Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I just started our recording so we can begin when the board's ready.

Doesn't that sound official? So I don't usually use this gavel, but I might try to use it tonight just to call people back together after the break and such. This gavel is courtesy of board member Kurt Nordback. One of his buddies fished it out of a dumpster, but it is actually from a former City of Boulder planning board chair, Lawrence C. Brown, who was chair in 1971. Isn't that cool? Fun story. So welcome everybody to this City of Boulder Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, August 25th, 2026. We are so glad that you are all here tonight. We have one major item on our agenda, which is the public hearing for the Fraser Meadows Manor site review. And we'll get to that in just a minute. I do want to let you know who's up here for the planning board. And Thomas, do we have ML online?

Yes, we do have them now with us.

We do. Hi. Wonderful. So that is board member ML Robles, who is online tonight. And then up here to my right, viewers left, starting at the end, we have board member Mark McIntyre, Kurt Nordback, vice chair Claudia Hanson-Thiem. Then to my left, viewers right, starting at the end, board member Max Lord, Mason Roberts, and I'm your chair tonight, Laura Kaplan. So welcome again. I do want to make one quick announcement before we go to our first agenda item, which will be open comment. Tonight, because we have so many people signed up for the Fraser Meadows Manor public hearing, we will be limiting public comment on that item to two minutes. And that is so that we don't keep folks here until midnight. So if you have planned for three minutes, folks online who may want to testify and didn't hear the earlier announcement, please do adjust your comments down to two minutes. Okay, and with that, we are going to start our agenda with open comment. And this is for folks who want to comment on anything that is not the Fraser Meadows Manor site review. And I'm going to turn it over to Vivian Castro-Woldrich, who is with Outreach and Communications with the City of Boulder, to manage this part of the meeting.

Thank you, Laura. So first, I'll just go through some rules of participation that apply to the entire meeting. So I'll start by sharing that the city engaged with community members in the past to create this vision so that we can have 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. And I'll share some examples of rules of decorum that are found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this productive atmosphere's vision, and these will be upheld during this meeting tonight. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting or prohibited. And we ask that all participants in person and online identify themselves by their first and last name. If you are joining us online and you know how to change your name and you wish to speak during open comment, which will be coming up shortly or later during the public hearing after the presentations, please do change your name to your first and last name. If you're not sure how to do it, you may also use, and you're on the Zoom platform online, you can use the Q&A function, which is really to ask for technical support, like how to change your name, and you can send us your name and we'll do it for you. Just a reminder that that Q&A function is really meant for those sorts of technical issues and not to have side conversations, please. um save your comments for the public hearing when um we call on participants to share their comments um if you do want to raise your hand to speak just click on this reaction button you can find it at the bottom or by using this uh reaction button to get to the raised hand icon so this next part of the meeting um Participants would have three minutes each to share comments, again, not related to the public hearing item, which we are saving for later on. So this is to speak to any other issue that you would like to tonight. And maybe we can start in the room. Thomas?

Thank you, Vivian. I don't believe we have anyone signed up for the open comment in the room. I believe everyone here is for the public hearing later on.

Okay, so I thank you. I would ask folks joining us online if anyone wants to speak in this open comment portion of the meeting to raise your virtual hand. And I'm sure a lot of people that we can see here are here for the later agenda item. But I'll just give people a chance. And I think we can. Let's see. Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. You have three minutes.

Do you know what the public hearing is on first? So I don't speak to it.

Yeah. Can you remind me of the address?

It's the 350 Ponca place. It's the Fraser Meadows Manor site review, Lynn.

Oh, okay. Sounds good. Everything's connected to everything else, but I haven't looked at your agenda for tonight yet, but once again, I'm going to say what I always say, what I'm running on my council seat for, and that is let the developer pay. LDP. Let the developer pay. They can afford it. They can handle it. With Trump's $40 trillion debt that he promised he was going to bring it down from $20 trillion, now it's doubled. And trillions are like big numbers, you know? And folks can't afford that. And the homelessness is a huge problem. And everything else in town. The demand from each physical body being added to the population of Boulder is unsustainable, and we should have something that stops the extra growth in a saturated market where the rents are just going to go up. Anyway, but even if you're generating more and more housing, there's more and more people that are coming. I mean, the highest homelessness offenders... demographic within the homelessness is going up. And it's a huge draw financially to treat and to manage these people with the police department and everything. And we're being asked for $400 million and a $250 million debt limit above that to pay for past due stuff and for all of our incurred debt. Alpine balsam, all of this stuff is hugely expensive. It went from $22 million, or we bought it for $40 million, and now over $100 million. And Georgie can tell you every single cent because he was passionate about that. And I, I can't afford this. I'm on social security. I'm, I don't have, you know, anything hardly outside of my life to be able to even have dinner. You know, I don't have time for anything and I'm, you know, getting two hours of sleep a night at 73 years old. No one's given me a, you know, I'm not pulling a paycheck here. Um, And I've got a geothermal heat pump to purchase. Thank you. Bye.

Thank you, Lynn, for being here and sharing your comments. Okay, that concludes open comment. I'll pass it back over to you, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Vivian, and thank you, Lynn. So the public participation segment of our agenda is now closed. We are on to agenda item three, approval of minutes. We have no minutes to approve today. Item four, call-up items. We have no call-ups today, which brings us to our major agenda item, item five, the public hearing item. I'm gonna read the title of this, and then before we get to the staff presentation, I'm gonna make a few remarks. So the title of this public hearing item, public hearing and consideration of a site review application for a proposal to redevelop the Mountain View United Methodist Church property at 355 Ponca Place with a new 175,633 square foot addition to the Fraser Retirement Community at 350 Ponca Place. The proposed four-story, 55-foot addition would contain 96 independent living apartments with two levels of underground parking. The proposal includes demolition and remodel of a portion of the existing church building, removal of existing surface parking lots on both 350 and 355 Ponca Place, and vacation of the existing Ponca Place right-of-way. This is reviewed under case number LUR 2025-00056. So now that that is read into the record, I have a few remarks for folks who may be new to Planning Board or to the process of site reviews. So first of all, we are the City of Boulder Planning Board. We are residents of Boulder who applied for this volunteer position, which is unpaid. We are appointed by City Council. They do buy us dinner on meeting nights and we get a bus pass, but otherwise we're unpaid. Planning Board does a couple of different things, but tonight's site review hearing is a quasi-judicial process. This means that tonight, this board is acting in the role of judges and making a criteria-based decision. The site review criteria that we will be applying are found in the Boulder Municipal Code section 9-2-14H. There is some level of discretion or judgment that we can apply, but we cannot act outside of our authority in applying the code. One of the hard parts of this role is that there are certain elements of the project that will be of concern to neighbors, but the board cannot legally take into consideration. And we will talk about some of that tonight. You'll hear board members and staff talk about that. And if the board cannot consider or address something, we will try to let you know who can. So tonight the board will arrive at one of three outcomes. We will either approve the project as submitted, we can approve it with conditions that we design if we think those conditions are necessary to bring the project into compliance with the code, or we can deny the project and ask that they do a redesign. And please note that the planning board does not have the final say. Any decision that we make tonight can be called up by city council and they are the ones that have the final final say. So before the presentation starts, I do want to ask for board members if anyone has a conflict of interest or any kind of disclosure of ex parte communications that you would like to make tonight. Okay, hearing none. we can now move on to the staff presentation. So I'd like to turn it over to Chandler from the city's department of planning and development to lead us through a presentation about the project. And the way this is going to go is first staff will give a presentation followed by board member question and answer to staff. Then the applicant will have a chance to give a presentation followed by board member question and answer with the applicant. And then it is the turn of the public. So we'll have the public hearing where members of the public can comment for two minutes each. We'll take a short break and come back for a board member deliberation and decision. So that's our process and I will now turn it over to Chandler.

Thank you, Laura. My screen is not letting me share when I put it into presenter mode. Let's see here. Not sure exactly what is happening. I'm now going to put it into presenter mode. OK. Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on. I have to reshare and not use my notes. I'm just going to try one thing very quickly. Apologies for the delay. Okay. It will not let me use a second monitor and share my screen. I apologize. Here we go one more time and then I will just share.

No worries, Chandler. Kurt, did you want to tell us anything else about this fine gavel? Did I miss any parts of the story?

you got all that i know about that grit gavel which is very little okay i will be presenting sans notes tonight and that's okay um good evening planning board members as laura just read we're here to review and consider the site review for 350 and 355 ponca place this is lur 2025-00056 This is a public hearing item. It is a site review application for a proposal to redevelop the Mountain View United Methodist Church property at 355 Ponca Place with a new roughly 175,000 square foot addition to the Fraser Retirement Community at 350 Ponca Place. The proposed four story 55 foot addition would contain 96 independent living apartments with two levels of underground parking. The proposal includes demolition and remodel of a portion of the church building, removal of the existing service parking lots on both 350 and 355 Ponca Place and vacation of the existing Ponca Place right of way. Um, so the objective, uh, first planning board will hear, uh, presentations from myself, um, the applicant and may ask questions. Uh, they will then hold a public hearing. There will then be an opportunity for the applicant to respond to public hearing comments. And then ultimately planning board is requested to, um, take action to approve, approve with conditions or deny the site review. So in terms of public notification for the project, a written notice was sent out to property owners within 600 feet and notice was also posted on the property. Staff has received extensive written comments from neighbors and residents of Frayser, both in opposition to and in support of the proposed project. Primary concerns expressed by those in opposition to the project include building height and massing along Sioux Drive, safety for children and pedestrians along Sioux and nearby schools, housing affordability and accessibility, parking and traffic overflow into surrounding streets, and long-term neighborhood compatibility and property value concerns. The applicant also held a series of voluntary neighborhood meetings with residents, a summary of which can be found on page 13 of the applicant's written statement. So in terms of location, this is an aerial view of the site looking west. The site is located south of Baseline Drive, just north of Sioux and east of Thunderbird and Foothills Parkway. The existing Fraser Campus community has been in this location since, I believe, 1958. and currently has 395 units that house about 500 seniors. The BVCP land use designation for the site is high density residential. This is defined as those areas generally located close to the University of Colorado and areas planned for transit oriented development and near major corridors and services. Anticipated uses consist of attached residential units and apartments, may include some complimentary uses implemented through zoning, and the typical density or intensity is more than 14 dwelling units per acre. The zoning for the site is RH5. This is a high density residential zone district. The FAR allowed in RH5 is 1.5. It does have a 20% minimum open space requirement for buildings over 35 feet. As you can see, the area surrounding the site to the south and west is zoned RE or residential estate. The area immediately north of the site is zoned BC-1 or Business Community 1. There's also RM-2 and RL-1 across Foothills Parkway to the east. This is an overview of the site, just showing some of the surrounding uses, particularly to the north and west. To the north in the BC One-Zoned area, you have the Colorado Athletic Club, a hotel, the Meadow Shopping Center, Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility. Immediately to the west of the subject site is the Admiral Burke Park, which is a city-owned park. You also have the Horizons K-8 School, and then further to the west is the Fraser Meadows Neighborhood. This is another aerial view of the site. Closer to the project site, you can see the Fraser Meadows campus on the bottom right. Ponca Place currently bisects 350 and 355 Ponca Place. 355 Ponca Place is where the Mountain View United Methodist Church is located. This church was constructed in two different phases in the 1960s. The existing taller church tower is 66 feet in height. And you can see that across Sioux Drive is a the remainder of the Fraser Meadows neighborhood. This is just a zoomed out aerial view showing the project site and the overall Fraser Meadows campus in relation to the Foothills Parkway, which runs immediately adjacent to the east. In terms of existing site access, There's currently a total, if you take 350 and 355 Ponca together, there's 10 access points. Fraser Meadows itself has seven access points, two on Ponca, one on Sioux, and four on Thunderbird. And the church property currently has two access points off of Pawnee and one off of Sioux. There are currently attached sidewalks surrounding the entire site. And Sioux Drive is identified as a bicycle transit route, although it does not have a multi-use path and is not anticipated to have one in the transportation plan. Some more about the surrounding context. We are currently looking east along Sioux Drive. You can see the Fraser Meadows neighborhood to the south of the project site across Sioux. Again, Foothills Parkway there running along to the east of the project site and the Manhattan Middle School. Uh, which is located across foothills to the east. So the site does effectively sit between, um, the K through eight horizon school and the Manhattan middle school with the foothills Parkway kind of bisecting those, um, further shots of the surrounding context. I got, got pretty into Google earth here. Um, the horizons K through eight school, the Admiral Burke park, as you can see here, the, um, Admiral Burke park is undeveloped, which creates, um, extensive views from the site to the west of the mountains. and also a buffer between the site and the adjoining Fraser hood Meadows neighborhood. So in terms of the proposed project, um, this is an aerial view of the site in its current state. Uh, the proposal, as we've mentioned, is to redevelop the mountain view United Methodist church property at three 55 Ponca place, uh, with a new four story building. It's about 175,633 square feet in size. It would contain 96 independent living units. This would bring the total FAR across the Fraser Meadows campus to 1.13, where again, 1.5 is allowed per RH-5 zoning. The project includes two levels of underground parking or 224 spaces. It also includes a demolition and remodel of a portion of the church building and is requesting a vacation of the Ponca Place right of way, which is being presented as an informational item under a separate case number at tonight's hearing. Um, so this is the proposed site plan as shown, um, the addition would be connected. So, uh, if the vacation of the pocket place is approved, uh, they would redesign the street as a private drive with a public access easement. Um, there's a second story bridge shown connecting the proposed addition to the existing Frazier building. Um, although it is structurally completely separate, so it's not actually one building. And then, as you can see, there's a small addition proposed to the church, which would be for new office space and entry area. There's also a large shared courtyard shown, as well as detached sidewalks with eight foot landscaping strips surrounding the project site. So Ponca Place, as I mentioned, would be converted to a private drive with public access easement. The existing surface Fraser lot would be removed. and the existing surface parking lot on the church property would be reduced significantly in size and reconfigured. The primary garage entrance to the new addition would be off of Pawnee Drive. There is, as I mentioned, a large shared courtyard, and I believe 66 parking spaces within the underground garage would be shared between Fraser and the church through a shared parking agreement. In response to concerns raised by staff, planning board, and neighbors throughout the concept review process, the building has been set back a minimum of 25 feet from Sioux. The western portion of the building, or eastern portion of the building, as you can see, is just about 25 feet. Then the building quickly jogs to a 50-foot setback where it reaches the corner of Sioux and Pawnee. Um, there are detached sidewalks, uh, tiered landscaping beds and seating areas, uh, which are accommodated by the increased setback along Sioux drive. Um, so the open space courtyard on the north side of the site is proposed to be shared by the church and Fraser Meadows. That includes a variety of amenities, including intergenerational play space, dog park, covered outdoor patios and gathering spaces and updated walkways to connect the two properties. this is a massing diagram that i included just to show some of the steps that the applicant has taken to break down the massing of the building there are transparent glassy elements between the three building segments these serve to break the building down and essentially create what the applicant is referred to as neighborhoods which are distinct building segments separated by these transparent elements They've also stepped back fourth floor along the balcony and have a variety of recessed elements along the facade on all three sections of building. These are just some renderings provided by the applicant. As you can see, moving clockwise, the top is the garage entry as seen from Pawnee looking southeast. We then have the west elevation of the building as seen from Pawnee. The south elevation of the middle segment of the building is seen from Sioux. And the eastern segment of the building or neighborhood seen from Sioux Drive looking east. And here you can see the larger of the two transparent glass elements that break apart the building. I'll go through these additional renderings. This is rendering of Sioux and Pawnee intersection looking east, so you can see the scale, you can see the increased setback. You can also see that they're creating bulb outs at the intersections, which would be fully accessible. This is further back on Sioux looking east, basically from the corner of Pawnee and Sioux, so this shows some of the seating areas and the landscaping garden beds proposed. These are the middle two segments of the building looking north from Sioux. So here you can see some of the material and color factors that they've used to differentiate the building segments. The middle segment is primarily white brick, whereas the adjoining segments on either side are more natural red brick color. And this is Sioux Drive looking west from the middle segment, again just showing the tiered landscape beds shown in the front of the middle segment of the building. So these renderings are really just intended to show some of the architectural detailing and design considerations that have been put onto the project. So this is kind of a close-up of the corner as seen from Pawnee. This is the glass element, the transparent kind of break with a patio in front of it as seen from Sue. This is looking at the Western transparent element from the courtyard. And this is kind of a straight on view of the eastern most portion of the building as seen from Sue. So, as I mentioned before, vacation of the pocket place right of way is being requested to partially increase the buildable lot area to allow for proposed addition to extend from 350 to 350 pocket place and to allow for a private drive with enhanced design and landscaping elements. which would not otherwise be permitted per the city of Boulder design and construction standards. So overall, some of these features include permeable paving, enhanced landscaping with bulb outs, raised crosswalks, et cetera, which unfortunately we do not allow in public right away. So these are the south and west elevations of the proposed church addition. I had detailed notes to read about these. Essentially, the building is eligible for landmarking, but historic preservation staff has reviewed the proposal and determined not to require landmarking as a condition of approval. They've also reviewed the proposed addition and found that it's compatible with the historic character of the existing structure. A non non-historic demolition permit, non-landmark demolition permit will be required at time of demolition if the project is approved and moves forward. So in terms of parking and TDM strategies, the proposal does include a significant reduction in service parking on the church property within the Ponca Place right-of-way and on the Fraser campus. 11 new spaces are provided on the access drive, 15 new surface spaces are provided on the church site. 224 garage spaces would be provided in the underground garage, 60 of which would be available for church visitors via a shared parking agreement. Overall, the proposal would remove 151 surface parking spaces and add 250 new parking spaces to the site, bringing the total for both Frayser and the church to 626 spaces, which is a net increase of 99 spaces from the current condition. The applicant is requesting a 75% bicycle parking reduction. Frazier is proposing to add 48 new spaces, 20 short-term and 28 long-term where 192 spaces are technically required by the code. The church is proposing 16 new spaces, 12 of which would be short-term and four long-term where 68 are required by the code. The applicant has provided a parking study, which was included with the packet, which indicates a demand of 136 spaces after expansion. There are currently 120 spaces existing and 168 are proposed and i'm sure that the applicant will have a lot more information on some of the measures that they currently take to. monitor and evaluate their existing bicycle parking demand, it is impressive. So bicycle parking monitoring utilization thresholds and adjustment procedures are further described in the transportation demand management plan prepared for the project. Based upon the parking study and the TDM plan provided by the applicant, staff finds that the long-term and short-term bicycle parking needs of both uses will be adequately accommodated and that the requested reduction in bicycle parking is therefore supportable per section 996E6 of the Boulder revised code. So a little bit about the process. This site is required to go through both concept plan and site review. A concept review application was submitted for the proposed project in October of 2024. On January 1, 2025, the planning board held a hybrid meeting and reviewed and commented on the proposal. Yep. Some of the issues that were raised by planning board included maintaining public access to the pocket place right of way or private drive, as it were, reducing scale, improving the usability of the open space, and other features. On February 20th, 2025 city council voted not to call up the project, but expressed interest in seeing a reduction in the amount of underground parking, ensuring public access to the proposed private drive, exploring architectural design changes to improve permeability and enhancing green components of the project, including building energy efficiency and resilient landscaping. City council also referred the project to the design advisory board and transportation advisory board. Overall, both boards expressed support for the proposal and had relatively minor comments. As noted by the applicant in their response, feedback from the boards was carefully considered and resulted in several changes to the plans since the original submittal. So this is just three different elevations showing the initial site review submittal and then the changes that were made after it went to DAB in November of 2025. So there's only one key issue for discussion tonight, which is whether the proposal is consistent with the site review criteria of Section 9214H of the Boulder revised code, including the additional criteria for buildings requiring height modification. In terms of key issue number one, just a reminder, so BVCP policies that address the built environment and are intended to apply to individual development projects. include preservation and support for residential neighborhoods, improved mobility grid and connections, physical design for people, environmentally sensitive urban design, and enhanced design for all projects. So for staff findings, staff finds that the project overall is consistent with the BVCP land use map with the high density residential land use designation and on balance with the goals and policies of the BVCP, particularly those that address the built environment. It's also consistent with several characteristics of the sustainable urban form definition. The project also fulfills needs related to BBCP policy 7.03, populations with special needs, and 7.10, housing for a full range of households, by providing 96 independent living apartments to address some of the growth in the senior population. Per the applicant's written statement, Frayser currently has a wait list of over 730 individuals. Over 62% of them currently live in Boulder and are looking to find a place that meets their needs as elders. In terms of the site review criteria, staff finds that the project improves safety and connectivity, incorporates site design techniques, infrastructure, and TDM strategies to support and encourage alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. It provides private and common open space areas with a mixture of sun and shade, hardscape areas, and green spaces. The landscaping includes a variety of plants, colors, and contrasts. The building and siting are compatible with and improve upon the character of the surrounding area and the project successfully creates visual interest and vibrant pedestrian experience with simple human scaled and high quality architecture. In terms of the additional criteria for height modifications staff finds that the buildings form and massing improve upon the character of the area, consistent with the intent of paragraph three building design criteria. That the project is designed to a human scale to create visual permeability into and through the site. The building is over 200 feet in length along the public right of way, which is a consideration in the site review criteria, but designed with distinct breaks in the building's form and materials to visually resemble separate structures. The site is located in an area anticipated for higher density development. It includes decks on all levels accessible to tenants and designed to take advantage of mountain views. The horizontal dimensions of the landscape courtyard are between 55 and 60 feet, which is no less than the proposed building height of 55 feet. The south-facing open space along Sioux Drive is more than 200 feet wide. Or long, I guess, as it were. The landscape courtyard, while on the north side of the building, gets almost full sun in late spring and summer. Additional amenities are provided to the south along Sioux. The landscaped courtyard has the following amenities, built-in grills, intergenerational playground, outdoor TV, dining tables, multiple seating types, and lighting. The southern open space has raised planter beds and a variety of seating areas. Staff has prepared a recommended motion language, which I can come back to. And now I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Chandler, and thank you for that tribute to Dolly. What a loss. Rest in peace. So we are now at the point of board member questions for staff. And I would encourage folks, of course, all questions are welcome. But if you could please try to focus on ones that might impact our deliberation and decision later this evening. So who's got questions? Oh, before we go to questions. Oh, no, no. Go into questions. Who would like to go first? Claudia. And then Mark.

I'll maybe start with a few larger ones and then see if some other things get covered. Thanks Chandler for that presentation. I want to start with a question about the scope of the site review. And I noticed in the memo that when we are evaluating requirements like percentage of open space and floor area ratio that those are being measured using the entire Fraser campus right as a basis. So, I guess I'm wondering in what other ways, if any, is the larger Fraser campus implicated in this review?

Yeah, so this is basically a request for an expansion to the existing PUD boundary. So the rest of the project has been approved through various site reviews over the years. Typically, when we have a site review amendment for an expansion, our project interpretation of the criteria applies only to the new portion of the project right so i think the assumption is that the rest of it's already been approved through site review so we don't require them to provide you know detailed architectural elevations of all the existing buildings etc those are considered to be essentially approved and okay and we're reviewing okay yeah um and not referring to any particular part of this new proposal that we're seeing but if there were

If there were conditions that this board wanted to place on the proposal to meet specific requirements in the site review criteria, would those have to be met on that new development site, or could they be met elsewhere on the Fraser campus?

I think it kind of depends. Hela, do you want to?

Yeah, I think they could potentially be met somewhere else on the campus. It is an integrated development plan, and overall the site has to meet the site review criteria. But as Chandler said in your review, and it's typical for the city to consider that what is there today, has already been approved. However, this project is integrated in what's there. Open space is shared. It's going to be one property in the end. So floor area is calculated based on the entire site. And what's proposed here might also impact what's there already and how it meets the site review criteria. So there's definitely some overlap. And I just recommend that you closely look at the review criteria. Absolutely. Thank you. And I have some questions about height, if I may.

We've gotten a lot of community feedback about height, I expect to hear more about that in the public hearing. Specifically, the fact that this proposal exceeds the by right height of 35 feet in this RH five zone. So I have some questions about height. First of all, so that we're all on the same page here, could you review what makes this project eligible for a height bonus under the code?

So this is eligible for a height bonus under... 9214 h6b no don't quote me on that um basically they're um eligible under the additional the bonus floor area inclusionary housing requirements so they would be required to pay an additional 11 inclusionary housing fee for bonus units which are all units above the fourth story or fourth story or above okay and this is a pathway that is available to any residential development in a in a zone like this that's correct okay

Okay. So that comes up a lot. I understand why totally. I just want to be clear that the land use code has a clear criteria-based pathway for projects like this to ask for height. So then getting into how we measure height, what is the low point on this site that we're using for the height limit measurement?

Like the actual USGS elevation or where is it?

I think it's in some of the plan sheets. Do we have that anywhere?

Uh, we do.

Okay.

Yeah. The low point, um, I believe is located off the Southeast corner of the building. I might actually have to defer to the applicant. Uh, let's see. Uh, does the applicant know what plan sheet and is on a high calculation with the low point?

Could we save that question for the applicant? Or do you need it for your next question? We can save it for the applicant, I think. We'll come back to that.

Here we go.

Oh, found it. Great.

Okay.

So site low point, southeast corner, 5,317 feet.

Okay. And then am I reading those diagrams correctly that Sioux Drive is sloping upwards as you go west?

Yes. Okay.

Okay, so the height of 55 feet is measured from a low point on Sioux Drive, and the building form, I assume, stays under that for the entire length of Sioux Drive?

Yes.

Okay. If the buildings were broken into actual separate structures, could the further west buildings be taller?

Um... Yes, theoretically.

Okay, okay.

Because, so it's required to be measured from the lowest point within 25 feet of the tallest side of the structure. So in this case, the tallest side of the structure is the southeast corner. That's the lowest point, which is lower than it would be if you headed west.

Okay, so because that's all one building, that point is controlling the height for the entire building. Correct. And then a question about the height bonus. One of the requirements for a height bonus is to have this high-quality open space, right? I think it's specifically in the code. It's an inviting outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard. Correct.

It's one of the additional criteria for height modifications.

Additional criteria, right. And then the code gives us a list of successful design requirements. elements to evaluate so in this proposal i actually see two open spaces that could potentially be used to meet that criteria so one of them is that northern courtyard between the new residential building and the church And then the second one is this area of deeper setback on Sioux, where I think they're proposing community gardens or something like that. As we evaluate this criteria for a height bonus, can we consider both of these spaces? Or does the applicant need to satisfy that criteria in a single space?

No, they don't need to satisfy it in a single space. In this case, the north courtyard does, I believe, satisfy all of the criteria, but you could apply them to the southern one as well.

Okay. But if we found that one of those spaces did not satisfy the criteria, we could look to an additional space?

Yeah.

Okay, and then last question about height and I'll pass it on to someone else. Some of the public comment we received was concerned that some of the upper floor units of the proposed building would have a view into backyards across Sioux Drive. And I'm wondering if we have any analysis of that claim, similar to like when we do shadow analysis when we do solar fence analysis. Do we have any way of evaluating that concern?

Uh, we don't have any images included with the plan set that would show that. Uh, I mean, I'm sure one could create like a fly through digital rendering that could show that, but I don't know that anyone has that prepared at this time.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, that's good. Follow up Claudia. Do we have any criteria that speak to whether a new structure can have visibility into the backyards of existing structures?

No.

Okay, thank you. Mark, you were next.

Yes, thanks. Thank you, Chandler, for your presentation. Claudia, thank you for your questions. You asked many of mine. I'm going to focus on the Ponca Place vacation of right-of-way. And my first question is, since we have this, our role tonight, the vacation of Ponca Place seems to be completely integral to the site design and our evaluation of the project under site review criteria. Yet we also have it as an informational item later. So what is our role now in regard to the Ponca place vacation of right away versus later?

your role is to look at the proposed site plan and to determine whether or not it meets the site review criteria. Um, there's a separate process of, there's a proposal to vacate right of way, um, that reviews whether or not right-of-way vacation can be approved. It requires under both state law and city law that it be approved through an ordinance by city council. So city council is the decision maker on that, subject to those code standards. And the board doesn't have a role in deciding whether or not those criteria are met.

So the later item is simply an informational item from you, staff, to the board. We are not providing advice or recommendations to counsel about their decision of the vacation of right of way. That's okay. That's correct. Great. I'll proceed with my Ponca Place questions. Does Ponca Place become private property? It becomes private property subject to a public access easement. And does that public access easement ensure 24 at 24, seven access by the public? Yes.

Okay.

Um, in it's when we vacate it and we create an easement and the applicant and the city agree on that, uh, that's clear in that agreement. Yes. Okay. Um, um, the Fraser Meadows would become responsible for maintenance, plowing, repair, everything associated with a typical public street, other than the fact that they're maintaining it as private property. Yes. Okay. I think that's it for right now. Thank you.

Kurt. Thanks, Mark. For those, I have a couple of follow-ups on Mark's questions. First of all, so the last question was about the maintenance and so on. They have the right to maintain, including street plowing and so on. But is there any kind of responsibility written into that? For example, to ensure that it is properly plowed or properly maintained or that sort of thing?

I don't know if that's included in standard public access easement language.

It's not typically included in the standard public access easement language, but it might be something that we would address in a subdivision process, for example.

In the subdivision process?

There'll have to be a subdivision process to eliminate the lot lines that exist there. And make it one large lot.

Right. Okay. Interesting. Okay. So that would not be something. Well, I guess it might come to planning board.

If it's a call up. Yeah.

Yeah. OK, great. Another is just a follow up to Mark's, I think, first question about whether it would be there would be permanent public access. And in some of the materials that we saw from the applicant, they were talking about potentially it sounded like holding events there, that sort of thing. That sounds like it would be in violation of the public access requirements. They also, at one point, they talk about, yeah, they talk about recapturing the streetscape for community events slash gatherings. In your view, would that be contrary to the public access terms of the public access agreement?

I mean, they couldn't really do anything that would prevent the public from going through the site if they desired to. So they could have events, but not block off the street completely to have those events. Does that make sense?

Yeah, that's helpful. Great. One other, since I have the floor, one other quick question. There's a reference to ground source heating and cooling. And I, well, it wasn't, it wasn't clear to me whether that was something that was actually in the plans that would end up being required or not. Do you know?

So it's not, and it's something we've been, um, in conversation with the applicant with throughout the process. Um, essentially our code doesn't really have a place for, um, For those types of facilities, they are theoretically allowable, just not in utility easements. So that would basically be figured out during the tech doc process. They're not shown on the plans, but it is understood that they would be pursuing those, and we would probably figure it out during the engineering review.

Okay, but there's nothing binding?

Correct.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

There is, well, there is the, sorry, the site review criteria that requires the 10%. below the energy code, that's binding. But how they get there is up to them.

Thank you so much. ML.

Hi there. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, Chandler. I have a couple of questions. In regards to setbacks, So we see there's a 25-foot front yard setback, 12 and a half side yard to street, 10-foot interior, and 25-foot rear. Is there any place on the proposal where these required setbacks are reduced? I have heard that there are places where they've been expanded, but I'm wondering if there's any places where they've been reduced.

Just one. Yeah, there's a long Pawnee Drive where Pawnee curves towards the north side of the building there. They're asking for a reduction to 18 feet from 25.

Is that that on this particular drawing? Is that that upper right hand corner?

Yeah, sorry. I don't know why I stopped sharing. I can reshare and just show you on the plans that we already have pulled up if you'd like.

Oh, yeah. Oh, well, actually my screen keeps freezing. So I'm looking at the, at the, uh, low point drawing. Your new drawing hasn't shown up.

Oh, okay. Um, well, if this gets there, there's actually, so there's two points really on the, this shows the 25 foot setback. Um, so there's a slight reduction at the, um, Northwest corner of the building right here to 18 feet. And then there's a reduced setback between this property and the church property, but that's a interior side yard setback.

Right. Okay. Thank you for that. Let me see. Second question. I don't know why I'm having, I'm having issues with everything here. Let me see if I can get to my question.

If you'd like, ML, we can come back to you. Yeah. Will you address your gremlins?

I think we should. Okay, we'll come back. Come back to me. Thank you, Laura.

Thank you. Mason or Max, questions? Mason?

I think my question's for the applicant, actually.

Okay, questions for staff? Okay, I have a few. And then, unless you're ready, ML?

I'm back.

Okay, back to you, Emma.

I just have one more. So I'm looking at the site criteria 3A Roman numeral six, compatible with character of the area. So I think I understood the staff's point is that this project is consistent with the rest of Fraser Meadows. But what I'm wondering is, is what is staff's position about it being consistent with the RE zoned single unit housing adjacent on the two public streets?

Yeah, I mean, you know, in general, it's RH5 and RE, so two complete opposite sides of the zoning spectrum. So for the consistency analysis, we primarily went with what's there on the campus with the other RH5 zoned portion of the property. In terms of compatibility with the single story, single unit homes across the street, mainly it's the reduction in bulk and mass and trying to create an appropriate transition, which we felt like they did through very large setbacks and some of the step backs and other architectural moves that they made with recesses on the facade. But I don't think I would argue that they were trying to mimic the residential estate zoning across the street.

Well, consistent, I think is the code language. But I think that that is the main, I think that is the driving anxiety about this project in the community is that we've got two very different zoning high density and low density adjacent to each other without any breathing room. And I think that's caused a lot of the, as I said, public anxiety. Let me ask you this question. On the, I guess it would be on the Pawnee Drive, the one that is farthest to the Is that east? Is that right at the 25-foot setback? I know that the increased double the setback is over on the other side of that long building, but is the other one?

The other one's right at the 25-foot setback, except for the northernmost portion, which is at 18th.

So it's less than the 25 foot setback?

Correct. Where the street curves up there and you can see the corner of the building kind of get closer to the red dashed curve.

Oh, yeah, but I'm sorry. I'm talking about Sioux Drive. Excuse me. The big long elevation along Sioux Drive. So is that last kind of, I guess they call it neighborhoods.

The closest it gets is right at 25 feet.

And that last neighborhood, as it were.

This little corner right here is 25 feet. So the easternmost building segment is essentially at 25 feet with some recesses that make it go past 25 feet. And then starting at that transparent break feature, the building jogs and then the setback increases from there.

Do we know how long that sort of third little neighborhood over there that's right at the property line, do we know how long that is?

I think it's about 100 feet.

Okay. Thank you for answering the difficult question. I'm sorry, say that again.

This is a 25-foot setback being shown right here.

Correct.

Yeah, sorry.

Is your microphone? So for folks online, there's a conversation going on in the room about whether this is the right diagram to be showing.

It's the same line, but it's okay.

Oh.

We're going to find the actual setback diagram.

I think you're right, ML, is that what they call the east neighborhood is closest to that 25-foot setback line and then also the west side of the west neighborhood.

Mm-hmm.

Okay, so that is just right at, that's what would be required. Okay. And thank you, Chandler, for, you know, naming the issue. We've got identity next to Logan.

We're going to get to comments later. So do you have another question?

I'm just thanking Chandler for pointing out the real issue here. I think those were my two questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. I'm sorry to cut you off. Just trying to be efficient. I do have a couple more questions. And by the way, Hela, I'm not sure that we introduced you. Do you want to introduce yourself and your position?

Of course. I'm Hela Pennewick with the city attorney's office.

Thank you, Hela. Okay. And Chandler, I'm not sure we gave your last name.

Vanscock.

Chandler Vanscock. Thank you. Okay, so my questions. Going back to the right-of-way vacation on Ponca Place, which we are not being asked to make a decision about, I did want to ask about, on the diagram it shows some removable bollards, and there's some discussion of the use of Ponca Place and wanting to focus that on pedestrian and bicycle circulation. It was not clear to me when or for what reason those bollards, which appear to block automobile through traffic, would be put into place. Do you have information? I'm going to defer the applicant on that. Okay, I'll take that one to the applicant. Next question is around signage. And again, feel free to kick these to the applicants if they're more appropriate for the applicants. How will Ponca Place be signed so that folks know that there is public access? We often have this concern that when a street is essentially privatized, it looks that way to people from the outside, and they do not understand that there is a public access easement and that they are, in fact, invited to use that right-of-way. How will Ponca Place be signed, or should I ask the applicant?

Okay. You can ask the applicant. That's, that's a good question. Um, I mean, typically we don't deal with signage during site review. It just has to meet the sign code whenever they come in. Um, there are addressing requirements, so they would have to address it, but, um, whether or not that looks like a street sign or not, um, I think is probably something we could figure out and potentially potentially discuss further.

Okay, I'll ask them about it. We have talked about that, like, for example, with the St. Julian project of how do we make sure that people know that they are entitled to use this public access?

Yeah.

Okay. And then last question about Ponca Place. It says in the staff memo that the proposed vacation has been evaluated by planning, fire, and transportation departments. And they have no concerns, essentially. So I just want to verify, does that mean there's no concerns about fire evacuation? There's no concerns that staff, at least at the city, have about pick up and drop off at the school? No concerns that the vacation of Ponca Place would affect important functions of that street?

Yeah. I mean, we don't, we don't evaluate something as specific as like pick up and drop off at school hours per se. But transportation and fire have reviewed it. It is fully accessible for all our emergency vehicles. You know, the bridge that's proposed between the two buildings has enough clearance for a fire truck to get through. So in terms of emergency services and transportation considerations, staff is comfortable with it, but we don't, evaluate tons of offsite impacts. Right.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Was the Horizon School consulted about the project? Did they have any commentary?

Yes. BVSD was notified of the project and they did not have any concerns either. Another aspect that came up was shadowing on their property. So they're aware of the shadowing. They've seen it. They are technically not subject to our solar access regulations because they're a government entity, but they can volunteer to be subject to the solar access regs. They opted not to do that and have expressed no concerns with the project overall. The only thing that BVSD asked was that they coordinate in terms of construction sequencing and timing.

Okay, thank you. I do have another question about signage, but I will hold on that for the applicant. Oh, a question about criteria. So the project is seeking an exception to the maximum number of stories in RH5, residential high five. The SAP memo says that there will be a modification necessary to 971 schedule of form and bulk standards to allow four stories.

what are the criteria that this board should use to evaluate whether to allow that exception for four stories instead of three um well you can request you know a variety of modifications to the land use standards through site review and then the site review criteria overall are what you would use to decide whether you agree with the project or not i mean in this case i would probably recommend focusing on the additional criteria for height modifications Because the modification of the number of stories is kind of part and parcel of the height modification request.

Okay, that's very useful. So there's no additional criteria in the code around specifically the exception for the number of stories?

Correct.

Okay, thank you. The height of the building along Sioux Drive, what is the official measurement of the height along Sioux Drive? Does it vary or is it basically 55 feet across?

I believe it's 54 and a half feet to the highest point. There is variation in the roof height, just their tower elements and certain dips and stuff, but I don't have exact metrics on all of those.

Okay, maybe I'll ask the applicant about that. Okay. Especially, and just as a heads up to the applicant, I'm especially interested in any dips like at those glassy links. Like is the height actually different or is it just there's a parapet above the maximum height? So I'll be asking you about that. But Chandler, for the staff analysis, can you speak in a little bit more detail? And you can say, no, I've already covered it. I think you covered this somewhat with ML's question, but can you speak to your analysis of the compatible transition between a higher and a lower density zone? Is there anything else that you want to tell us about how you made that finding of compatibility in that transition?

I mean, again, I think in terms of compatibility, I relied mostly on what's existing at Fraser. So the compatibility with the existing Fraser architecture and Fraser campus. And in terms of the transition, no, I don't really have anything else to add beyond what I said to ML.

Okay, thank you. And then, I'm sorry, just a couple more. Underground parking, we haven't talked about this. There has been concern expressed, and I think I remember reading around the time of the 2013 flood, that there was flooding in Fraser's underground garage. You know, cars were floated, I believe. What's being done for this underground parking garage today? to try to avoid catastrophic flood impacts? I don't know, is there sump pumps or what's being done to make sure that that underground garage might be...

I would refer to the applicant on that, but technically this site's not in the floodplain, so they're not required to get a floodplain development permit.

Okay, I'll talk to the applicant about it. Thank you. then is there any city regulation around adverse potential adverse impacts to the neighbors flooding and their groundwater levels as a result of the work that's done to build this project um i mean they're they're required to meet all of our storm water mitigation requirements actually maybe mark mark could speak to this probably a little bit better

Good evening, Mark Garcia, Civil Engineering Senior Manager with Planning and Development Services. And yeah, there's been conversations about potential groundwater issues in the area and what's going to be done to rectify those. Keep in mind, we still have a technical document review that's going to take place that adheres to a lot of the requirements and the needs to accommodate any of those issues for either pumping or drainage in general. So the underground parking garage, again, was brought up, given the depth of it. But there has been some analysis, and I'll defer to the applicant more about the conditions of that soil and if there's any issues that were found at this current stage.

Thank you, Mark. That's all my questions. Any last questions for staff? Mark and then Claudia.

just to colloquy on your questions regarding the zone. So when we do a site review, we are reviewing a site that site has a BBCP land use designation and a zoning designation. In this case, the applicant is not requesting a change to either of those items. So I'm not finding in the site review criteria a reference to adjacent zones. Am I missing something or is in fact we are evaluating the site based on the site's zoning and the BBCP land use designation?

So you are evaluating it on that. There is one criterion. Chandler, I have it if you... Yeah, 9214H3A6. Could you read that? Oh, no. Sorry, that's Juan. So the building siting in relationship to the public realm is consistent with the character established in any adopted area plans or guidelines applicable to the site, or if none apply, is compatible with the character of the area or improves upon that character consistent with the intent of paragraph 3 building design criteria. So that's one. There is also one other one that talks about for projects that are adjacent to a zoning district of a lower intensity.

I can read that if you'd like to have in front of me. It's nine, two 14 H three a five. I think if the project is adjacent to a zoning district of lower intensity in terms of allowable use density, massing, or scale, the project is designed with an appropriate transition to the adjacent properties, considering adopted sub-community and area plans or design guidelines applicable to the site, and if none apply, the existing development pattern.

Thank you. There's one more sentence. Go right ahead. Appropriate transitions may be created through design elements such as building siting and design or open space siting and design. Great. Thank you.

Sure thing.

Claudia. Just a quick follow-up on the Ponca Place vacation request. I'm assuming that the site review and the right-of-way vacation will move forward together or not move forward together. But what happens if they have different outcomes? Like, let's say we have a site review approval and city council says, no, we don't want to do a vacation of Ponca Place. Where does that leave things?

The site review is conditioned upon approval of the vacation of Ponca Place.

Okay, thank you. last call for questions for staff before we move to the applicant presentation seeing none it is now time for the applicants to give us a presentation and the applicants will have 15 minutes followed by board member question and answer so thomas if we could have a 15 minute timer please And I will give the standard, I think of it as the Mark McIntyre clause, which is for the applicant, you've probably heard a bunch of our questions, but please go ahead and use your 15 minutes for your presentation and don't use up all your time trying to answer our questions. We will certainly ask them if we still have them when you are finished. We want to make sure you get your full time.

Good evening, board. My name is Megan Berg, and I am the lead pastor of Mountain View United Methodist Church. In 1958, the Fraser family gave the land for a new church and a new retirement community. Mountain View and Fraser were born of the same gift. So when Fraser asked to buy a portion of our land, we did not hear it as a transaction, but rather an invitation to the next chapter of our partnership. The people of Mountain View were already discerning our future. We had been addressing the more than a million dollars that we needed in repairs for our building. We could have deferred the repairs, the way that churches often do, until the building quietly decided our future for us, or we needed to consider a sale or moving out of the neighborhood. Our congregation spent two years in open discussion and discernment. We had a unique vantage point on the conversation with more than 40 of our church members being Fraser residents. We wanted to stay in the neighborhood. We wanted to continue our partnership with Fraser. And we wanted to make it safer for people to cross Ponca. Finally, we wanted to create a more efficient building where we could align our ecological values with our property. We wanted a space for the ministries that connect us to Boulder. This is about a faith community imagining a sustainable future. We will worship here and serve through every phase of construction, dreaming about what the next 70 years will hold.

Good evening. My name is Christy Henrichs, and I'm the president and CEO at Fraser. Fraser has been serving older adults of various economic means since the Fraser Meadows neighborhood began. Today, our community has more than 480 residents that are between 69 and over 100 years of age, living in independent assisted memory care and skilled nursing. We employ more than 300 team members and positively impact the Boulder economy in many meaningful ways. Frayser opened with 100 apartments under 400 square feet. Many were combined to make apartments between 500 and 800 square feet over the years as no one is willing to move to these small apartments without kitchen facilities. Because we still have many smaller apartments, we wanted to build what the current Frayser waiting list has asked us for, and that is apartments between 1,000 and 1,800 square feet. I would like to correct a misconception that was noted in many of the neighborhood letters. The average entrance fee for this new building is not $1 million with a $10,000 monthly fee. In fact, the average entrance fee is less than the average home price in Boulder, starting at $600,000 and averaging $800,000. However, it's important to note that these cover future health care costs have to fear leaving Frayser if they outlive their financial resources. As a nonprofit organization founded by a faith-based entity, it's our purpose to meet the needs of our community. There is a desperate need for senior living offerings. This is evidenced by all senior communities in Boulder being full and our current waiting list that is now over 820 households. Frayser is not a luxury community. We are a service-focused community geared to meet the needs of older adults with changing physical and healthcare needs. Frayser supports the underserved older adults in Boulder through a grant program that our board supported. that supports nonprofits and assists older adults in needs. More than $400,000 has been granted over the past four years to these older adult entities. I want to close by sharing how critical vacating Ponca is. From my office window, I watch cars flying down park at Ponca every day. I have witnessed near missed car and pedestrian accidents because of the confusing why at Ponca and Pawnee. I also worry that residents and team members must traverse snow and ice covered streets because the city does not plow. We are confident the neighbors will be pleased with our plans to create a safe and attractive new road they can use. Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Danica Powell with Trestle Strategy Group. I've been working with Fraser and Mountain View United Methodist Church for over three and a half years. As mentioned, we had a voluntary engagement with the community, including three community meetings held at Mountain View. We have a project website that is provided up-to-date updates and we have a newsletter. We did a big construction project to move the water line out of Ponca and we're in close communications with our neighbors for that project that's already complete. As you've seen we've been through a significant round of reviews with site review going to both TAB and DAB which is unusual but provided valuable feedback for us during this process. Our TDM plan, we're building on an already robust TDM plan for Fraser. The residents actually really like alternative transportation. They wish their bus route was back. They have two shuttles and an electric car that provides services. They go to Trader Joe's. They take them to doctor's appointments. There's a lot of community sharing of services. vehicles and there's three full-time drivers. You can see this Trishaw bike ride program. There's also a really great resident group that tracks all the bicycles that are there and what condition they're in and where they're located, what kind of Services they need so we have really good data on the bicycles that are being used on site a lot of monitoring evaluation There's a car share located right there in the front parking lot so our TDM is building upon all of these existing programs and making them stronger as I mentioned we did extensive monitoring on the bicycles that's why we were asking for a 75% parking or bicycle parking reduction and The parking requirements for a senior living facility with an average age over 84 are the same as a student housing project located right next to the campus. They are the exact same requirements. So we really wanted to come at this with data-driven response and also future monitoring and the ability to convert car parking spaces to bike spaces in the future. We also have more TDM programs that we've discussed in our extensive TDM plan. And I do note that we are committed to the wayfinding and intuitive and welcoming signage that was both recommended by TAB and I believe here at Planning Board when we talked to you, Concept Plan. We just don't review signage at site review, so we will be committed to that in the future. And the Design Advisory Board made some very great additions and suggestions to our design in which we've provided an extensive analysis of how those were made. And in the interest of time, I'm going to pass it over to Scott.

Hi, my name is Scott Rodwin. I'm the principal of Rodwin Architecture. We are the architects for the Mountain View United Methodist Church. It's important to understand that Mountain View as an aging building, the southern portion of the building had reached the end of its useful life. There was no financially viable way to Rehabilitate that so the decision to chop off the southern end of the building and use that as part of a land sale for Fraser Meadow is financially what enables Mountain View to then rehabilitate the rest of its existing building because the congregation would like to stay in place, but the building is over 60 years old. It does not meet any of the current code or sustainability goals of the City of Boulder. So we're doing things like replacing the mechanical system with geothermal and building-wide energy updates. We're improving the longevity and durability of the building. that had reached the end of its useful life and giving it another seven years of useful life. There are also some vital programmatic requirements, such as an expanded improved entrance, ADA compliant bathrooms, dedicated office space, and outdoor spaces, again, that are handicap accessible designed for outdoor worship. It's really important to understand that the building itself is iconic in the neighborhood being 66 feet tall. It's very unusual and we are maintaining and preserving the existing iconic building and then adding a subordinate horizontal addition with a new entry and welcoming spire to improve wayfinding and help people to understand where the entrance to this building is. Lastly, we were in close communication from start to finish with the Boulder Associates team that is designing Frasier Meadows to make sure that we have a unified, permeable, ADA-compliant, and pedestrian-friendly, highly usable interactive space for landscape that weaves between the two buildings and makes those spaces into something that all residents and church members can equally enjoy. Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Juan Ramos with respect to my voice. And with all due credit to Chandler, I'm gonna go quick. We knew at the end of concept plan, we had a lot of work to do. We think we had productive conversations with DAB and TAB. We made some very strategic design decisions to address some of the concerns we heard from planning board and from Chandler and the team at the planning department. I'll speak to some of those specifically. Chandler did show us the existing site. We knew we had some work to do after our concept plan review back in October of 24. This is the plan we have now. I'll zoom in in a moment and show you some specific areas where I think we improved upon or made a better site or a better building in response to comments we've heard. Speaking to land use in general, we did look at the comprehensive site in terms of the amount of open space. We know we're required to have 20% open space. We currently have 32% when we consider the entire campus. If we zoom in and look at the actual project extents, we are still meeting or exceeding the required 20%. We're at 28% open space. To the design itself at Concept Plan, we heard lots of comments about how we were redesigning or rethinking Pocket Place as a living street. We leaned into the idea that we needed to have more enhanced paving and continue that all the way from the north to the south, raised sidewalks, detached sidewalks and tree lawns. We leaned into that idea. We'd like this as a living street, still usable, still accessible. We did hear the comments about bollards. We had proposed that in here. We certainly don't want to make that a hill to die on. If we need to remove those, we will remove those. Regarding the entry to the garage at concept plan, it was on the southeast corner. We heard from everyone and even our own internal folks were saying this is the wrong spot. We need to move it. We did. We worked to get a shared access agreement with the church. Now we've moved it to Pawnee, further away from the intersection of Sioux and Pawnee. We think that's a safer spot and ultimately a better location. And we heard issues about the sort of encroachment of our building onto the south side of the property and the need to create more public amenity space on the south side. So we pushed the building back. This had enhanced benefits not only to the landscaping, but also to the building and the form and the mass as it relates to our neighbors. We still want this to be a living street. We still want it to be accessible. We still want cars to be able to go through. But we also want to make it safe and accessible for pedestrians, for bicyclists. We want raised sidewalks, enhanced paving, and we want Fraser to have the ability to maintain it with snow and ice. to take care of it, which we think they'll do a great job of doing. Two-side access, ingress and egress. We know that there's a lot of curb cuts and access points. We think that we're trying really hard to reduce that quantity, and in the end, we'll make this safer, especially as we move stuff away from the intersection of Sioux and Ponca, or excuse me, Sioux and Pawnee. As Chandler stated, we have reduced parking. We've removed surface parking, and I think we've right-sized the amount of bicycle parking provided based on the cohort we're serving. We've also enhanced the curbs and the curb cuts. We have these bump-outs to sash sidewalks. And in particular, we know we have a problem at the intersection of Ponca and Pawnee. We're really trying to neck that down. It's 125 feet wide. That's way too wide. To massing, we knew we had to make gestures here to get this thing right. In addition to just moving the building to the north on the southwest corner, we pushed the entire fourth floor back. We really want to emphasize a three-story mass. And then beyond that, we pushed the rest of the facade back with only select elements protruding. So we have a more broken up rhythm along the south face of our building along Sioux. Oops, I don't know why I did that. You're good. I'm not sure what's happening here. There. To setbacks, as Chandler pointed out, we are meeting that 25-foot setback on the entire length of the south side. And in many spots, we're actually exceeding that by double, 25 to up to 32 feet in setback And we do have terraced rain gardens on the southeast corner of our property, which really helps us address scale and stepping this building up from where the low point, which is the eastern edge of the building as it goes towards the west. To building height, we did work to meet all the criteria there's really. Two things that we have to do in terms of addressing the criteria for height modifications, we decided to address all five. First, to the type of dominant material, we made the middle neighborhood look intentionally different. It's still a blonde brick that we can find on Fraser's campus, but the adjoining neighborhoods are using red brick and stone. We have intentional facade recessions and projections, in particular at these links or nodes between our building. and we changed roof forms and heights, including at those links. Those are the lowest parts of our buildings are at the glassy links between these buildings. This is in conformance or in compliance with what is already on the campus. It's shorter than the height of the chapel, and it really helps us get the density that we need to make this project really work for Frayser. Finally, to materiality, we did use the existing pallet. We just enhanced it, we refined it, and we used high quality materials where appropriate. And we lean to sustainability. We are using geothermal. We are using photovoltaics and heavy timber. Thank you.

Sir, could you please repeat your name for the record? Sure. Juan Ramos. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much to the applicant team.

Now is the time for board member questions for the applicants. Who's ready to go first? Don't everybody leap up at once. Board member questions for the applicant. Okay, ML.

I will leap up since nothing's crashing currently, so I'm good. Thank you for the presentation, all the different people that spoke on the applicant's side. I have a range of different kinds of questions. So I'll start with... There were existing on Ponca Place 31 parking on street parking spaces. Will there be any parking spaces on the new layout? I'll just bundle all my questions about parking together. So that's one question. And secondly, I'm guessing that the underground parking will be controlled. So ultimately, my question is, where do short-term visitors park, depending on what happened with the street parking?

So the Ponca Place will have 15 new parking spaces that will be located along there that will have more bump outs and street landscaping. So it will be a much safer on street parking. Right now, the cars are just stacked with like no landscape bump out. So 15 spaces on Ponca Place. The garage, I believe. There will be 60 spaces shared with Mountain View United Methodist Church. I'm assuming there will be guest parking spaces. I'll let Juan answer the rest of that.

Yeah, there will be guest parking spaces.

It will be access control. There will also be a call button to ring someone if you need to get in and you don't have the access control or a fob or a key card. But it will be available for residents, for visitors, for staff, and for folks at the congregation.

So did I understand correctly, from 31...

spaces on now on park on Ponca it's going down to 15 is that correct on site everything else will be underground that's correct and there's there's 11 at Mountain View as well we've we've greatly reduced the amount of surface parking for Mountain View and we worked with them to get the number right they have 60 spaces dedicated to them inside the parking garage in addition to 11 surface stalls um right outside of Pawnee okay thank you for that um so uh

My next series of questions are about the building itself. And it's been said in a number of different places about the variety of roof forms and the recessed fourth floor. Can you, yeah, be very, okay. So because this is the same material and there's not really deep shadows, I see it now. So that is, and that's the middle neighborhood, is that correct?

That's correct. This is the middle neighborhood. And you can see the flanking neighborhoods too. We really work to make the middle neighborhood look different from the others. We have more roof forms and more variation in the roof forms on the flanking neighborhoods, which would be the east and west. The parapets are a little bit deeper. There's more projections of those parapets and there's more up and down. You can see in the middle neighborhood, we tried to use sort of these thinner awnings and remove those heavier, thicker attached parapets in this middle neighborhood.

How tall is that... that shorter piece of that middle neighborhood.

The shortest part is actually the glassy links, which on the left and right-hand sides of those neighborhoods, you can kind of see it on the right-hand side, just down below where it says bronze metal panel. I believe that's 51 feet, 51 and a half feet tall. When we went through DAB, they asked for variations in roof lines and roof parapets, and this was a response specifically to their needs and their requests. We did add ups and downs and variations in the roof lines and roof parapets.

So I'll get to that in a second, but I'm trying to understand that three story piece of this center neighborhood, how tall is that building?

Is that piece? Yeah, let me check with my colleague. Yeah, we're gonna say approximately 35 feet.

Okay, so that would be a by right height.

yeah just to explain there's about I think nine feet of elevation loss when you go to the low point, so the actual perceived height of the four story building in this location is 45 feet, so if you're standing on the ground. It's 45 feet tall, not 55 feet, but because the way height is measured, we had to go out to the lowest point and take, you know, 25 feet. So there's a loss of nine feet, about nine feet. Correct. So it's the perceived height is 45 feet. The measured height is 54 feet. Right. Probably is three stories. So it's about 38, 35 feet. Okay.

Yeah. I saw that grade change on the big lung elevations. So there were a number of perspectives that were shown. I think Chandler showed them and they were also in the packet. I wonder if you can go to those perspectives. What I'm looking for are street level experience or view of the one-story neighborhood and the project at Sioux, along Sioux Drive. And you had a number of perspectives that.

I'll see if I can find them. We do have backup slides here. Let me see if I can find them.

I think you called them. I can't remember. Neighborhood scale analysis, it was called.

I don't, ML, I don't see them in our backup deck, but I know they were in Chandler's presentation. Let me see if I can find them elsewhere.

Oh, they were in our packet.

They were.

That's where I saw them. And they're called the Neighborhood Scale Analysis. And I'm guessing that's how you're looking to try to show how you need that compatible character.

That's one of them. And this is one of them, yes. This is if you were standing at the intersection of Pawnee and Sioux. Right at the corner, you can see the public seating spaces immediately to the left in this image, and the raised garden beds are beyond. And you can see how that site sort of slowly tapers down, and we have the tree lawn, the detached sidewalk.

So this is at the greatest setback, correct?

Yes, that's right. That's right. We're at 52 feet here.

Down at the far end down there, would that edge of that building be basically where the paving ends on this one here? Is that line... About at the 25 foot.

I think in this perspective, what you see is the edge of the middle neighborhood, which has the blonde brick. That's still at its midpoint in the middle neighborhood. It's still about 22 feet beyond the required setback. So 47 feet in total.

I'm wondering where the 25 foot setback is. Is it the edge of that?

The 25 foot setback is really, if you look at the upper right image here. That's where we're at the 25 foot setback. So that last one third of our neighborhoods, approximately 100 feet, is at the 25 foot setback. And it is also the tallest portion of the building. So that's why you're seeing these terraced rain gardens here where we have plants. We're really trying to sort of break down the scale of the building as it approaches the sidewalk and it approaches Sioux.

Do you have an image of that end neighborhood there that is at the 25 foot setback? relative to, do you have an image that shows that building and the neighborhood?

I believe in this deck, we do not. I think that was in Chandler's presentation, but not in our deck.

I didn't see one at all. And I noticed that that's where the narrowest is. And I just wanted to get a sense of what how that relates to the neighborhood, because that would be the by right, right, the 25 foot, but it would also require the shorter building, but that's where you're saying it's the tallest, because that's where the grade is the lowest. So we don't have that information to get a sense of what that, obviously you've heard this, these are the concerns, the biggest concerns from the neighborhood are the scale and the relationship to the existing neighborhood scale. So I'm looking.

This slide does show that the required setback at 25 feet in that lighter peach area.

So that lighter peach building is at the 25 foot setback?

The lighter peach is actually just showing the boundary that is the required setback. And the darker peach color is the area that we're beyond the required setback. So you can see even on the southeast corner, we're still beyond the required setback.

I think we talked about this on the plan that isn't that farthest. Is that east? That. Pretty much on the setback? On the 25 foot setback?

It is. It is. It's very close to the setback. Yes.

Oh, okay. So that would be the peach color.

That's right.

And that is the 55 foot tall block.

That's right. That corner still is within the 55 foot height limit.

Okay. So is that a one story building there? Is that scale correct for the house? It looks pretty darn tall.

It's approximate, but I believe it's fairly correct. It's a one-story home. We have about 144 feet between the face of the home across the street and the predominant face of our building as it faces Sioux.

I'm looking at the height of that house that you're putting on this site section. Is that residence that you're showing?

Oh, yeah. The height of the house itself is not to scale. What we're trying to show is the distance from the face of that house, which is correct. to the distance or the face of our proposed building, about 144 feet away. And then if you look at the fourth floor, you can see that we did intentionally push that fourth floor back. And in this cross section, it's about another nine and a half feet back on the fourth floor.

So if you were to guess at where the single story house height would be relative...

Yeah. Relative to this diagram, it'd probably be right in line with where we're showing that 25 foot 10 marker on our orange band. That's really the one story element of our, of our building. So it's approximately at that level.

Is that, that white?

That's correct.

So that's a pretty significant shift from that scale to the 55-foot scale. What did you say that distance was from, say, the front of your peach-colored building to the front of, say, the neighborhood, their setback?

From face of building to face of building, it's approximately 144 feet. Okay, so let me see.

I will move on from that line of questioning. Just trying to understand that. One last question. There's been a concern about the shadows landing on the school and the park. Do you have that shadow analysis that would show the relationship of the building and the shadows it might cast onto?

I have that available. And just again, PVSD is not actually subject to our solar access regulations, and they are aware and have no problem with the shading. But I can show you the solar shadow.

These are community concerns, and I'm just wanting to see where those lie. That'd be great. Thank you. And those are all my questions. Thank you to the applicant. Thank you, Chandler, for

Oh, there we go. Chandler. I was out before. Got it. There you go.

Okay. Okay. So, um, this is the winter at morning.

That's December 21st at 10 AM, noon and 2 PM.

Right. But the top one with the shadows actually falling onto the school. That's the morning.

That's correct.

Yes. Um, Do we know where the school drop-off is? Are those going to land anywhere where people are going to slip in all those concerns that are brought up? Do we know how that relates to the actual activity?

820 is drop-off pickup at school, or pick, I should say, drop-off. And I believe that occurs to the south side of the school. So these shadows.

Oh, so they aren't part of that process.

That's right.

Okay, great. Thank you. I appreciate your holding that up. And those are all my questions.

Thank you ml.

Other board members, Claudia. So we talked at some length about building length at concept review. And I want to spend a little more time with that tonight because we have a criteria related to it. Could you walk us through the decision to propose a single long building along Sioux Drive versus three or more detached structures?

Yeah, we did talk at length about that, even in master planning with the folks at Fraser. The biggest concern was really the mobility of residents, right? The ability to have a single plane, a single story, and to avoid steps internal to the building or had awkward landing points at elevators and stairways. And if the safest route was to go monolithic with the finished floor of the building, all the way across the deck. Part of what factored into that was the parking garage as well, sort of creating steps within the parking garage as we would go, say, from west to east. It's going to cause problems structurally. So in the end, we said, let's anchor ourselves in the southeast corner. Let's set that as our height, and then we'll work backwards towards the west, and the building will start to sort of go into the terrain or into the topography as we move towards the west. So it was mostly a safety issue for residents.

Could you explain a little more about how that's linked to the parking structure? Because I saw that in our packet as well and did not understand what that connection is.

We need to be able to get residents obviously up from the parking garage to their apartments or to their units. We talked with our structural engineer about providing stepped terraces within the parking structure. It would have just added cost. It was going to be significantly expensive to add the cost to terrace or step the parking structure. And that was only one factor. The biggest, the most overriding factor really was the safety of residents. We wanted to make sure we did not have internal steps or stairs. And ramps were going to be very difficult. Even if we were trying to shift by, say, one and a half, two feet within the building, we were going to lose units. We were going to have sort of awkward dead space within the building in order to provide steps or terraces within it.

I'll just add one of the number one reasons that people that are residents tell us that they choose Frazier is because they want to be able to have a community that's under one rough that they don't have to go outside into the whatever the weather is and even those residents who live in independent living sometimes have dependence on wheelchairs or walkers which makes it difficult to navigate from building to building. and cognitive issues, which makes it difficult to navigate from floor to floor, building to building. Most important differentiator that residents would tell you about Fraser is creating community is why they come there. And we believe separate buildings make it difficult to create community. So navigating just the hallways and running into your neighbors without having to go inside. As soon as you have separate buildings, you automatically create isolation and insular communities within those buildings.

Thank you. Mm-hmm.

Mason.

So this was brought up earlier by another council member, but I was wondering if you could speak to the removable bollards. I would like you to walk the board through exactly when you would close the drive, what situation triggers it, for how long, who makes the call, and how you would notify or coordinate with the neighborhood. Yep.

Honestly, the hope was to have some community space where we could gather between the church. And what's immediately adjacent to that space from Fraser's side is the Canyon Center, which is their event center. We thought the idea would be nice to be able to close a small section of the street off to have community gatherings or public events. Obviously, if there's concerns from the planning board about those bollards getting in the way, we need to remove the removable bollard. But we like the idea to be able to make it a living shared space. We could have cantonary lights, decorative landscaping. It's a nice space. And so we want to take advantage of it.

I was just looking for more information. And then I want to talk a little bit about the flooding concerns around the garage. I didn't see a lot of information about that in here. Can you speak to entry elevation relative to base flood elevation, freeboard flood proofing, things like that?

Yeah, this actually is not in the floodplain. It's not in the 100-year flood, 50-year floodplain. We actually built the building as a separate structure. It is next to the Canyon Center, but it is physically separated, structurally separated. There are two separate buildings by expansion joint.

So am I hearing that there's no additional, I guess, just how, is there anything in the parking garage structure for flooding?

There are sump pumps located in the bottom of our garage in the event that there is water intrusions. And we built it as a bathtub as we do lots of parking structures. It's fully waterproof on the outside, has perimeter drains and waterproofing to accommodate for what is a fairly high water table in this area. Yeah, great. Thank you.

My last question is a little more general, and it's more for my edification, so apologies to everyone. But of everything you've heard from the neighbors, you've obviously done a lot of outreach to the neighborhood. If you could name any changes that you made based on that feedback or any ones that you declined, it would just be good to have that context.

I really think that change to the southwest corner was pretty big, I think, in response to the neighbors and in response to the planning board. You know we straighten it was faceted the edges of that building we straighten it out and we push it back intentionally. We wanted to create a deeper setback there to really double the required setback. And then it created that open space or that green space that could be shared, so we got the raise planter beds for residents. And we have that sort of seating area or multimodal seating area in that corner, I think that gesture alone kind of covered a lot of birds with one stone. more green space, better green space, deeper setbacks. And then we really started to push that facade to create variation in the massing along that side. So I think that was the biggest, most resident and neighborhood forward thinking thing that we did and that we changed.

Thank you. Kurt. I have a question about excavation for the underground parking. One of our site review criteria is about minimizing excavation, largely in the context of sloped sites, but arguably it applies in this context also. So I'm wondering, do you have a measure for the amount of excavated material you will be moving out? And do you have plans for A, where that will go and B, how it will get there?

I do know that as architect, I don't have a lot of information about the amount of cubic yards or feet of earthwork they're going to be removing. We do have a contractor on board. They have looked at this. We know we're going to have to remove a lot of dirt to get two stories of underground parking. But I'd have to ask them for their amount of earthwork that's going to be removed or relocated.

Okay. And no one else on the team has that?

We don't have the contractor here tonight.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think I recall seeing either in the packet or in the neighbor comments something about a number of dump trucks trips that were anticipated. Is that somewhere in the applicant's materials? Okay.

That I think was in one of the letters.

Okay.

But I don't know where that came from.

Yeah, I don't either. I was curious about that.

We'd have to ask our contractor to verify the number of dump trucks. But is that a criteria?

There's a criterion about excavation. Primarily, as I said, it seems to be focused on sloped sites, which this is not for the most part.

It's not about the number of trucks during construction.

No, it's about minimizing excavation, basically.

Because as you excavate into a hillside. Anyway, I don't think it's about trucks. It's about landscape and site. Correct. Yeah. Okay.

Our planning board member questions for the applicant. Okay, I've got a bunch, but I'll try to go fast. Did I hear one of you say that you have small apartments that are currently unoccupied because no one wants to buy them or live in them? I might have misheard that.

What I said is the original build had very small apartments that we have since combined to make larger apartments because they were not of interest to people. Some of our original apartments did not even have kitchens in them.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Back to the removable bollards. And again, I'm sorry, I have a hearing issue. Did you say that that was not a hill that you wanted to die on? Was that what your hill to die on comment was about?

That is correct. I will not die on that hill. Okay. If we can remove the removable bollards.

Okay. Well, I was just curious about, I mean, so I think what I'm hearing is that the intended use of those bollards was to close Ponca Place to vehicle traffic to be able to use it as a shared event space.

That's correct.

Okay. All right. So that's the intention of the removable bollards. And then if you were to do that, how would motorists know that the street is closed and how would they turn around, especially from the south?

Yeah, from the south, it would actually be easier. There is an opportunity for a turnaround in front of our building. So they could actually come in and there is a roundabout right in front of our building that they could still turn around. From the north, they would have to actually turn into the 350 Ponca address and then make the turnaround, which is available in the 350 Ponca Port of Cashier.

Okay. So how would you avoid that situation by informing or signing or letting people know the street is closed?

Yeah, we'd have to sign it. And even if someone didn't see the sign and came in, there would still be a sort of an exit route through the Portico Share at 350 Ponca or the drop-off area in front of our new building.

Okay. And how often were you envisioning doing that?

I think that this is something we didn't explore. And when the question came up, we were like, we don't need the bollards. I think it, Fraser does host neighborhood events and concerts. They have, I think Hazel Miller was there last summer and they invite the neighborhood. So the idea was like, that would be a fun place to have an extended concert for the neighborhood, but this is certainly not something that we need to do. Um, you know, for, for a city right away, you can close, um, through a permit process with the city. So I think we could also explore, can you, can you close an easement for one night, you know, through a permitting process? I have no idea, but that's the only intention was to be able to post, um, an event that didn't have cars, driving through the middle of it, much like you would with a neighborhood block party.

We did not envision this being a regular thing.

Okay, that's good to know. Hello, I see your mic is on.

Yeah, I also wanted to address the issue with there would be a need for a special permit to approve the that activity in the right of way. And the code does not allow for structures to be erected within city easements unless it's approved through some kind of permit process. And in this case, that wouldn't be approved, it would only be allowed to have some temporary barricades for a special event.

Okay. All right. So even if there were capability to have removable bollards, they would not be able to put them in place without getting a special permit because of that easement that guarantees public access. That's correct. Okay. That's good to know. That's good information for all of us, I think. All right. Thank you. And I do appreciate the comment from the applicant team that we don't review signage at site review, but I am concerned about how folks will know that they have access to Ponca Place. Is the intention to have it look like a street and have street signs and it just looks like a normal street or how is that supposed to be?

Well, interestingly enough, um, I learned a lot about this. So, um, this city has a signage system. I think blue means Boulder green is private. So you actually have a sign system that indicates that it's a, a public or private street with public access. I know in a project I recently worked on that it was conditioned that there was good way finding put in place again, because we can't show signs, um, At site review, I think that would be a reasonable condition to say that there's welcoming and inviting signs. It is in our TDM plan that I believe it is that we are committed to signage. So I think the goal is to continue to allow the public to travel through, but also be able to do the snow removal and have landscaping and more inviting streetscape. So we're totally open to making sure that's obvious.

Okay, thank you. And one other thing about signage, your front door is on Ponca Place, right? It's not along Sioux. It's not along Pawnee. And those are the main access roads that people use through the neighborhood. How are folks going to know where your front door is? Is that part of your friendly and welcoming signage plan is getting people to your front door?

Yes, we would really like to keep the enumeration as 350 Ponca. That is the front door. That's where the emergency service vehicles goes. That's where the fire alarm control panel is at. As an architect, in terms of life safety, that's where we want the front door to be. It's also where we put the front door of our proposed building, and it feels appropriate. We're really trying to direct traffic off of Sioux and Pawnee and sort of get it, if it's heading towards Fraser, it's heading towards that central hub.

Okay, thank you. All right um I would like to ask about the building heights and I would like to ask you want to walk us through from east to west or west to east, what are the actual measured building heights and if there's any parapet that extends higher than that what is the height of that parapet I'm really trying to understand what the public is going to perceive as the height of the building.

I'm going to see if I can find an image that shows the variation of that.

Laura, are you asking for height from the ground or height from the measurement point to the east?

I'm asking for the measured building heights plus any parapet that goes above the measured building height. And I do understand the point that everything is anchored on the low point to the east. I get that. And that the slight slopes up. I understand your point, I think.

I'm not making a point. I'm asking, are you asking him to say, this is 45 feet from the ground standing in front of it, or it's 55 feet from the measurement point?

I'm asking for the measured building heights plus any additional parapet. And I do understand the point that you're making. But I'm answering your question. I'm asking for the measured building heights.

From the measurement point to the east.

The measured building heights. Yes. Thank you.

Yeah. It will vary as it goes from east to west. I pulled up this image. We do want to show the variation heights. At the highest point, you can see some of those parapets or caps are at the highest point, which is 55 feet. I don't have measured dimensions as we go from West to East or East to West, but I can tell you that at the far side and you can see sort of the change in slope or grade as it goes from East to West. It is heading up as we go West, so we did measure from that far this corner, which is the far right hand side of this image and it it progressively gets. shorter and shorter as you go towards the intersection of Pawnee and Sioux. I don't have them as measured heights but I can tell you the highest blue line you see there is at 55 feet as measured from the lowest portion or from that southeast corner and everything from there is lower with the lowest being those glassy links which are shown in red. You can see a sort of a thick red line at the glassy links. Those are at 51 and a half feet tall.

Okay, and so the 55 feet includes any parapets. The parapets don't stick up above 55 feet. That's right.

In fact, at Concept Plan, we were below the 55 feet. I think we're about at 52 feet. And when we went through DAB, they really sort of leaned into the idea that we need to start addressing variation roof typologies and roof heights. And so in some instances, we specifically went up a little more to create breaks in our roof lines and roof planes.

Tell me more about that. Where did you actually raise the parapet in order to get variation?

It was really in the east-west neighborhoods. You can see sort of these longer runs on the east and west neighborhoods, these longer, flatter, planar elements. And then we had these specific areas where we sort of poked through the top of the parapet and went up to... Okay, thank you. this one just shows that sort of that southeast corner that where we measure at the beginning of this thing but but really we we heard through dab and through our concept review that this was very flat and planar in terms of the roof line along the entire length of the building and so we specifically went back and made breaks in that roof plane to change roof typologies and roof lines and parapets and even parapet thicknesses okay and so the main change that you made was to

create higher parapets to create the perception of different heights.

And in the middle neighborhood, we actually went lower intentionally to make that neighborhood and that portion of the building feel and look different. It is slightly shorter than its flanking neighbors.

How much shorter?

Only by about a foot and a half, two feet.

By about a foot and a half. Okay. And then those glassy segments you said are about four feet lower.

That's correct.

Okay. But there's still a four foot or a four story structure.

that's correct yes okay yeah yes so the the I think the code allows a parapet to go 18 inches above the building 55 feet is that correct Chandler so it allows us to go but we did not take that extra height so all of our parapet heights are below the 55 feet, they're about 54.6. Does that help better answer your question?

Yes, thank you. It does. And in part of your packet, you talk about different roof forms. Is there a different roof form besides flat and then a parapet? Is there some other roof form? Like, does the roof slope in any areas?

We do not have any sloping roofs. They're all sort of linear, planar, long. But we did change the roof thickness and types from the east-west neighborhoods to the middle neighborhood. You can see we have a thinner roof parapet and a thinner roof line in the middle neighborhood. And we also went away from sort of thicker, deeper brows to these individual awnings that are much thinner in the middle neighborhood.

Okay, so different types of parapet caps.

That's right.

Okay, thank you. Okay, and so when you say the east and west neighborhoods have projecting roof elements, what is a projecting roof element in this context?

We have a slide for that. At those glassy links, we actually had little balconies or canopies at each of those glassy links to get shade at those entry and exit points. Those are entry and exit points into the building. On the south side, a lot of those are really sort of outdoor patios or balconies where people can go out, have a cup of coffee, meet with a friend. The section of this really emphasizes the idea of these projections and honestly, in the same sense, recessions in that same area.

How far back is that recession on the fourth floor? At the deepest point?

The upper one? Setback from the facade of the building to that face of the glass. It's 20 feet. The balcony itself is approximately... I'm going to say the balcony itself is about six and a half to seven feet deep. And they get deeper as we go down.

Okay. And so the projecting roof elements are on the lower floor?

Right here on the right-hand side. You can see if my cursor is pointing... There's some of the projecting roof elements. And then obviously a lot of these balconies are covered. We have projecting roof elements there.

So like the little overhang.

That's right.

Is there a roof balcony up on that fourth floor there?

There are. They're hidden behind the parapet. So you can see that there's these sort of thin individual awnings or brows. That is a balcony.

That's on the middle section.

That's correct. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Is there any shared rooftop deck elements or no, there's nothing on the rooftop because the rooftop is all at 50.

It's mostly PV on the roof.

Okay. And then at the fourth floor, any shared decks or those are private balconies?

Just those glassy connectors are the only sort of shared open public spaces. And those are the ones that separate each neighborhood.

Okay. Thank you.

I should say there is a shared deck on the inside face of the building. It's really facing towards our intersection. I'll show you here in the site plan.

Yeah, that'd be great. Sorry, I missed that on the plans.

It's in this corner of the building right here.

That there is a shared deck.

There's a shared patio, outdoor space, balcony. It's a gathering space with food and beverage.

Is that connected to that fourth floor amenity space? There's like a bar and a restaurant inside the fourth floor in that corner? Okay, great. Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

I think that's all my questions. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. I think we are done with questions for the applicant. Thank you so much.

Thank you. My throat thanks you.

Okay. We have quite a lot of people signed up for public comments. We've been going for about two hours. So I'm going to suggest perhaps we take a short break, both for ourselves and the public, about 15 minutes. If anyone needs to grab a drink, use the restroom. We'll be back at 818.

Thank you. I'll sit back here. I'm going to go. Thank you.

Thank you.

It's 818. We're going to call this meeting back to order. Please go ahead and take your seat unless, unless you have not yet signed up to comment and you would like to. So if you're here in person and you would like to comment, you have not yet signed up, please see Thomas Remke here at the desk. and he will take your signups. So we have just two steps in our process that are left tonight. Most important, public hearing. So we're gonna start by taking comments in the room and then we will take comments online. We have a lot of people. So what I'm going to ask Thomas to do is to tell us three speakers, who's up first and then the two people following them so that you can get ready if your turn is coming up so that we can try to go through the queue as efficiently as possible. Even just an extra minute per person adds an hour if we have 60 commenters. So let's try to be as efficient as we can with public comment. Each person will have two minutes. If you would like to just highlight and second something that you've already heard, feel free to do that. We will take you seriously, absolutely. But please tell us anything that you want to in your two minutes. We are all ears. All right, so I'm going to turn it over to Thomas to manage the public hearing. The rules of engagement are the same ones that Vivian read at the beginning of the meeting. We do ask that folks not clap or cheer or boo in the room, same as with city council, but you can show approval by using jazz hands, silent applause, and we will see you for sure. Okay, and with that, I'm going to turn it over to Thomas to manage the public hearing. If the first person up could please be sure to turn on the microphone. There is a button on the silver base, and if your microphone tip is red, the microphone is on. If it is not red, you're going to need to turn it on with that button. Okay, over to you, Thomas.

Thank you, Laura. First up, we have Marty Frick, followed by Gail Adair and Anne Lindsay. And Marty, you will be first, and you can step up and give your comment.

And do I need to press anything?

No, you've got the mic turned on. You're ready to go.

Thank you. Hi. My name is Marty Frick. I have lived at Fraser for nine years. I feel extremely lucky to live there, and I understand and support the reasons our board is trying to build a new property. I was the construction and property management director for the Boulder Housing Partners for 20 years. So I know a little about the importance of having a board with a vision. I would be honored if you would hear me out as to why I wish you would vote yes on this project. First, it will be a good project for Boulder. We need more senior properties. We have more than 700 people on our wait list, and it helps when middle-aged people know they can stay in Boulder as they get older. Second, Fraser is and always have been, I've worked with it for 40 years, very well-managed. They do well on the main aspects of managing property, especially for seniors. Quality maintenance, my favorite. Good food, appropriate concern for our physical and mental health. They take very good care of the staff. And as a nonprofit, they give back to the city of Boulder. And above all, they welcome resident input. So it feels like more of a community than an apartment complex. A third issue is history. Elmer and Mame Fraser donated this 22-acre parcel of land so that it could become a park, a school, a church, and a senior living community. That's what they wanted. Their vision has been upheld so far. I hope you will let it be upheld for the future. Finally, I'm hopeful. I understand the concern of our off-campus neighbors. They're worried about the impact of the construction for starters. And in fact, thank you.

Thank you so much. And thank you for not making me cut you off, but I'm sure that we will hear similar things. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Marty. And next up, we have Gail Adair and also Emily Reynolds. If you would like to step up and join the line, you will be two speakers from now. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Gail Adair, and I've been a resident of Fraser since 2015.

Thank you. Gail, could you bring the mic down to yourself?

Thank you. I've been a member of the First United Methodist Church, the one downtown, since 1962, which is where the Frasers attended church in the 50s. Their gift of land in 1958 enabled the creation of one of Colorado's earliest nonprofit senior living communities and has been critical in creating a place where Boulder seniors can find purpose, identity, and community. Over the decades, I have personally witnessed how the partnership between Fraser and the church has embodied the couple's commitment to social responsibility and community care. Fraser was originally established with a commitment to care for the clergy who could not otherwise afford this type of community. And it continues to uphold that priority today, addressing a critical need for seniors in Boulder. My connection to the United Downtown Church remained strong until COVID-19 pandemic when I transitioned to attending services virtually via Zoom. While I was grateful for the ability to stay connected in that way, I came to realize how much I miss the in-person, real-time relationships that are such a vital part of a faith community. In recent months, I have joined Mountain View and Plant, and I have been especially grateful to see many of my Fraser neighbors at this church, which has made the experience even more meaningful. This reconnection highlights something larger, loneliness, has become an epidemic among seniors, particularly in the wake of a pandemic.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gail. Next up, we have Anne Lindsey and David Foster, if you could join the queue. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Anne Lindsey. I'm a second-generation Fraser resident. My parents moved to Fraser in 2007, so I've experienced the campus first as a visitor and as a resident since 2020. I earned both a Master of Architecture degree in 2004 and a Master of Urban Design in 2015 from the University of Colorado Denver. I live in the part of Fraser that overlooks Sioux Drive, so I have a direct stake in whether or not it adds traffic and noise there. I don't believe it will harm the character at Sioux Drive, just make it more walkable. Most residents, visitors and staff already approach the campus from baseline down Mohawk to Pawnee. not Sioux. Deliveries will continue using the same loading dock. What does change is that today there are five separate entries into two parking lots off Sioux and Pawnee. This plan reduces that to one. Five curb cuts to one? You know, what's not to love? This project meaningfully improves walkability, across the whole area. The crossing at Ponca and Pawnee will be greatly reduced in width, making it far safer for the people who walk. The new right angle turn will also slow cars. Ponca Place currently dips down between the church and Fraser's main building, and the realignment sort of levels that out, which will also improve the walkability. You know, especially in a community, mobility is really important. Fraser will maintain it year-round, including snow removal, which Boulder doesn't currently provide. It will remain open to all vehicles, not just phaser traffic. What emerges is a well-designed, well-maintained shared street, not a gated or restricted one. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, we have Emily Reynolds and Leslie, I believe it's Leslie Durkin. Leslie Durkin, if you could join the queue, please.

good evening i'm emily reynolds i have an ongoing interest in how the city of boulder disregards the opinion of present citizens on the question of densification the duplexes on the hill with 12 bathrooms come to mind but this evening i speak to the quarter mile fraser meadows behemoth where again there is no regard for the present residents many of whom are also seniors or this neighborhood, people who bought houses Modest homes here, and expected to be able to live peacefully or age in place, must now live with years of noise, dust, dirt, disruption, and limited access. They're also losing substantial value in their homes because of the overbearing nature of this development. And it's OK that Fraser Meadows is going to be 55 feet high and the neighboring houses are typically one story. No transition needed between four stories and one story houses. I fail to understand why the standard 35 foot high height limitation can be ignored. A setback doesn't make up for the gross incompatibility with the single family neighborhood on the other side of Fraser Meadow. These people need to be considered also. This project might be compatible with Fraser Meadows, but it's completely incompatible with the single family neighborhood on the other side. The site review packet is over 3,000 pages, pretty near impossible for a mere mortal to keep up with the inequitable plans for this neighborhood. Please consider the enormity of this monolithic project and scale it back to a reasonable size. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have David Foster and Susan. I'm not sure if it's Susan Long or Susan Loy, if you could join the queue, please. Thank you.

David Foster, Sue Drive. I want to thank the board. I'm going to go off script here. And for your insightful questions, I am shocked and pleased with your insight. And I just used up most of my time. That wasn't meant to be patronizing, but I thought I should say it. And going off script again, I did do the cross-section of the view into our backyards. A question, I think it shows up on the site review page 10. I will say the... The scale of the setback of the little stick house is grossly off and the height of the little stick house is grossly too high. So to my house, not only is my entire backyard gonna be visible, but my patio will be visible and they will be able to enjoy the sight of the laundry on my clothesline. I just wanna point that out. We also talked about 9214 H3, which we read and Chandler finished up here. The project must be designed with appropriate transition to adjacent properties. Appropriate transitions may be created through design elements such as building siting and design or open space siting and design. The proposal fails building siting with part of the addition right up against the minimum setback. In fact, Compared to the concept review design, the present design center of gravity is closer to Sioux Drive. I did it. I laid it out. It also fails the open space siding, placing open space primarily to the north of the building opposite the transition where it should be, putting it in shade, requiring electric heating of the sidewalks and the streets. I'm out of time. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, we have Leslie and Eve Dreher. If you could join the queue, please. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Leslie Durgin, and I'm chair of the Fraser Living Board. which is the parent organization for Fraser Meadows. Excuse me. I want to address not the design, because you've heard an awful lot about that tonight, but the community benefit that Fraser brings. The fastest growing demographic in the city of Boulder, people over the age of 80. We actually have now 820 people on the waiting list for trying to get into fraser so the expansion of fraser meadows is an important community asset regarding services for seniors and health care for seniors by allowing this expansion we'll be able as a fraser organization to not only provide housing but we are looking to provide supportive services health care services in the community to really expand the livability for seniors in our community. I'd like to quickly address two issues that came up. One is the closeness of the building to the neighborhood. I would point out Fraser Meadows was there first and then the houses came. But the other point that is important is that the corner of Fraser South is actually closer than this building is proposed. So I think we have paid attention to neighborhood concerns. And finally, a quick thing about flooding. The day before yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the city of Boulder and CU South. And if that project goes forward, it will remove 2,300 homes in the Fraser area from flooding. So it addresses your question, Laura, about flooding in the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Susan and Grant Schmidt. If you could join the queue, please. Thank you.

My name is Susan Long. I am a member of Mountain View United Methodist Church. I also have the privilege and honor of being the chair of the administrative board for the church. Therefore, I represent all the people of the Mountain View United Methodist Church. When our church was presented with this proposal to sell our land to Fraser, we did a lot of visioning work on whether it was a good idea for our church. As a result of these conversations, we discerned several important priorities for us. First, we still wanted a place to gather and worship in Boulder, not only for the present, but into the future for our children and those who would come after us. Second, while a place was necessary, we didn't need to keep the whole church footprint. We could easily redesign our church into a smaller footprint, which would meet our needs and eliminate the cost of maintaining space that we no longer use. It would also allow us to upgrade the infrastructure of the church. As a church, we are concerned about our impact to God's creation, and we continue to look for ways to reduce our carbon footprint. It is our hope to be net carbon zero by the end of the project. Finally, our church wants to continue and even expand our outreach ministries to the community of Boulder and beyond, and the remodeling of the church will allow us to redesign our space, so that we can do this more effectively, for these reasons, I ask you to approve this proposal, thank you.

Thank you and next up, we have Eve dreyer and mark Johnson, if you could join the queue please.

Hi, I'm Eve Dureer, and I'm a neighbor at Frayser. I live on Mohawk Drive, and I'm directly across Thunderbird, so just across the street to north of Frayser. More importantly, I'm a Boulderite. I moved to Boulder in 1982, and I spent about 17 years here, and then I hopped around the United States and boomeranged back to Boulder three years ago. I was really happy to find a home in the Fraser Meadows neighborhood. I remember the neighborhood from my time here in the 80s and 90s, and I do remember Fraser retirement community, many of my friends' grandparents. were at Fraser, and I visited often with them. It's a lovely neighborhood and a place to live, and having Fraser as a neighbor makes it even more special. I often see and meet Fraser residents on my regular dog walks in Burke Park, and I've had some delightful conversations with them over the years. I love the Fraser Grounds, especially the rose and the pollinator gardens and all the beautiful landscaping. What I don't like when I walk my dog on Ponca Place is that the city ignores Ponca Place. They don't plow it, they don't salt it, they don't clean it, and they don't light it. So it makes it especially dangerous for the neighbors as we're walking. Also, when I walk, I've often wondered why that big black asphalt parking lot. It doesn't fit with the residential neighborhood, so I would prefer to look at a courtyard or a building. In closing, I'm in favor of Frazier's expansion. I view it as more community for more seniors who want to live in Boulder as they age. Thank you for considering.

Thank you for joining us. Next up we have Grant Schmidt followed by Mark Johnson and then Shannon Johnson. And Grant Schmidt, are you with us still? Okay, Grant left. So Mark Johnson and then Shannon Johnson and after Shannon will be Constance Holden.

Hello again. My name is Mark Johnson and I live on Sioux Drive directly across from the proposed expansion. When I think about what makes our neighborhood special, it isn't the houses. It's children walking safely to school. It's neighbors talking while walking their dogs. It's families riding bikes down Sioux Drive. And now we're considering a 175,000 square foot structure rising 55 feet tall that will permanently change the character of the place we call home. To be clear, I support Fraser Meadows in creating wonderful places for older adults to live. But supporting senior housing should not require sacrificing the character, safety, and livability of the surrounding neighborhood. And this is especially troubling when the city is being asked to make concession after concession for this project, 55 feet instead of 35, reduced setbacks, even giving away a heavily used public road at no cost. While the consequences of these concessions fall overwhelmingly on neighbors, school children, and everyone who travels through this neighborhood. Many of us participated in this process. We attended meetings, wrote letters, proposed compromises, and suggested alternatives. Yet very few of our concerns have led to meaningful changes. If a neighborhood must absorb impacts of this magnitude, what meaningful public benefit does the broader community receive in return? I'm not asking you to choose between senior housing and neighborhoods. I'm asking you to insist that Boulder can do both. Please require a project that better fits its surroundings. If this cannot be achieved, I respectfully urge you not to approve this proposal in its current form. Thank you.

Thank you for joining us. Next up, we have Shannon Johnson and Donna Wilder. If you could join the queue, please. There's a long button near the base of it. There you go.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Shannon Johnson and my husband, Mark. We both live across the street on two drive. I'm going to keep mine shorter than this piece of paper to give everyone some extra time. A couple of things were mentioned that I wanted to address compatibility with current Fraser Meadows buildings. I live across the street from Sioux Drive. There's a building there. That is set back 50 feet. I don't mind that. It's very private for the residents. It's private for us. There's beautiful landscape and greenery. That's to me the most important thing. When you walk down Sioux Drive, when I walk my dog, the church is set back 50 feet. The current building is set back 50 feet. That works with our neighborhood. That's really what I'm asking for. I'm also concerned about Ponca Place. I heard people drive really fast through that area. A lot of times that's the people who are working at Fraser Meadows. We use that road every single day, walking, biking, people bringing their kids to school. That is a road that's used by the neighborhood. I'm concerned if that's blocked off, that's just not gonna work for the, livability of the neighborhood. So I'll keep mine short and to the point, but compatibility with Fraser Meadows, I would take a look at their current structure. I don't see it in their presentation. The current structure is set further back. I think that needs to be looked at in consideration for this plan. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next up, we have Constance Holden and Cheryl Runyon. If you could join the queue, please. Sure.

Yes, my name is Constance Holden. I have lived in Boulder for over 30 years. My husband and I have had the good fortune to move into Fraser this last January. We put our names on the list in 2011. It took a long time. It didn't take all that time to get to the top of the list, but I'm here today speaking on behalf of my dozens and dozens of friends who who are in their late 70s, early 80s, are beginning to have some health issues. And they not only want to live at Fraser, some of them need to live at Fraser. And so I am full square in favor of this expansion of this project, even though I know it's going to, I'm going to look out of my apartment at the construction. I think it's worth it. to have my friends be able to join us in a community where we're receiving the services that we need. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Donna Wilder and Bonnie Strand. If you could join the queue, please.

I'm Donna Wilder. I live at Fraser, and I am the president of the Resident Council. I feel very fortunate that in 2020, my husband and I, who moved from Connecticut, were able to move into the new prairies section of Fraser. We were on the waiting list, and the reason we moved to Boulder was that our son, who went to his graduate degrees at CU, like many of the students, decided he wanted to live for the rest of his life in Boulder. And we wanted to be there to see our grandson, who at the time when we did move in was nine years old. If we had waited and weren't able to jump up to a higher point on the wait list where we were when the 98 apartments opened up, we wouldn't have had the pleasure of spending the time with them and seeing him grow to be a teenager as he is now. With the increase of all of the seniors in the community of Boulder, one of the things that I feel is really important is that seniors do have an opportunity to move to an area and a home or a place where they can feel safe and have that continuous care through the rest of their life. And I do believe that the fact that Fraser allows their people to continue to live in their home no matter how their finances end during their life. Fraser has taken every chance to look at what the neighbours have said and to make considerations on the buildings, the garage, and the parking areas. And I feel that they have worked very hard to accommodate many of the residents' requests. And I do hope that you will consider approving this plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Cheryl Runyon and Mary Pettigrew. If you could join the queue, please.

Good evening. My name is Cheryl Runyon. I'm here in a dual role. I am a member of Mountain View United Methodist Church, but I also serve as the representative of United Women in Faith on the Frazier Board of Directors. Frasier and the four mothers of United Women in Faith have been partners since the first building was constructed. At that time, our four mothers donated funds to support the construction of two apartments. These funds ensured that retired deaconesses and missionaries had a home, even though they lacked the financial resources to pay the entry fee at Frasier. This relationship continues today as Fraser offers two apartments to retired clergy, missionaries, deaconesses, and yes, United Women in Faith members, either with no fee or at a reduced entry fee and a reduced monthly fee. This agreement also remains in place as a United Women in Faith supported resident moves through the continuum of care into assisted living, health care, or memory care. We have several United Women in Faith members on the waiting list right now, and I'm one of them. I support the proposed plan for the expansion of the Fraser campus. This expansion will ensure that United Women in Faith members currently on the waiting list and members wishing to join the Fraser community in the future will have this opportunity without worrying about whether their retirement funds will carry them to the end of their lives. Thank you for considering and approving the Fraser expansion plan.

Thank you. Next up we have Bonnie Strand and Diane Bowden, or Diane Bowen, if you could join the queue please. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Bonnie Strand, and I've called Mountain View my church community since 1967. Two years after moving to Colorado, when I was 13, a church adult spoke to us youth about the importance of volunteering in the community. My mother later took me to Boulder's Volunteer Information Center, where I was matched with the healthcare unit at Fraser Meadows Manor. I volunteered, then worked there until I began college. Mountain View and Fraser, along with my family and schools, forged me from teenage years to now. The Mountain View community I grew up in then was much larger than it is today. Boulder and the world are different now, and young people have many opportunities for formative experiences outside of school and church. Still, I hope and trust that we continue to forge both young people and adults into moral and faithful members of this community. We welcome all persons regardless of age, race, sexual preference, or gender identity. My passion project, supporting immigrants to the United States, is welcomed and supported at Mountain View and the larger United Methodist Church. While sad to lose a portion of our building, What I'm grateful for is that plans show both Mountain View and Fraser having a vital future in Boulder. Working directly on this project since its early idea days, I'm acquainted with our contract partners and respect and value their skill. My particular role in preparing our south end of the church for demolition includes reusing and recycling everything we can. I hope you will vote to approve this project and thank you for your service to the community.

Thank you. Next up, we have Mary Pettigrew and Pam Flowers. If you could join the queue, please.

Hello. Thank you so much for your questions, considering our input. My name's Mary Pettigrew. I live on Mohawk Drive, quite near the corner of Mohawk and Sioux. I totally understand the need for additional senior housing and density, and I'm not opposed to having it in my backyard. However, the list of items that require some sort of special consideration is where I have a problem with this project. I wanted to say I really appreciate Mark Johnson's comments, and I would say I would He said it very well, so I won't go through all that. The other thing that may or may not be a consideration for you, but absolutely is for people living there, is our neighborhood is fairly limited in terms of access. You can't really get in or out of Fraser Meadows very quickly. You have to come from Baseline or from South Boulder Road or maybe when you're way through a neighborhood. Anyway, the thought of adding 100, like maybe 200 additional vehicles to day-to-day traffic and then mix in the school drop-off, I don't know. That I really would appreciate your taking into consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Diane and Gail Wright. If you could join the queue, please.

So I'm Diane Bohan. Thank you for volunteering for this thankless job. And I have to say my son worked at Fraser Meadows. It is I love that community. However, I am not in favor of a project this large. It's just, it doesn't fit. And that school that is right next door, it was misspoken. They do not, they're not configured like a lot of schools where there's a drop-off semicircle. Everybody drops off on Mohawk, or Pawnee or Sioux, they're all parked there. The kids are going across the street and they need the parking. They need the parking places. Ponca Place, they need to be able to walk and we need that thoroughfare. I'm just, I'm really concerned about the access and it's scary for the kids. Also, they don't get picked up on and dropped off on the south side. It's all sides of that community where you have cars coming in and out. They're going to be taking away some of the parking places. That also concerns me. Yes, net for the community of Fraser Meadows, but let's talk about our community. And there's going to be a lot more visitors, services being dropped off, different things happening. And just access to our neighborhood has been changed in the last year four months. They took away a turn lane out for a bike lane. They took another turn lane in for a bike lane that's now a right angle. It's very difficult to get in and out of our neighborhood as it is. Add another 100 residencies, it's going to be a nightmare. Thank you.

Thank you for being with us, Diane. Next up, we have Pam Flowers and Joel Rosenblum. If you could join the queue, please. Thank you.

This is like PT Barnum. You can please some of the people and not everybody all the time. I'm Pam Flowers. I live on Mohawk in Fraser Meadows. Some of this we've covered, so I crossed it out, so I'm not sure how coherent this will be. But I want to focus on something very basic, which just came up. Will people be able to safely get into and out of this neighborhood when it really matters? We'll be adding people, therefore there will be more use of emergency vehicles and delivery trucks as well as residential traffic. Existing parking issues will be exacerbated by more staff and residents. We have drop-off and pick-off. I live right across from Horizons. At Horizons school, twice a day, 190 days a year, and parents must park each time and walk their kids in and out. They fill my street. We put cones up, they run into the cones and crush them. It's serious that those kids are going to come and go. Now consider what this project adds. Years of major construction, large trucks and heavy equipment moving through the neighborhood streets followed by considerably more development activity at Fraser Meadows. At the same time, changes to nearby streets including protected bike lanes and those large concrete corner barriers further constrain the space available for vehicles to maneuver. It isn't difficult to imagine one construction truck, an accident or a disabled vehicle significantly restricting one of the few routes in or out of the neighborhood. This is not a theoretical concern. We live in an area with very real flood and wildfire risks in an emergency minutes matter, access matters. Before approving the project, I would like the planning board to require clear answers to some very practical questions. Has emergency access been thoroughly evaluated under worst case conditions? How would residents evacuate if one of our primary routes are blocked? How will large construction vehicles affect emergency access and daily access? Have our flood-related or other evacuation risks been fully incorporated into that analysis, including the recent addition of the bike lanes and concrete barriers? Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Gail Wright and Sarah Hughes. If you could join the queue, please.

Hello. Thank you for your attention tonight. It's very appreciated. My husband and I first moved to Boulder in 1980, our first home bought in 86, Fraser Meadow neighborhood in 1993. We raised our kids there. But we are, I was a public health nurse, Boulder County, and my husband is sales. I mean, we're very middle class. I would love to be able to afford to live there if I had to, you know, because it's a wonderful, wonderful retirement community. It's the best. I worked in disease control. I've been in every senior home in the county for outbreaks. Fraser is up the bomb. So that being said, my issue is completely different. I know that when they did the first expansion a few years back, they had 2017, or it was before that, 98 units. They were supposed to provide some affordable units on the Mount Cavalry area, but that kind of got passed to a place in Table Mesa. Now they're building kind of not-for-profit on the Mount Cavalry. Where is that getting passed? I think they're paying in kind. They had a sweetheart deal, in my opinion, in the first round for the Mount Calvary land with Bowler Housing Partners. So what I want to know is, what are you going to pay in kind for housing? And why can't the affordable units be right there in the neighborhood? So it's a wonderful place. I love it. I have actually friends there, colleagues I worked with. As a nurse, I would go in and It's just well run. It's beautiful. And so I can't. And by the way, my home isn't impacted at all. I live on the far west side and my kids are raised. So I feel bad for the people with the nice family homes right there facing the brick wall. OK, done early. Two seconds. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Joel Rosenblum and Susan Connolly. If you could join the queue, please. Thank you.

Thank you for listening to me. I've lived in Fraser Meadows subdivision for 33 years now. And we love living there and we love our neighborhood. I walk my dogs every day and have forever. I would urge you not to approve this construction of this monstrosity of a building 55 feet high, a quarter mile long. and with only a 25-foot setback. Ms. Flowers and Ms. Bohan both addressed what I wanted to talk about most, which is during the construction phase, the impact on the 375 children, that's how many children went to Horizons last year in 2025. Most of them are not from our neighborhood, so they're dropped off and picked up each day. So in the morning for half an hour, in the afternoon for half an hour, there are tons of cars on Mohawk, on Sioux, and on Pawnee, on both sides of the street, each street. And when you combine that, you have little kids, kindergarten, first, second, third graders, trying to get across that street, cars parked on both sides, and then adding large construction vehicles, dump trucks, And the only way out for them is on Mohawk out of our subdivision. I think it's a huge safety risk. And I just am very fearful for those children. And I would hate to see some little kid get killed or maimed because of the construction of this project. So I would urge you to vote no. Thank you.

Thank you, Joel. Next up, we have Sarah Hughes and Jason Strauss, if you could join the queue, please. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Sarah Hughes. I'm the chair of the Mountain View Rebuild Committee and the former board chair who shepherded this project through contracting and initial design. My connection to Mountain View spans a lifetime. I grew up in the church from the age of nine. I was confirmed there, baptized my children there, and 15 years ago served as the church administrator. Even back then, our staff joked about accidentally knocking down our south wing. because it was outdated, entirely unsuited for modern ministry. When we began planning and visioning in 23-24, we considered selling part of our land to commercial developers. We also considered selling everything and moving to a new location. Instead, we chose to stay and partner with Fraser. We chose them because of our shared Methodist history, our shared future, and their unique willingness to respect our non-negotiable needs. With Fraser, we can stay exactly where we have been for 60 years, but with a smaller, highly energy-efficient footprint. We are intentionally creating modern, flexible spaces which will serve our parishioners on Sunday mornings, but will also serve as a vital third space for the broader community all week long. Our facility will continue to be a home for older individuals, children, families, NA and AA support groups, community organizations, and musicians of all ages, as well as our congregation. This project secures the future of our ministries, enhances our service to the community, and improves our stewardship of the earth. I strongly encourage the planning board to approve this project tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Susan Connolly, and Susan will be followed by Dee Lovey and Lauren Schmeisser. Thank you. Jason Strauss has left. He's no longer at the meeting. Thank you.

Good evening. Susan Connolly, 7393 Poston Way. which is in gun barrel, but in the city limits. I speak in favor of the project tonight. I served on the Fraser Meadows board for five years, just stepping off two months ago. So I was very aware of the planning and the evolution of the plan, given all of the feedback to date, the many forms of feedback. My husband and I also are on the wait list. We hope to live at Fraser someday. That may sound self-serving in terms of my support, but the other side of the coin is we live in a family home meant for a family that we don't need all that space, but we are not able to downsize and stay in Boulder. We are not alone in that. You've heard from other people that there are seniors who are in need of housing in this community, as you well know. The project will be an important addition to the insufficient supply of senior housing, but it is so much more than housing. Frayser is a life plan community, and you've heard about the continuum of care, the care that is part of the reason for living at Frayser. It is just not a typical apartment or condo project. There is really quite unique community benefit in the expansion of Frayser. The building design and the site plan evolution has been very thoughtful about the integration of the new site with the existing campus, which is quite critical. And I urge your support for the project as proposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have D and then Ed Simmons, if you could join the queue, please. That would be great. Thank you.

How do I do this?

Yeah, now it's off. There you go.

Okay. All right. I'm a much better writer than speaker, so this is horrifying for me, but I'll do my best. Good evening, my name is Dia and I live at 4630 Sioux Drive. I'm directly across from the project and my house is shown in all these photos. All of these photos are pretty misleading in comparison to what my home looks like and the proportion across the street. So while I love some of these photos, I really take issue with that. I support Fraser Meadows continuing to serve Boulder seniors, but not for units as big as my house with an average 800K buy-in. That is not creating more housing for seniors. I'm here because I propose this project doesn't meet the city's own standards, and I'm asking you to hold it to them. Fraser Meadows has been expanding for years, for decades, with no limit, increasing benefits to the residents to the detriment of the neighborhood. Their open space is Fraser Meadows open space. It is not for the residents of the community. You can tell by the setback that is 50 plus 100 feet on the Pawnee Drive side adjoining the park, but not by Sioux Drive. These amenities are not for us. It is solely for the residents. Today was also a meeting for the BVSD school closures. So you are not going to see the parents here today. The parents have kids at BVSD and Horizons are very concerned about this project. The setback, there's no specific justification. All the houses, including mine, are more than 25 feet and we are single home families. So why is this building with four stories and 55 feet high allowed an exception? In addition, drainage. I don't care if the floodplain moved. My home was flooded and required significant modifications in order to be restructured after the flood. It doesn't matter to me where the floodplain is. The parking they have shown is private. It is not public. As they've said, drop-off is around all corners. I have much more to say, but I can't say it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Lauren Schmeisser and then followed by Ed Simmons. After Ed would be the one pooled group that we have. I am going to move the pooled group to the end of the list as we only have three more speakers after Ed. So Carolyn Martin, if you could join the queue, please. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Lauren Schmeiser. I live on Osage Drive in Fraser Meadows. I've lived there for nearly six years, and I've thoroughly enjoyed raising my young family. I have a three-year-old and a six-month-old daughter now. Thank you for hearing our concerns about this proposal today. I oppose the project as it's currently proposed because it's simply too large and out of scale with our beloved neighborhood. Increasing the height from the 35-foot limit to roughly 55 feet, reducing setbacks, increasing the number of stories would significantly impact our neighborhood's privacy, parking, and traffic. Even though I live four streets away from the Fraser Meadows Manor project, I'm still deeply invested in ensuring this project adheres to city code without exception, as it affects our entire Fraser Meadows community. And furthermore, I am a real estate agent here in Boulder, and I'm concerned about this negatively affecting property prices for my neighbors and friends, particularly those on Sioux Drive, especially during the time period of construction. But additionally, thereafter, as the homes on Sioux will be overlooked and overshadowed by the neighboring massive project. To be clear, I'm absolutely in favor of providing the desperately needed additional housing for the elderly in our community, and I love having Fraser Retirement Community as part of our neighborhood. I truly do. I actually even theoretically support the expansion of the Fraser Retirement Community, but I ask that the planning board Please protect the character of our wonderful neighborhood and require a project that not only complies with the coding and zoning without exception, but is also appropriately scaled to the homes and our streets surrounding it. Thank you.

Thank you, Lauren. Next up, we have Ed Simmons, followed by Carolyn Martin and Tom Marshall.

Yeah. Hi, my name is Ed Simmons. I live at 230 Mohawk. And you heard a lot of my neighbors express concern about access. So I know this is a site review. But it blows my mind that nobody understands how to get in and out of this neighborhood. I don't know if you guys have been recently to the intersection of baseline and Mohawk. But I can tell you that a tractor trailer heading west on baseline cannot make a right hand turn into Mohawk. It cannot. A car can barely do it. A tractor trailer coming eastbound or westbound onto baseline and trying to make the left onto Mohawk. Sure, they can do that one at a time, however many you're gonna bring in there. So my request to the board is, can you enforce a temporary access road off of Foothills onto Thunderbird Court in front of the Athletic Center? It dead ends right there where the Homewood Suites is. The ground is flat. there's access roads all up and down foothills for that bike path that's going 100 miles north wherever it's going so i don't want to hear that it's a county road a state road and you can't have access roads there's access roads for all that construction up there off of foothills it would be very easy to mitigate 90 percent of our concerns of safety and access for our neighborhood if you would put an access road off of southbound foothills right onto Thunderbird Court and right off of Thunderbird Court back on. The tractor trailers could queue up there. There's plenty of space. They could come in and out. They wouldn't come past the school. They would totally avoid everything and limit all the noise, dirt, and everything to at least a located area that's already extremely noisy, Foothills Road and all its traffic, okay? So I know this isn't the right place to ask for an access road permit, but I hope you would consider it when you go to approve this bill.

Thank you, Ed. Next up, we have Carolyn Martin, followed by Tom Marshall, and then Gabrielle Deck. Thank you.

Hi there. I'm Carolyn Martin, and I live on Recara Drive, which is just behind Sioux Drive. And thank you for your time and attention tonight. I'm here to express my opposition to the project for several reasons. One is that while I understand the need for housing the elderly, that is just going to increase each decade going forward. But this is housing the wealthy elderly, primarily BVCP 7.01, which is local solutions to affordable housing, discusses employing local regulations and policies to meet the housing needs of low, middle and moderate income households. At no point in the document did I find any mention of high income households. We've talked about the entry fees, which are basically the price of the house that my husband and I purchased and the size of some of the apartments are actually larger than my entire house for context. The height exemption is unpalatable to me. I'm not going to talk about that further. That's been addressed at length. But I think this is correct that even industrial zones have a building. height cap of 40 feet. So this seems excessive to me. One of the biggest things I'm concerned about is the lack of any adequate transition between land uses. I know, Chandler, you talked about it's contiguous with the rest of the campus, but it's not at all an adequate transition between our houses and this growing retirement complex. BVCP 2.14 says, whenever land uses are mixed, careful design will be required to ensure appropriate transitions between land uses that vary in intensity and scale. And I think that this project contradicts that. I'm worried about precedent. There are so many exceptions here. You're going to be asked the next time someone wants to build something if they can have an exception, and you'll be accused of bias if that's not granted. And I feel like our neighborhood of small family homes is being sacrificed. Thank you.

Thank you, Carolyn. Next up, we have Tom Marshall followed by Gabrielle Deck. And then we will have Elaine Winans representing a group that is pooling their time.

Hello, my name's Tom Marshall. Thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight. I live on Pawnee Drive, about five houses up from this proposed project. And I want to ask you tonight to reject this current proposal. In terms of the criteria, there's been much talk about what you can and cannot address. And I appreciate a couple of the board members in particular who seem to have raised the issue of this project in the context of the larger neighborhood. And that seems to me to be the primary criteria. I don't know exactly which number it is. or how it's phrased. However, there was a slide that said something to the effect of preservation and supportive neighborhoods as being one of the criteria. Under that broad sort of definition, I would urge you to take a look at that. Somehow, city staff feels that the height and mass improve the character of the area. I have no idea how they come up with that. This project is completely inconsistent with the character of our current neighborhood. And we have a wonderful neighborhood. I would invite all of you. I know you want to try to make a decision tonight, but I would urge you to reject this at this point. I'd invite all of you to come and visit the neighborhood. Look at it at different times. In the mornings, when you have many kids biking and walking to school, as well as adults, same in the afternoons. Come at the time when the school has parents dropping kids off and picking up, look at the congestion at that point and consider what this project will do then. The project as it's proposed is going to do little to alleviate the need for senior housing. It is not affordable senior housing, no matter how you dress it up. So I urge you to reject this and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Tom. Next up, we have Gabrielle Beck.

Hi, my name is Gabrielle Deck, and I'm a real estate agent and a retired property manager, so I know a lot about housing, and also I do know that Fraser Meadows is not affordable, so it should really not be discussed on that level when they're talking about the needs that it will bring. I've lived in Kuwait since 2006 and Boulder since 1977. And I do truly appreciate the Fraser Meadows retirement community. I really like the residents. I run into a lot of them, but this expansion is just too massive. Compatibility being measured to Fraser but not measured to the neighborhood has been missed and should be addressed. I am concerned that privacy is being compromised. The height and size is too great for the surroundings. I'm pretty sure If they reviewed, they would see that my house on Shawnee will have a direct view into the third and fourth bathrooms in the new buildings, and they will be looking into my backyard. Frazier has expanded significantly, and this project has become a win-win for Methodist Church and Frazier, and not for the residential neighbors. The school uses Pawnee Daily for drop-off. It's congested. Ponca is used by Frazier employees, so I guess the people speeding down Ponca are employees and they should be you know addressed that also address flooding the neighborhood was devastated in the 2013 flooding it wasn't just a flash flood that ran down Thunderburg but we had the water table is really high there so I imagine this garage will constantly be using some pump to get rid of the water and I'm not sure where they plan on putting that much water that goes into the groundwater that goes back into our houses or if they're just going to dump it down towards baseline. I think the planning committee needs to have a step back in this project, not setting new precedents in residential development. Again, it is not affordable senior living. I won't go into everything, so I will urge that you vote no. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for joining us. And next up, we have Elaine Winans, who is representing a pooled group. Elaine, you will receive four minutes of time. And if you could please indicate the names of the individuals that are pooling their time with you and to those individuals, if you could just give some form of verbal indication that you would like to lend your time, that would be great. Thank you.

Thank you. So my name is Elaine Hallux-Winans, and I'm pooling my speaking time with Mary L. and Fran DeVellis, who are here today. We respectfully ask that you reconsider or at least postpone the approval of Frasier Meadows Manor proposal until the neighborhood impacts and the safety concerns are fully addressed. Our concerns are focused on two areas, residential density and public safety. First, density. Frasier Meadows and Keewanin Meadows are established neighborhoods made up of primarily single family homes. The proposal will vacate Ponca Place, a public right-of-way, with the high rises of four-story, 95-unit senior independent living apartments with the complex underground parking. We understand the need for appropriate senior housing, and our concern is not with senior housing. Our concern is whether 95 additional units at this scale and this particular location are compatible with the existing neighborhood and the infrastructure. The project would significantly increase residential density while placing additional demands on surrounding streets, utilities, pedestrian routes, emergency access with limited corridors. In the vacation of a public street, we would also ask the council to clearly consider the public fiscal benefit. What tax revenue or other measurable community benefit will result from giving up this public right-of-way for a private nonprofit development. That benefit should be clearly identified and weighed against the impacts being placed on the surrounding community. Second, and most importantly, and I'll try not to piggyback on this too much from Pam and Mary, the Baseline Road, Mohawk Sioux, and Thunderbird Drives already experience significant traffic and congestion. Adding the 95 units will bring the additional vehicles, deliveries, visitors, pedestrians, and emergency access demands. Yet neighborhood residents have not been presented with a comprehensive agency-reviewed plan showing how fire response, emergency evacuation, traffic flow, and even flooding will be handled. I know that there's an important history with the 2003 flooding that affected this area That included Fraser Meadows and Table Mesa. We're not suggesting that another floodplain occur, but we believe the experience of 2013 demonstrate why emergency plan for flooding and evacuation should be part of the approval process, not something addressed after construction, an assumption that it's just not in a floodplain. We are asking for clear documentation plans reviewed by the appropriate fire, emergency management, transportation, and other agencies. Those plans should address fire, flooding, evacuation, emergency vehicle access, and traffic, particularly given the existing conditions or congestions. Our neighborhood also includes important pedestrian and school routes from Horizon up to the Manhattan School using the Foothill Parkway Bridge, as well as a designated bike route on Sioux Drive. We respectfully ask the council to look beyond whether the proposal meets a technical site review criteria and consider whether it is safe, appropriate to scale, and adequately supported by the surrounding infrastructure. We're simply asking for thoughtful planning, complete safety information, and a clear understanding of the public benefit before a public right-of-way is vacated and this level of density is approved. Thank you for listening and considering the neighborhood residents of the Fraser Meadows and Keewatan Meadows neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you, Elaine. And that concludes our speaker list for in-person public participation.

Thomas, if I could just interrupt briefly before you go to the online speakers, there are some folks in the back who have signs and we are not able to read the signs at this distance. Could I ask one of you to come and put your sign in front of the podium where we can read it and then we'll move to online commenters. So feel free to put it in front of the podium here. Thank you so much. You just put it on the floor. Yep. Okay. You went to the trouble to bring them. I want to make sure that we can read them. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. And with that, I'm going to pass it to Vivian Castro-Woldridge, who is assisting us for our online portion of the public hearing. At this time, if you would like to speak for the online portion and you're joining us virtually, if you could go ahead and raise your hand on Zoom so that we can get an idea of how many people will be speaking online, that would be extremely helpful. Thank you. Madam Chair. Thank you, Vivian.

Yes, Mark. I'm just thinking about council's policy on sign, sign size, sign placement, et cetera. I appreciate you bringing that forward. However, I don't think it's appropriate to just leave it there.

Okay. That is a fair point. Has everybody had a chance to take a look at it?

Yeah, I just read the whole thing. I'm satisfied.

All right. Could you come back and take your sign? Thank you. Good point, Mark. I appreciate that. All right. Back to you, Thomas, or to Vivian, I guess. Vivian, thank you for staying with us. Over to you.

Great. So we'll move on to the online participants. We have a couple of hands raised so far. Erica Deinart and Lynn Siegel. We'll start with Erica and then followed by Lynn. Each person will have two minutes. And if you have any personal interest in the project, please disclose it as well and introduce yourself. Please go ahead, Erica.

Hi, I'm Erica Deinert. My connection to this discussion is that my mother has been a resident at Fraser Meadows in Summit Care for over 10 years, and my nieces now attend the nearby school. Over the last few years, I've visited Boulder a lot because of mom and have spent roughly 50% of my time in town. And since I like Boulder, I've been considering whether to move to Boulder. So my interest would be in single family homes or duplex neighborhoods. And I'm watching this discussion as a potential future Boulder resident. There is a need for senior living facilities and Frayser is great. But I'm concerned about the hype bonus and setback proposed for the new development as it impacts the single family house neighborhood. I want to have faith that if I move to Boulder, that my investment in a new home and neighborhood would be protected from overly large and tall future developments. So I look at this debate as a litmus test that speaks to whether Boulder continues to be an attractive place to move to. Bottom line for me, I would ask you to ask the developers to work within the heightened setback measurements that should apply to neighborhoods and transition zones between zoning types. And be conservative. Don't grant exceptions or bonuses. Consider compatibility and transition in 360 degrees, not just consistency within the Fraser campus. Send a message that Boulder values its character as a city and values the character of neighborhoods and values the investment of all homeowners, that all homeowners have made in their homes and privacy, and that Boulder continues to be a great place to move to. Thank you.

Thank you, Erica. And next up we have Lynn Segal, and I just ask that other members of the public joining us online Do raise your hand if you plan to participate. Thank you. Go ahead, Lynn.

I'm sorry. And Lynn, before you start, could I ask someone in the front row to please turn off that microphone so that we don't get interference? Thank you.

Back to you. Yeah, Laura, did you read the QA?

She was asking for the signs to be read. Sorry, go ahead, Lynn.

I'm waiting for the signs to be read. Laura? Lynn, you should use your two minutes. Excuse me, could you please read me what the sign said? I'm sorry that I can't physically be down there. I'm trespassed from the Muni building.

I'm waiting. Lynn, you have two minutes, and we welcome your comments. But we don't do requests, I'm sorry.

No, there are three minutes. Three minutes.

Lynn, it is two minutes tonight because we have probably 70 people speaking. Okay. Could you start my time again, please? As my discretion of chair, I will say yes, you have two minutes, Lynn. Thank you. Thank you.

I would never live in a place like Frayser because I believe in, and I don't believe in the word believe, but I like Marpa House style transgenerational housing. This project also contributes greatly to the inequality of wealth in Boulder and to unaffordable housing for all levels, especially the missing middle. And that's constantly a big issue in town. So I don't approve of the Ponca Place disruption of the street or any setback subsidies or any height subsidies or any kind of subsidies whatsoever. I know the developer can build homes. what they want, but they need to build it in with our limitations. I don't care if it looks horrible as a result of no, you know, the building physical appearance. What's important is that people can afford to live. You know, I don't spend anything, anything. Everything is for my kids for climate change. These projects like 311 Mapleton and Frazier are extortion operations. of senior wealth. And you know what? The kids today, how are they ever going to buy houses? How are they ever going to have any hope for living anywhere? I know this. My kids are very successful, but I don't trust because of climate change. So every cent I have is towards my kids. I'll die before I'll move into a project like this or into a big apartment building. But that's just me. I've always liked living in shared housing. I've never liked any kind of apartments. My dad moved from New York City. So say no.

Thank you, Lynn. And we don't have any other hands, but I'll give folks a few seconds. We have quite a few people online, so I suspect we have a few others. We have one. Jason Strauss, please go ahead. Start by introducing yourself. You have two minutes.

Hi, I'm Jason Strauss. I live on Sioux Drive across from the proposed development. I was there in person. I had to come home to take care of my two young boys who also live here with me. We... Bike in this neighborhood, walk our dogs in this neighborhood, go to Burke Park in this neighborhood. We like all the staff and residents of Fraser Meadows. But we're obviously against the enormous scale and transition that this would bring. I can throw a tennis ball from my front porch and hit this building, which will be 55 feet high. All these concessions around height and setback and Ponca plays seem to be with the intent that this is enabling the community. and benefiting the community. But there's an entire community of single family homes here and school children who commute both ways, East and West on Sioux Drive, they'll be impacted tremendously by the enormous scale of this. Like my wife mentioned earlier, we've had significant flood issues back in 2013 and digging down two stories, less than 50 feet from my front door is gonna exacerbate those problems. So I urge the planning board to look into this migration and the exact literal feet between our door and this enormous mass. People mentioned the scale, almost a quarter of a mile. Adding some glass windows is not permeability. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you. Please raise your hand if you wish to participate. I want to give you the chance. See no other hands raised. Going once, going twice. Okay. I think that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing. I'm reticent because there's so many people online. I think I'll hand it back over to you.

We do have 45, 40 seconds. 46 people online, but I appreciate you giving folks time to get their hand up if they want it. So that concludes the public hearing. It is now closed, and we will move to board deliberation and decision. But first, I want to thank every person who came out tonight. You came from very varied perspectives, very different lived experiences. And I want you to know that we hear and respect every single one of you. And thank you. Thank you for sharing your time and your thoughts with us. I want to turn to my vice chair, Claudia, who has a couple of remarks. But before we do that, we do give the applicant a chance to respond to public comment. If there's anything that you heard that you want to comment upon.

Yes, sorry, we'll only take a brief minute, thank you. I just wanted to note that the cash in lieu we estimate between eight and nine million dollars. I think something that we failed to talk about is adding these residents to the existing Fraser campus reduces the need to add additional square footage for amenities like a health center, recreation center, if we were to build in another location in Boulder. The existing building just to the south of this along, called Peaks, along Sioux Drive is, set back 30 feet from Sioux drive and it's four to five stories. Um, and the height is 47 feet, 47 feet and 59 feet. So I wanted to correct that mountain view. Um, the existing church has set back 36 feet from Sioux drive and the height of the building that's being retained is 66 feet tall. Um, the total length of the building is not one quarter mile long. It's 440 feet long. And this project, this site is not in the floodplain. And the South Boulder Creek project has been mentioned, which is estimated to be complete in 2031, will take the existing Frayser buildings and most of the neighborhood out of the 100-year and high-hazard floodplain. That's it, thank you.

Thank you so much to the applicant team. Laura, if I may interrupt.

And this is with regard to the signs under the planning board rules. Any documentary evidence like signs must be submitted at least 24 hours before the hearing so they can be distributed and people are participating online like ML have the ability to read them and know what the documentary evidence is. I don't know if those signs have already been submitted by email 24 hours beforehand, but if not, then I recommend that the board does not consider them in their decision.

Thank you, Hela. She's always keeping us on the straight and narrow. Okay, thank you for that advice from the CAO's office. All righty, so I'm going to turn to my Vice Chair, Claudia, for a few remarks before we begin deliberations.

Thanks, Laura. I also want to thank all of the public commenters for being here tonight and folks who wrote in as well. Some of them may be online. We obviously cannot make a decision tonight that is going to satisfy everyone in the room. But I want to say that it really is an honor to listen to all of your testimony and your stories. I want to acknowledge that this process can leave people raw. on a very deep level. And that in addition to leaving with hard feelings towards this board, potentially, or towards the city, that some of you may leave tonight with hard feelings towards each other. And I hope that with time, you can take some steps to heal that as neighbors. As we get started on deliberations, I want to echo our board chair Kaplan's comments from the start of the meeting about what we can and cannot address during a site review process. Our job as a board is to evaluate a project, against a list of criteria in the city's land use code. And those criteria do not address all of the things that members of the public often want us to regulate. Things like unit sizes, things like sales or rental prices, construction impacts, and the parking needs and traffic patterns created by adjacent land uses. We also cannot give a proposal special consideration based on an applicant's standing in the community, whether as a good neighbor or bad. So I just want you to know that if you don't hear us responding to some aspects of public testimony that are clearly important to individuals and this community, that is likely why.

Thank you, Claudia. I will say that the value of public comment for us as a board is not only just so that you know that you've been heard, but you may bring up something that we can address based on the criteria. And so we are listening carefully to that. And you may hear some of that in our conversation tonight. I do, before we get to deliberation, I'm sorry for the time this will take, but I think that there are some things that we as a board understand and the applicant understands and the public may not have that knowledge. And so I want to bring some of those regulatory things, those city policy things into the room tonight so that you know where we are coming from if we do not address them or if we don't address them in the way that you would like for some of you in the room. So, first, As we discussed during the question period, the board does not have the authority to approve or deny the Ponca Place vacation, vacating that right-of-way and making it a private street. That decision rests solely with the city council. We are in council chambers, but we are not council. We are the planning board. But we do have the authority to apply site review criteria regarding transportation, access, and circulation. So you may hear some of that. Second, I want to address the height question. The by right height limit in this zone, which is residential high density, is 35 feet. But the maximum height limit for the city of Boulder is 55 feet. And that is set in the city charter. It was determined by a public vote in 1971. So by right is like the basic foundational height that a project can obtain. They don't have to ask any special permission. They don't have to jump through any additional hoops. That's the by right limit. But a project like this in RH5 is entitled to go up to 55 feet if they meet the criteria for extra height in the site review criteria. We as the board cannot simply say, well, we just think you're too tall. We have to apply the criteria. So we will be talking about that. Third, affordable housing requirements. Every development project in Boulder has affordable housing requirements. They have to contribute to the city's housing supply stock. But we as a city are required by the state to provide options in how that happens. We legally cannot in the state of Colorado require them to put affordable housing on their particular property. One of the options that the applicant will have to meet their requirements is what is called cash in lieu. And that is what the applicant was talking about. that they will be paying between eight and nine million dollars according to a formula set by the city based on the housing that they provide on site. And then that cash in lieu is leveraged with other grant funding sources from the state and other sources, federal money, to build even more affordable housing. There's a heat map on the City of Boulder's affordable housing website if you want to see where that housing is actually being built. It might not be on this particular site, but it will be built in the city. There was just a senior affordable housing project completed recently near Table Mesa, the hilltop senior living project. But this board cannot require it on site. Next, the applicant is not required to provide a certain number of off street parking spaces. The city did away with off street parking requirements after the state passed a bill, HB 24-1304. So this board cannot require them to provide more parking spaces on their site as long as they meet the access, circulation, transportation criteria that are in the site review code. So we will be talking about that as well. And we cannot provide the applicant to provide public parking at their site. I know that's been done in the past, that the Mountain View Church was kind enough to do that, but we cannot require that. And as Claudia mentioned, there are many other factors that our site review criteria simply do not address, such as construction noise and dust, um privacy or views onto other properties people's property values they're just they're just not something that we can legally consider if we did try to make a decision based on that we would be exposing the city to a lawsuit which would just waste everybody's time and the city's resources so with that said like I said there are a lot of things we cannot address but there certainly are things that we can and so that is where our deliberation will head tonight Okay, so it's my task as the board chair to try to organize this conversation and get us out of here before midnight. Here's what I'm going to suggest. If folks would like to make a brief round of general comments, we should do that. And please flag anywhere that you might be thinking that there is a criteria that is not met that might lead to a board discussion about potentially denying or conditioning the project. Does that sound all right to folks? A brief round of initial comments and then we will get to motion making. Okay. All right. So with that said, who would like to begin with some general comments and flagging any place that you might think that a criterion is not met? Oh, I hear Max laughing. That means Max is fired up.

Sure, I'll start.

Okay, thank you, Max.

I did want to thank the public comment member that mentioned that this is a 350-page packet and no mortal should be expected to wade through it, but sometimes think I should have gotten a cat. But we do read it and we do take it very seriously for what it's worth. And having parsed through most of it, I have no issues with the way that the applicant has met the criteria. I do, like my colleagues have already mentioned, have a lot of empathy for the quite large amount of public comment. I'm in construction and I like to say I'm in the business of upsetting your neighbors, which is a bit of a joke, but it's also an inescapable reality that when creating housing, that there's always going to be difficulties involved with it and conflicting values. But that being said, I do agree with the notion that these conflicting values have been met by providing housing to a growing demographic inside of the city, contributing to the affordable housing fund, good faith efforts have been made to break the visual massing and i also have empathy for the applicant having to deal with this fact that this is a senior living facility and i had guessed that having contiguous floor patterns were necessary for community um so i'll start with that thank you max next up claudia

I feel like I'm getting in front of everyone tonight, so thanks for going first, Max. I just want to start by noting a few things that I think this proposal does particularly well with regard to our site review criteria, and which I think provide a strong foundation for the project as a whole. So first of all, I think it is consistent with our BVCP land use map and current zoning. That's always something we want to discuss here. I think it's also consistent with BVCP policies supporting compact and infill development and housing for a full range of households and special populations. And I want to note here again that our policies in that regard do not differentiate between low-income seniors and those who can pay market rate, although I do understand the public's concern for the former. Second, I think the site design on this project prioritizes safe movement for pedestrians and bike riders, both on site and in the surrounding neighborhood. I'm thinking here about the redesigned Ponca Place, if City Council does in fact approve that right-of-way vacation. I'm thinking about the Skybridge connection to the existing Fraser campus, the consolidated curb cuts on the site, and also the placement of the parking garage entrance on Pawnee. Third thing I think it does particularly well is that shared courtyard between the proposed Fraser expansion and the Mountain View Church. And I think that really exemplifies the kind of enlivened open space that our code envisions for higher density projects and shows us some of the synergies that can be achieved when we mix uses and when we have genuine collaboration between neighbors, in this case, Fraser and the Mountain View Church. And finally, I think the proposed building design balances the resident population needs for connection and safe mobility with the massing requirements in our land use code. I appreciate the input that the design advisory board gave on this issue and agree with their conclusion that the segmented design and those glass connections create the relief and the permeability that we need from the code. One thing I would like to see addressed potentially has to do with transportation and access that is actually the bike parking. I agree with the logic of a significant bike parking reduction for the residential portion of the project for Fraser. And I think there's also adequate provisions for expanding that should it become necessary. I'm not comfortable with such a large reduction for the church based solely on current use patterns. I think particularly given the church's role hosting community and cultural events, it is important that we have bike parking available and accessible a bit more in line with the code. So I will propose a condition to reduce the church's bike parking reduction. That's a double negative. Reduce their reduction from 75% to 50% for short-term parking. And I may be receptive to other conditions, but I'd like to stop there and hear what other folks are thinking. Thank you, Claudia.

Kurt, you ready?

Sure. Thank you to Max and Claudia for your comments. I won't repeat a lot of what I've heard, but overall, I find that this is Curt Brown, largely consistent with site review criteria, I do have two conditions that I would. Curt Brown, propose to the board for consideration one about the size of the garage underground garage and the other one just about the signage on. Curt Brown, A place so i'll be bringing those forward later. Karen Hollweg, Do you want to give us a preview Kurt. Sure. So the signage is pretty easy. I think the applicant already gave us some basic wording about requiring welcoming and inviting signage that makes clear that Ponca Place remains publicly accessible as a through street. Something to that effect. The other one is about the excavation and the size of the underground parking. As I read... 9214 H1G2, which is under environmental preservation and talks about excavation. I am, again, it's largely framed in the context of a sloping site, but I think in my reading, the intent of it applies here too. And so when I consider that site review criterion and also some of the access and transportation criteria, I come to the conclusion that a two-story underground parking structure is not appropriate. And so I would condition it to change the plans to just a one-story site. underground parking structure that would uh also alleviate help to alleviate i'm not a water engineer but it seems like it would help to alleviate any uh effects on groundwater and underground flooding and so on thank you kurt i'm looking at mason ml mark mason

Don't have a whole lot to add. I really resonate with what Max said and other folks on the board have said about how not everyone's going to walk out of here happy tonight. When it comes down to the criteria, I think that they've done a good job meeting the criteria for the site review, as well as for the, not really exceptions, like the hype bonus that they've requested The one area that I did think was going to be the largest sticking point for me, but as I reviewed the project, has since dissipated is what was called out earlier on A5, you know, part of the code that was read out. And I think that the applicant has done a good job with massing and siting and setbacks to address some of that transition. Yeah, that's all I got. I won't have any conditions.

Thank you, Mason.

Thank you. So generally, I don't think anyone will dispute the need or even the desire for this project. However, and this is something that I was delighted to see that staff was in and a lot of the public came to the same conclusion. The fact that the land use and zoning for this level of high density being directly adjacent to low density, it creates an automatic conflict. And so we add to this that our zoning code has created a pathway to increase height and overall help big projects meet their bigger than by right goals. Putting the single homeowners in original neighborhoods to carry a lot of the weight of this sort of change. For without doing a thing, they lose views, they gain congestion, and perhaps feel their quality of life slipping away. So given our task to regard the site criteria, I believe that this project is struggling to meet, and I'll identify the primary ones. The site criteria 1A having to do with the BVCP, and I would point to at least 2.10, preserving and supporting residential neighborhoods. Site criteria 3A, V, adjacent to lower density. And site criteria 3A, V, 1, compatible with character of area. And site criteria 4B, I, B, 2, the building height is compatible with the height of buildings in the surrounding area. So to adjust this, I will focus on a single building that seems to be the most out of compliance, and I will be asking my fellow board members to consider a recommendation around making some modifications to that. bring the project more into compliance with those site criteria that I've cited.

Emily, do you want to give us a preview of which building and what proposed changes you might have?

Well, I'm looking, you know, I think that the project has gone through great lengths to try to accommodate the Sioux Drive relationship. to the existing neighborhood. Where it fails, I think, the most out of compliance is that southeast, they call them neighborhoods, building. That is the tallest building because it's on the lowest part of the site. I think the applicant said it's around 100 feet long. And it's the one with the smallest setback. And that is closest to the neighborhood. it's got the biggest challenge. I think it creates the biggest challenge to meeting those site criteria. And so I will suggest some changes to that particular building.

And would you like to preview what those changes might be?

I can read my whole paragraph. Just briefly, just briefly. So what I would ask my fellow board members to consider in order to meet those criteria is, is to consider a condition to either push the southeast neighborhood building back to the same setback as the southwest neighborhood building, and I can't remember what that setback is, or to reduce the height of that same southeast neighborhood building to the by-right height of 35 feet and then retain the by-right setback of 25 feet. So that's what I'm looking at. and identifying that building as being, I think the most out of compliance. And I don't really have an issue with the rest of the buildings regards to those site criteria that I cited.

Thank you so much, Emil. Mark, are you ready?

I am. I appreciate all the public comment tonight and the written public comment that was submitted. I read darn near all of it. If I missed something, it might have come in weeks ago. Oh, and I appreciate the comments of our vice chair and chair about the criteria, I think, in situations like this. It's important to be reminded of both our role and the public's role and the applicant's role. So I appreciate all of that. And I think this applicant has been responsive to staff in their design, in response to feedback from planning board and the concept review, TAB and DAB, and I appreciate that. So on balance, I find this project to meet the site review criteria.

I do... Just a reminder that the site review criteria are not an on-balance finding. They are a, it must meet the site review criteria finding.

Thank you.

Consistency with the BVCP is an on-balance finding. Sorry to interject.

Okay. So I do want to address two things where our code, I think, breeds conflict. And that is, one, this idea of transitions. I have yet to find a real need for transitions. Some of our most vibrant and exciting and desirable places to live are a commercial district or a residential district right up against a commercial district with disparate heights and disparate types of uses. And in many cases, people definitely enjoy that and appreciate that. And so our code, when we have a zone that's an RH5 zone next to an RE zone, but they both comport with their respective BVCP land use map designations, we have a conflict there. And I am going to find that the zone that the project is within that requirement supersedes this theoretical and subjective requirement for a transition. So in my view, the RH5 zone and the allowances and numerical requirements of that zone supersede any subjective ethereal requirement for transition. The other thing I'm going to say that we end up with this problem, where we end up with a problem, is the street design where to design a pedestrian friendly, elderly friendly, bicycle pedestrian friendly, slow speed street, we have to create a vacation of right of way and create a private street because we can't build that street with that design to the city standards, our DCS. And you guys have all heard me harp on this over and over and over. But if we can't, if we say we desire all of these attributes of safety, pedestrian and bike friendly, and warm and welcoming, but we can't do it to our DCS, then this actually warrants the vacation of a right-of-way and allowing an applicant to build a street to a proper design for that site. So we have these two problems or potential conflicts, and I'm siding with safe streets and the zone that the project is in.

Thank you, Mark. And I'm bringing up the rear here. And I might be in the minority here, but I'm going to say what I think. So the project has many great elements, and I'm not going to repeat all of the kudos, but I agree with my fellow board members that this is a great community. Both the church and Fraser Meadows are very valued for the services that they do provide to those populations. and their role in the community I think is not disputed. I think even the neighbors who have come out to speak tonight, many of them who oppose the project, oppose it on the basis of the form and the mass and the size of it, not because they object to more senior housing or to what Frazier is doing or certainly to the church. I did not hear any comments that were in any way concerned about the renovations and addition to the church. So I do think that there are many things that the applicant team has done which have been very successful. Some things I particularly appreciate personally were the efforts to break up the building massing into visually distinct segments. I think that you've done that better than just about any other applicant team that we have seen. You've put a lot of effort into that. and I really appreciate all of the ground level open space. A lot of the projects that we see, they take their open space and elevate it up onto rooftop decks and make it private, and then the streetscape is pretty impoverished in comparison to what you folks are getting with this project, which is a lot of ground level, not just planters, but seating, benches, and usable space for community between the two parts of the applicant team, the church and Fraser Meadows. So, but looking at the criteria analysis, I do have a concern about this transition between high and low density, and I want to acknowledge right off the bat these things exist in a portion of the site design criteria that is not mandatory, it is not hard and fast. the building shall not be over 200 feet long. These are things that we may consider in considering how the project meets the criteria. And I do think that we should consider them. This is one of our lowest density zones abutting one of our highest density zones. And I understand why that was done, right? That the Fraser Meadows community is a unique use that serves a unique purpose and they need that density. to be able to have the continuum of care and the different range of units that they provide. But it is true, as many folks here have noted, it creates a conflict when you have really high density next to really low density. And our code does provide for you need to have a transition. And the burden for providing that transition falls on the property that's in the higher density zone that is redeveloping. So here we have an applicant who's proposing a building that's over twice as long as the criteria recommend. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it's a recommended no longer than 200 feet long along a public right of way. And that recommends this transition between high and low density. So if there was ever a situation that calls for a sensitive transition, which is in our code, I think this context is it, right? And site review is a context sensitive process. It's not hard and fast. We have to consider this particular situation. So the code sections that I think are of concern are the one that's already been mentioned about if the project is adjacent to a zoning district of lower intensity in terms of allowable use, density, massing, or scale, the project is designed with appropriate transition to the adjacent properties and if there's no sub community or area plan considering the existing development pattern, which is re right across a two lane residential street. The next criterion that speaks to this is on building design. And it says larger floor plate buildings and projects with multiple buildings have a variety of forms and heights. I see very minimal changes in forms and heights, you know, within a five foot change, mostly due to rooftop parapets. It is still a tall, you know, nearly maxing out the height available for this building, basically for 400 feet along Sioux Drive. And there's a criterion that states, oh, I already talked about the 200 foot length along the public right of way. Yeah, so I just feel like this project has not done enough to acknowledge the very low density zone across the street. And I think that we could offer some conditions that would improve that in line, bring it more in line with our site review criteria. So I think that there are some options for that. I'm not inclined personally to try to mess with setbacks unless the applicant says that that's something that can be done easily because it feels to me like that would require an entire redesign of the building if it's pushed back from the street, especially that eastern segment. I don't know how they could push it back an additional 25 feet without encroaching into that jog on Ponca Place. So I'm not really inclined to mess with the setback. I also don't think it's necessary or appropriate to try to literally separate the buildings. instead of having those glassy connections, I think that would also create huge problems with the engineering of the buildings and the ventilation and heating and cooling and all of that, as well as I am sensitive to the need for the seniors to have connection and be able to walk between the buildings without going out into the weather. So I'm not thinking that we should try to physically break up the buildings. But I do think that we could reduce the height in some places. One way we could do that is in those glassy links, take off the top floor and have connections at the first, second, and third, but not the fourth floor. And that would considerably lower perceived height from the street and break apart those masses visually in a way that would be more successful that's one option we could do we could just reduce you know put a condition to reduce the height of one of the neighborhoods ml suggested the eastern neighborhood and i see the the logic in that because it is the tallest building that's closest to the street We could also consider the middle neighborhood. If you look at the floor plan, the middle neighborhood basically has six units on the top floor, if I've read this correctly, three on either side of a corridor. You could take the three that are closest to the street and make that a nice rooftop deck, right? So you would lose three units, but you would greatly break up the massing. You would provide a great amenity for the... the users of that building and if the applicant wanted to they could perhaps move that um amenity space to be in the middle of the buildings rather than on the eastern side to be able to take better advantage of that patio space so that's an option and then i will i will stop there for now to see and we can um we can poll to see if any of these potential amendments have legs. I know past chairs, including some who may or may not be present tonight, have really liked to just get a motion on the floor and get the process moving. I think tonight we would benefit from doing some straw polling to see if any of these potential amendments have legs before we start officially debating them and making motions. So if folks are amenable, I would like to do some straw polling on the proposed amendments. when you say amendments conditions you mean conditions that would be an amendment to the main motion correct yes can i refill my water yes of course so we have one board member who's stepping out of the room for just a moment he'll be back in about 30 seconds Okay, so first I want to turn to our city attorney. So Hela, did we propose anything in the amendments that would give you pause from a legal perspective, the very brief discussion we had of potential conditions?

Not about potential conditions, just as part of the discussion, clarifying. You stated that some of the some of the elements you consider are factors and not legal requirements. I agree with that. And I just wanted to clarify, it's not a weighing of the zoning districts versus transition. Transition is one of the factors that you can consider in determining whether the project is compatible with the character of the area or improves upon that character under the criteria, just to make sure that that is clear to the board.

Thank you, Hela. Can I clarify this? So it's not weighing of the zoning districts. So if it's not, if a project is in RH5, then the requirements for RH5 apply. That's right. And other zones have different requirements that do not apply. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. That's pretty clear.

That's correct, Mark. But part of the site review criteria says... and this is required, building, siting, and design criteria. Building, siting, and design criteria are consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site, or if none apply, are compatible with the character of the area or improves upon that character consistent with the intent specified in this paragraph. It then lists some factors that you can consider in determining whether that criterion is met. And one of those is this idea of a transition between zones of higher and lower intensity. So in site review, we can consider that not just what's allowed in RH5 is what's allowed in RH5.

So does the subjective potential consideration of transition have the ability to supersede what is allowed in a zone?

Yes, and it's a potential consideration, but the actual criterion that I think that consideration relates to is the compatibility in character or improving on the character. So the site review criteria do qualify what will be allowed on this site under RH5 zoning.

Great, thank you. And so I'll just comment briefly that the improvement on the character is key here because at this site, we are talking about quite large bunch of surface parking lots. So as we consider and have consideration of improvement upon the character, I would take that into account.

Absolutely, as would I.

Okay, so we had one, two, three, four of us who potentially wanted to recommend some kind of amendment to approving this project. Is there anybody who was considering recommending a denial? I don't think I heard that. Okay, so it sounds like we are looking at an approval tonight. And the question is whether it would be with any conditions that might modify or change the site design. So I want to start by polling Claudia's suggestion, which was about bike parking for the church, making that a 50% reduction rather than a 75% reduction. Claudia, do you want to speak more to that before we draw a poll on it?

I certainly can, and I want to say that I'm just proposing for the bike parking pertaining to the church, because I believe things were calculated separately, requirements for the Fraser residential project and for the church. So I'm speaking specifically about the church and actually specifically about short term parking. So just one segment of parking that would, I think, bring the short term bike parking for the church up to 24 spaces.

Questions or discussion about that potential amendment before we straw poll from board members? I do want to ask the applicant if that would create any unforeseen complications. We are not bound to honor what the applicant says, but we would like to consider it.

You know, would it be best just to straw poll first and see if before we involve the applicant?

I would like to know if it's going to create some kind of unforeseen hardship. So thank you.

Scott Rodwin, architect for the Mountain View Church. No, it won't create an impossible-to-overcome hardship. We will struggle to find space for that many bike parking spaces, and they likely will not be used, just given the average age and very well-tracked current usage by the current members, but it's something that could be accepted if necessary.

Thank you for that. Okay, with that input, let's draw a poll. Who would be interested in this?

Can I ask Claudia a quick question?

Sure, ML. Sorry, I didn't see your hand.

Well, I just put it up in light of what Scott just said. So, Claudia, you came to a different conclusion than what the church proposed. Can you speak a little bit more about that? Why do you think that they need actually more than they suggested they needed?

Absolutely. So I'm not convinced in this case that a survey of current users is an appropriate way to determine bike parking needs for the church use. Again, separating this completely from Frayser as the residential community with what will always be a senior population, probably less inclined to use bicycles. But the church does serve a much broader population in the community, not only in its congregation, but in the kinds of community events and assemblies that potentially happen there. So I would like to have that bike parking provision more in line with what we're asking for in other parts of the city.

Got it.

Thank you for that. At the risk of being difficult. It's never stopped me so far. Claudia, would you be amenable rather than an outright provision that they must provide this parking at site review with some sort of monitor and adjust plan similar to the way that Fraser Meadows has?

I would prefer not to go that direction, but I'm not going to die on this hill either.

Let's have lots of not dying tonight. Okay, so let's go to Claudia's suggested amendment, straw polling. This is not an official vote. Who would be interested in a potential condition that short-term bike parking for the church should be 50% reduction rather than 75% reduction? Raise your hand, please. I've got one, two, three, four. So that passes.

Yes, I've got ML.

So I've got ML. Let's do it again. Let's do it again. Who's got their hands up? So I've got ML, Kurt, Claudia, and Max, four. So that would be likely to pass. So we'll go ahead and I'll suggest that you make that an actual proposed amendment. Okay, next we have Kurt's potential proposed amendment about the size of the garage being just one story rather than two. Kurt, do you want to speak to that anymore before we straw poll it?

Yeah, just I'll quickly reiterate what I said. I feel that this would be consistent with site review criterion 9214H. No, H1G2, which talks about excavation and the amount of excavation. And I think it's also pertinent to a lot of the concerns that we've heard about the amount of traffic that we would be seeing potentially on Sioux. Also, the excavation, the construction and excavation impacts, the amount of The dust noise, all that sort of thing. And so, um, to the extent that we can reduce the amount of. Excavation that happens, I think that that would be very appropriate. They're already they're proposing to add 99, uh, net, um. parking spaces this would reduce that somewhat but it would not in the way I view it it wouldn't reduce it by half it wouldn't reduce the the underground parking by half because a significant amount of their parking area basically gets lost because of the ramp and I'm not a parking expert so I would want to verify that but that's sure the way it looks to me and so it feels like it would ameliorate a lot of the concerns that we're hearing from the neighborhood and also address city council's concern when this came in concept review to city council they requested a significant reduction in the amount of parking kurt could you tell us the citation again what what's the code section and i'd like to get it pulled up on the screen because it sounds like there's maybe a little bit of

judgment in whether it applies or not.

Yeah, so the one that refers to excavation is 9214 H 1 G 2. 1 G 2.

So, Kurt, am I reading that right? As maybe they're pulling it up. It begins with where excavation occurs. Where excavation occurs, the location and design of building conform to the natural contours of the land with tiered floor plates and avoids over-engineered tabling of land. Slopes greater than 50% should be avoided to any extent practicable, and any such area shall be stabilized with vegetation.

I'm intuiting some intent from there, but my interpretation of that is an understanding that we want to minimize excavation and The way I read this is when this criterion was written, the only excavation that was being considered was excavation on slopes. But I think that it begins with where excavation occurs. And I think that it was generally trying to address the impacts of excavation and especially large amounts of excavation. That's my interpretation.

So I asked for this citation because I think I probably share where Mark is coming from. For me, it feels like a stretch to apply this to excavation of an underground garage. I would not be able to make that argument. If I were imagining myself in court, I'm not a lawyer, but I think I would be unable to make that argument apply. So with that in mind, Mark, did you have a comment?

I'm urging us to pull it.

Okay. All right. Before we pull it, I would like to ask the applicant, what would be the impact if we were to have a condition that you could have just one level of parking? What would be the impact on the project? If you could please turn on the mic. Yep.

I almost never have to be told to use a microphone. I just want to remind you, we did reduce the parking significantly, I think by 90 or more stalls. And one of the other major concerns that the neighbors have brought up consistently, even before the project was the number of parking cars that we have parked, employee cars that we have parked on the streets now. So we've also tried to embrace this as a good neighbor act. to get cars off the street and in this underground parking. So it would be, we feel like we've done a lot to make this a reasonable win-win for everyone.

Thank you. And how many parking spaces are in that second level?

It's actually a level and a half, isn't it? It's a level and a half and...

No, parking, parking.

Car parking. Everyone's getting tired. We think close to 90 spaces. I'm sorry, say again. Close to 90 spaces.

That you would lose. We would lose. From that second level. Okay.

Which would be under our demand.

I'm sorry, it would be under...

We would no longer be able to. Oh, sorry. I'm Cassie Slade with Fox Tuttle, the traffic engineer on this project. If we took out those 90 spaces, we would not meet the demand that we need for Fraser and the church. And then anything that would not be able to park in this parking garage would now be on street.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Are we ready to poll? Anyone who would be interested in this condition, adding this as a condition, sir, I'll poll. Please put your hand up. Got Kurt. Okay, got one. All right, thank you. Okay, so moving on, I think the only one that is left, ML, if you don't mind, I'm going to...

I had one. Oh, sorry, sorry. Kurt, you had a second condition that you wanted to propose.

Yes, go ahead.

Yeah. Sorry. It is, the project will provide welcoming and inviting signage to the satisfaction of staff. I don't know quite where to put that clause. That makes clear that Ponca Place remains publicly accessible as a through street. This is not, this would be something that would need to be dealt with through tech docs because it's nothing we can address here. So that's where the staff input comes in.

Yes, to the satisfaction of staff, yep.

So if we can't address it here because we can't condition it because it's not addressed in the site review criteria, then is it anything more than a comment, a request

Well, I think it very much addresses the site review criteria, but it's not part of what is the site review submittal materials. Right. That's the difference.

I'm not opposed to this. What I'm asking is, and we've just been hearing that signage. is not part of the site review, right?

So, Mark, I think the distinction Kurt is making is that signage is not submitted for review at site review. But if we think that signage is necessary to address the site review criteria on access and circulation, then we can include it as a condition, even if we didn't review their whole signage plan.

Yeah, and I feel that it's very relevant to 9214 H-2A. which is all about access and circulation, transportation.

Okay, so it is something that we can condition upon.

I mean, I would look to the city attorney's office, but we have done so in the past.

Yeah, I think that you have justification under the criteria that Kurt referenced. Okay, great.

Okay, thank you for keeping us on the straight and narrow. It's also in our written statement that we're committed to it, so...