make sure the applicant team knows that you will have a chance to respond to anything that you hear in public comment that you would like to respond to. Okay, back to you, Thomas. Thank you. First up, we'll have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you will have 3 minutes to speak, and please go ahead when you're ready. Yeah, well, this is a long time coming. I remember when it was supposed to be the homeless shelter, and how Mark Rosen changed his vote two weeks after the council meeting. This should have been the homeless shelter. It's a Hobie Wagner, I believe. It's a historic… I've been in it at the Landmarks Board, field study. It's a beautiful, clear story up there. It is so sad, so depressing to see these historic places come down.

[77:02] At the expense of a university town, and just jamming people in there as tight as they can go. One thing I'd say, do not give any any liberal, you know, variances to these developers whatsoever. Not one setback, not one height limit variation. And… No FAR. Changes. 203 units. or beds, per se, I see that every single room has a bathroom. My God, why? You know, In Palestine, there's 4,000 people for one toilet.

[78:04] So, why do we have this luxury in this country that a college student who couldn't care less about having their own bathroom Gets a bathroom, because you can get the most money out of it. It's revolting. It's really despicable, and I don't know what the furniture situation is gonna be, but everything should be furnished completely. The waste stream in Boulder is outrageous. Energy efficiency to the max, geothermal heat pump, I wouldn't, you know, I've been waiting 25 years to get mine, and this building can't have one? 30% more efficient. No daytime, nighttime issue of solar. It's the cleanest energy that you can get. And why wouldn't you be using it?

[79:06] All I can say is, you know, CU does not roll bolder, and it's so sad to see the… blocking the Flatirons. in this area, from a more modest building, and then right across the street at Western Resource Advocates, that's being taken down and put in for commercial. It's just really sad to see this. Done. Thank you, Lynn. And I see no other raised hands online at the moment, but if anybody else would like to speak to the public hearing item, this is your opportunity to go ahead and raise your hand. And seeing none, I'm going to pass it back to the chair. Thank you, Thomas, and thank you to the folks who commented. Applicant team is… you do not have to respond, but is there anything you heard that you would like to respond to?

[80:02] Allison was able to send some of the public feedback received maybe yesterday or since the minutes were, or the agenda was. I could ask you to speak right into that mic. Yeah, you can take it up towards yourself if you'd like. some of the concerns from our neighbor regarding parking and construction access. We actually met with one of the general contractors we're discussing the project with today, and we navigated the site, and there's overhead power lines, which also create different issues, you know, for Bringing in, construction vehicles down 20th. And as soon as we brought this topic up to them, I said, no, we want to use Broadway, we'll have to figure that out with CDOT and some of those logistics, but it's a much easier access for them. And before we could say anything else, I said, it's a safety concern of theirs. Having construction material and construction vehicles using 20th, given the easement that's in place. As far as the, you know, being a good neighbor easement and servicing and maintaining that area, I'll let Seth speak to that one.

[81:05] Before I do, the parking will be uncoupled from the rent. It is a reduced parking ratio. That's why we're so keen on ample bike parking. We're able to park one long-term bike space per bedroom, really trying to encourage those alternative modes. And also being right across from campus, we think that, you know, the students will choose that option. And then allow, parking to be an additional fee to help mitigate, some of those Additional vehicles that may be on site. Thank you, Evan. Seth Seiko again with the applicant team. Am I… am I on the mic? Okay, is that good? Okay, perfect. Yeah, as far as easements go, I think the collective read is they're, they're old, and not overly clear, if that's putting it nicely. Maintenance, I think, has kind of fallen to, maybe tradition versus it wasn't overly defined in those easements. So our intent is that in the next phase, the tech doc phase, there are things we need to fix with the plat, as well as easements on the property, that we'd meet with you guys and work through those as well. Ultimately, you guys have been using those

[82:13] For years, and they don't intend to change. Any, you know, paving through that area right now, it's asphalt, for the most part, through that, alleyway. That'd be repaired, replaced, patched as needed, during the construction process. And the last piece is, yeah, your pool, I think it sits right in the corner of the property there. Evan, you might have the measurements, but from the pool edge to our building face, we're talking… I'm gonna guess 30… 35 feet, so I don't believe there'll be any issues with tenants, there shouldn't be any issues with tenants. Yeah, long run. And the roof deck is oriented now towards the campus, and then towards the south, so there is no over roof deck that faces the pool. Yeah, so no, there'd be really no way to access that except, I guess, through a window.

[83:07] Roughly. So, if that helps. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. All right, so we have… oh, yes, Claudia has a follow-up question. Just a quick follow-up, and I also want to acknowledge, I really appreciate the little back and forth that we just had between the neighbors and the applicant. Hopefully that answered some questions. I wanted to follow up with staff. We often hear from neighbors about construction impacts, and obviously that's not something that we review as a board. We have jurisdiction over, but do we have resources that we can direct neighbors to so they can get questions answered? And really understand what to expect with construction after we approve projects here or at City Council? Sure. We'd be happy to share those resources with the neighbors and follow up with the folks who sent us emails expressing concern. Yeah, and it'd be. possible to, like, send that to us at some point as well, because we get questions about this. It would be nice to…

[84:01] issues that are occurring in the right of way, then we have a set of folks who address that. If they're traditional, kind of, code enforcement issues, then we have a set of folks who issue that, so we'll just pull together a list and circulate it. Thank you, that'd be really helpful. Okay, great, thank you so much. Alright, so we've reached the portion of the evening where the board will deliberate and, make a decision on this application. So, if we could pull up the questions for the board. Allison, do we have key questions for us to consider? There's one key issue, and I can pull it up, but it's the standard key issue, is the project itself. Criteria. Okay. So then, what I would suggest for the board, and I'm open to other suggestions, is that we do a round of just comments, and I would encourage folks to focus your comments We usually focus on compliments or things that we like about the project, and then any concerns that we have, especially those that might lead us to want to condition or deny the project if we have any concerns that rise to that level.

[85:04] So, if folks could flag in your comments if there's anything that you're thinking about making a separate motion or a condition about. Okay, who'd like to start first with comments? ML. Thank you, Laura. So, in response to the key question, I do believe that this application meets the site review criteria, and I applaud the applicant for the work shown here today. It's come a long way from the concept review. The move to pedestrian access from Broadway, I think, is not only a logical move, but it makes for a much better streetscape all around. So, thank you for that work. And all of my concerns relative to criteria have been satisfied, so I will be supporting this application.

[86:00] Thank you, ML. Who's next? Claudia's put on her glasses, so Claudia. Yeah, I'm gonna read my comments, which might echo ML's, but they're unfortunately going to be longer. Because that's what I wrote. I think this project is consistent with the BVCP land use map and policies. I think this is the kind of development that our guiding plans anticipate immediately adjacent to the CU campus. I also appreciate that this project really leans into its location, its intended population, and existing transportation connections to further our city goals around walkability and enhancing the pedestrian environment. In terms of the site design, I do appreciate the separation of car from bike and pedestrian access. I think that generally does encourage safety and encourage the kind of transportation mode shift we want to see here. I had some concerns about that access drive. I have listened to your discussion carefully of that, and appreciate the clarifications.

[87:01] I'm not going to propose any conditions around that. Let's see, moving on. I appreciate your attention to the… quality and variety of open spaces on the site. In particular, the work you have done since concept review to buffer that entryway and create that courtyard there on Broadway. I think the semi-open connection to the interior courtyard is another really important element of this design, to get people moving around on ground level. And I think it's also a good quality here how your design takes advantage of those BVSD fields to the south to create and extend views where you might not otherwise have them. As you heard, I had some concerns about the usability of those bocce courts. I think given the overall quantity of open space that you have on site there, I think we would consider those at this… I would consider them a bonus at this point. I hope that you get some use out there. I do understand the access constraints that you have, so I'm not sure how I would address that, and again, I'm gonna set that aside.

[88:05] I think the setback modifications that you're requesting are sensible given the site and its surroundings. I appreciate that you're actually planning on adding some street trees there on Broadway, even as you're asking for a reduced setback. I think you've got the requirements for height bonus met with your… with your ground-level courtyards. And I think that the solar access exception that you're asking for is also appropriate, and I definitely appreciate the consultation with BBSD and the agreement that they've given there, so… Sounds great. Thank you, thank you, Claudia. Mason, you have your hand up. Yeah, thank you. I'll keep my comments brief, since I agree with everything that I've heard from ML and Claudia. I believe this project meets site review criteria. I will not be offering any amendments. The only thing that I'll add on to the comments that I've already heard is that I feel like this is…

[89:03] Another example of a project that was greatly improved by additional feedback from DAB and from city staff. The… the building is just a thousand times better than what we saw in concept review because of that process. So, I know it's a long and sometimes costly process, but I think it's worth it for the city. Thank you, Mason. Max? Yeah, I would also find that the building is, aligns with the review criteria, and I would second a lot of what Claud. I had to say, I admire people having to work within immensely tight conditions, and I realize that this is a very difficult architectural puzzle to unlock. I think that in terms of the density that he managed to pull off, it's well done. And then I also… I was not here for the concept plan, because I'm the newest member, but I would agree that you can see the process coming along in a variety of forms and heights is something that I also think is very important.

[90:09] So, I would second all that. If I had one thing that I might have liked to see is that, ideally, we want things to follow the grade of the land, and the land does grade downward, and the building does not. But that would be my primary criticism. Thank you, Max. I'll be fairly short here, too. I agree with everything my colleagues have said. I do think it meets the site review criteria that we are here to, to verify. And I'll just mention, also, I agree with Mason that the change… from before DAB to after DAB is just night and day, and you all did a really, really good job of being responsive to that feedback. I love how you've broken up the massing in a really interesting and aesthetically pleasing way that's very effective for this site, despite all of the constraints. So, thank you so much for the work that I'm sure went into that.

[91:05] With the courtyard, yeah, I've been a stickler on the courtyard criteria in the past with other projects. you're nodding, so you probably were aware of that. But I think that this project is a good example where the site constraints actually do make us not need to have all those things met in the exact same way in one courtyard on this space. I think you've done a really good job with those two interconnected. courtyards, and the various ways that you provide experiences for your, for your residents and visitors. So, kudos to you on that one. I do think the biggest issue with the site is how tight that shared access drive is, which is absolutely nobody's fault. That's just the site that you've got, and the easements that exist. I really do appreciate you working with the neighbors to be a good neighbor, and that was demonstrated here tonight, so thank you so much. The one quibble that I will have is I don't love it when any applicant talks about sacrificing buildable area or sacrificing unit count.

[92:01] you know, these are the criteria that you have to meet, and nobody is guaranteed maximum unit count, or maximum FAR, or maximum buildable area. We just… there are always trade-offs, and so I do appreciate that, in some ways, some things were reduced in order to achieve other goals, but just… just going forward, that's not… not language that I love. I will have a couple of comments about definitional things once we let the applicant go, but I really do appreciate how staff and the applicant have worked together on this project, so… With all of that said, Excuse me. Could we please pull up the suggested motion language?

[93:16] Okay, we have suggested motion language on the screen. Would anybody like to make a motion? I would like to make a motion. Please do. I move that we approve site review application LUR2025-00014. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mason. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, I'm going to repeat the motion as I'm required to do.

[94:02] You guys didn't know when you, elected me chair that you were gonna have to listen to me wheeze my way through all of these. Okay, motion to approve site review application LUR2025-00014. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Let's go ahead and take a vote, starting with the folks online. We'll start with Mason. I think that was a yes. Okay, Mason, could you repeat your yes, just for the record? Sorry, yes, probably too quick on the mute. Thank you. ML? Yes. And to my left, Max? Yes. Claudia? Yes. And I am a yes. Congratulations to the applicant, your project is approved. Would you like to say anything? Is there anything else that you need from us, or you want to clarify before you leave?

[95:01] You are welcome. Thank you for all your hard work on this project. Before we leave this item, I just want to mention, I did notice a couple of things, just definitionally, between projects, where some terms seem to be not necessarily used the same between projects. One of those is public realm. Like, in this project, public realm seemed to refer to Broadway and things, you know, the streets and multi-use paths, which is… a way that I've seen it used a lot in the past. We have other projects where they talk about, like, an internal public realm being, like, the streets and the courtyards even within the project. I would really love to see, Charles, you asked about, like, cleanup kinds of stuff. I'd love to see that usage standardized, or maybe some different terms, so that we don't confuse when we're talking about public realm, what we mean in the criteria. And similarly, in this project, it talked about storefront windows along non-residential areas, whereas in previous… I mean, as far as I'm aware, there's no non-residential area in this project. Like, it's all residential. Some of it's amenity space, but not living quarters. So when I hear non-residential, I think commercial, but maybe I'm not thinking of that term correctly.

[96:09] Anything that's not residential would technically qualify, so, like, the amenity space would… Would fall into that. But isn't… isn't amenity space considered residential space when we do, like, a project that's partially residential and partially commercial, and we're tallying what's residential versus commercial? No, that's considered. commercial space? Amenity spaces? Okay. Yeah, for the purposes of applying the building code, that's commercial space. Really? Okay. That feels different from… But are you… Laura, are you thinking of use reviews, right? Like, amenity space in a youth review scenario. is residential. And regardless, it also kind of depends how density is calculated. Now we're going to go down the rabbit hole. How density is calculated, but for the purposes of, like most multifamily districts where there's floor area ratio that's used, it counts towards floor area.

[97:04] But for the purposes of applying those urban design criteria. And was that what you were asking about, like, the transparency at the ground level? Well, not… I'm not talking necessarily about, like, the window transparency, I'm just saying the term, what's a residential space versus a non-residential space? Okay, gotcha. An amenity space, isn't that a residential space in a residential building? I'm sorry, I misunderstood. Yeah. Okay. So, maybe just clarifying that a little bit. That's helpful. Thank you so much. Yeah, so non-dwelling. Got it. Okay, so I think that brings us to a close on Agenda Item 5, which takes us to Agenda Item 6, Matters from the Planning Board, Planning Director, and City Attorney. We have one agenda item here, which is our planning board retreat planning check. just wanted to thank you very much for sending out that helpful email. Chair, you kind of just…

[98:02] took care of the item for us via email. Just a reminder to everybody that we have a retreat scheduled for May 19th. at a regular meeting time, and Claudia… And the chair will be serving as our subcommittee members to help try and put together the agenda for everybody, so I think the ask was to get potential items to you by end of day Friday, so you guys can get to work on it. Yeah, so my thought was, and again, this is subject to what the board wants to do, but my thought was, let's gather, potential topics by email, and Claudia and I think we're going to meet with staff, if you still want to do that, to talk about what staff wants to do. We might have already done that in one of our agenda-setting meetings. But then when we get all of the ideas gathered, then next week at our board meeting, we can, as a board, prioritize which of those topics we want to cover in the time that's available for us at the retreat. So we would select them together in real time at our board meeting next week.

[99:00] Presuming that we have time to do that. If we don't have time to do that, we could do it by some kind of vote by email, but I'd prefer to do it talking to everybody in a board meeting. Does that plan make sense? Gather the topics by email by Friday, and talk about it on Tuesday, next Tuesday. I have a question for Laura and staff, potentially. As board members are thinking about topics that they might want to cover. Would you like anything from us in terms of, kind of, re-scoping of things? Because I assume that staff has some fairly limited time resources, both in terms of, like, the retreat is coming up, and you have 10 million other projects that you're working on. Should we be thinking about what kind of preparation or materials we would have brought to us? Yeah, for the record, we only have 9 million projects we're working on, so… Good work. Yeah, no, we'd appreciate that, and I think The Tuesday meeting is the one we're in, is it not, Charles?

[100:01] We do have a meeting with staff and the retreat subcommittee… Next week… Yes. Which is different. You were talking about Tuesday planning, but we do have one of the a meeting of the four of us, and I would envision we can kind of work out those details there. After you get the feedback, both by Friday and any additional discussion Tuesday. Could you please remind me, do we have something on the calendar for the four of us? 1230… Monday, May 4th. Okay, so this Monday we'll meet with staff, Claudia and I will meet with staff, and then Tuesday is when the board will select topics together. Yeah. Yeah, and I think Claudia, is being very sensitive to the fact that we could request something that would require some staff research, so we'll try to be sensitive about that, and if there is anything like that. ask you for scoping? Like, how much effort would that take before we make any decisions? Yeah, and conversely, if we feel we just can't do it, we'll be honest with you about that.

[101:04] We look forward to that, always. Thank you. That's a challenge. Anything else about the retreat planning? Okay. Nothing about the retreat, but I do have another calendar check item. Let's go right ahead into other matters from staff. So, Thomas has a calendar check. Council will be taking a summer recess from June 26th to July 17th. We typically take some time off around then, too. I just wanted to see if you all would… have interest in canceling the, July 7th meeting. That would be the only meeting that falls in that range. I will be out of the country, so I would appreciate that. I have no objections. I see a thumbs up from ML. I could find a way. out of country. I'm looking at my calendar, I might actually be over the Atlantic at that time.

[102:02] So it sounds like the timing is good. Okay, let's… let's plan on that, unless we hear… we should check in with Mark and Kurt as well, but usually there's no objections to canceling meetings. But it's pretty typical, usually around the 4th of July, where we have 2 or 3 weeks without meetings, so… Yeah. Sounds good. Any other matters from Planning Director, City Attorney, staff? I certainly… I don't have anything in particular, but thank you, as always, for your time this evening. Thank you, Brad. And nothing from the city attorney's office. Thank you, Deshauna. Anything from board members? Okay, if none, thank you all, and we are adjourned.