February 21, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Of engagement for the making. Thank you, John, and there was a question from the public about entering email, and we do require for public participation each time. So I will go through and explain the public engagement part of the meeting. So it's always finding and let's see. Yeah, the slides pulled up. And so, as I mentioned, we'll start with open comment, and we want our participants to know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by the city, staff and community for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue, while also recognizing. We want to make sure. Everyone who participates tonight feels 6, and we want to ensure that we make space for different viewpoints and our meetings

[1:08] because we believe it leads to more informed decision making next one. and we have a lot of information on our website. If you want to learn more about what we call our. There's a number of rules of decorum that are found in the folder revised code. and we have some general guidelines that are advisory in nature to share with all of our meeting participants this evening. and we ask that all remarks and testimony race tonight be related to city business. and we will not allow any participant to make threats, or use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obscenity's racial epithet, and other speech of behavior that disrupts the meeting, or otherwise makes it impossible for us to continue, is prohibited. and we do also ask that all participants identify themselves by the name they are commonly known and use first and last name, please, so we can call on. We know who is providing that next slide.

[2:09] As you notice. We're in the Zoom Webinar format, and this allows for participants from the public to speak at the designated times. But we will not be training on video for community members because of security concerns in this platform. and there's no pre-existing list for signing up to participate. Today. So you need to raise your virtual hand at the appropriate time to speak. And you'll see a couple of different ways to do this At the bottom of the screen you'll see a horizontal menu that has a clickable hand next slide. And if you have an expanded menu you can also get to the right hand iphone by clicking on reactions. So that's it for the kind of technical things. And I just want to stress the point that the public participation part of the meeting coming up next is a chance for you to share topics outside of the agenda with the planning board.

[3:01] Thank you again for joining us tonight and over to you. Chair. Okay. So as as Vivian said, the first item on our agenda is public participation. and this is the time when members of the public can address planning board on any issue except those for which there is a public hearing item tonight. and we have one public hearing item, and that is the concept Plan Review for 56 75 0r alcohol. So if your comments pertain to that, then please wait until we engage in that public hearing portion of the meeting. But if you want to talk to us about anything else. now is the time. And, Vivian, I guess you'll be managing the the that portion of the meeting tonight. sure. So we have one hand so far. That's Lynn Siegel. And definitely you could just get the timer ready. Please.

[4:01] Lyn: yeah, you have 3 3 min to share your comments. Go ahead waiting for the others first. Thanks. thanks, Lynn. Anybody else from the public wish to to share any comments during this portion there'll be a public hearing later for the agenda. Item. Okay. Nobody that was short. Okay. So now we are moving to a discussion of dispositions and call ups. We have one item tonight to consider, and that is a final plan to subdivide the property at 2675, Third Street. and that's a potential call-up item. If any member of the board decides they want to do that. So now it's the time where we can, if you have any questions of staff

[5:04] we can can get those address to before deciding whether to call it up or not. Does anyone have for questions? Mark? Is that your hand up, Mark, or what? Once again I I do, have I? I just have a couple of questions, and i'm not going to call this up, but i'm and I i'm again. I'm operating on a single screen here. So just 1 s here, while I get to my notes. My my my first question about this is. why why is this happening, and why is the existing easement and property designations inadequate? So the first one is, why. yeah. and more from the the planning department. I can try to answer that for you. So yeah, the the property currently has an access easement over it that was dedicated when the trail had subdivision was cladded back in 2,013.

[6:15] My understanding is that the the current property owner spoke with open space staff. and there is a desire to actually dedicate that portion of the property. so that that you would have more complete control over the maintenance of that space. And and just how that space is being used. So that was. That was kind of how it came about. So it's it's not an adversarial. I mean this. In fact, it sounds like the homeowner. The property owner is more formally. It is actually giving the property that that portion of the property to the city, or or they more formalizing the the easement and access.

[7:03] So there is. There is an existing access there that was dedicated back when the trail had subdivision was plotted about 10 years ago. and my understanding is yes, they would like to actually split that piece of it off that northern little slice of it, and actually donate that to the city, and that would just give the city a little bit more complete control over it. Complete control of the maintenance and and everything going on. Okay? Great, that's that's encouraging. I'm. I have. you know, been aware, over the years of both the city and the county drafting access, and you know I I can't think of the word right now, anyway. But stopping up development rights and and that sort of stuff of of different properties associated with either city or counting open space.

[8:02] and 20 0r 30 years later, suddenly the the 2 parties Don't, agree on what they thought they agreed upon 20 0r 30 years ago, and so I was concerned that this was again something like that. But it doesn't seem like that so as long as it's, not adversarial, and everyone's happy with this, then that sounds great, but it it. It made me wonder if what we did in 2,013 was inadequate or somehow misdrafted. But it doesn't sound like that. Yeah, that's that's my understanding is that there was just discussions between the the current property owner and and staff with our open space, and they were. They were both happy with the proposal. Great? Okay, Thank you very much. That's it for me.

[9:00] Okay, Laura, you have your hand up there. I had the same question as Mark, but so I think that's answered. But it looks like Bethany Collins from Osmp. Turned her vide0 0n, and I just wanted to see if there was something she wanted to tell us. So that's my question. No, she hi everyone. Bethany Collins. I'm the real estate manager for open space and mountain parks, and I was just turning on in case I needed to to answer additional questioning that that Shannon couldn't, but she's covered it pretty well it was. If there's nothing adversarial about it, it's a donation from these property owners. you know. and and frankly, that portions of the trail are actually outside of the dedicated easement. And so this is helping to clean all of those things up and transfer management and control of this this widely used trail segment to t0 0pen space.

[10:04] Thank you, Bethany. Sure. Okay. Thank you. I had a a brief question also, and I understand that this is part of the trail. What was previously the trail heads of division that was approved several years ago, and where the older Junior Academy school was previously. and I just want to make sure that this has no impact on the ability of the public to move across the 3 11 Mapleton properly, which is, which is to the to the North, where the old Age home is being developed. Is there? Does this transaction have any impact at all on what happens on 3 11. Mapleton it doesn't and i'm not sure if you remember not as part of the approvals there they did dedicate a trail easement to the city. I had to convey a trail. He's been to the city over the portion of the trail that is als0 0n their property. So we? And they have done that

[11:12] right. I remember that very, very well. Okay. So not not. Nothing is happening on that in that area. Okay, thank you very much. You're welcome. So does anybody wish to call this matter up? Seeing none, I guess planning board is decided not to call it up so. Thanks very much for the information and showing up tonight and telling us about it. Thank you, Shan. Thank you all right. So with that we'll move to the next item on our agenda tonight, which is the onset plan, review, and comment request for

[12:12] so I think it would be up to you as chair and your prerogative if you wanted to reopen public comment for that 3 min comment or not. 0 0kay, If somebody wanted to speak, it was enabled to. Okay. Okay, Well, let's let's give him a chance. I'm. Not even seeing who it is. But, Vivian, do you want to manage that? Yeah, sure. It's Lynn Siegel, and we'll start the timer now. Sorry for the misunderstanding. All right. Thanks for having me. Yeah. thank you. I said. I just wanted to be the last to speak. I didn't. I don't know what else I can do like. You can talk back to me. It's not the end of the world

[13:01] I wanted. I erased on my bike to get here so like, and I race down my bike because I was trying to find my catalytic converter was stolen. and I was trying to go to Geico to get to find an address in Boulder that I can serve a small claim suit. and I went to Geico. But Chico is not there. Guess what they're across from embassy sweets in a big, empty commercial building with Gibbons white all over it, and finally, after 10 min of riding around to find their address. and they don't have any other dresses. I can't serve them small claims if they're in another place very easily in Westminster or North Korean. But guess what they left. They left 11 months ago. They left because of this planning board and this city council's policy of giveaways give away that raise the rent for commercial people that raise the rent for all of us. The 20 s and Pearl is the perfect example.

[14:04] It is not. I repeat, not going to make things more affordable in Boulder. It's going to make things less affordable. It is 1,700 t0 2600 without a parking space for 300 square feet. It's basically an airbnb. but it's a like, or a hotel. You could say like a hotel. All the rooms are going to be the same. They're robotic furniture. and guess what? Now? On highways. There's storage lockers all along the highways. So those people when they, because guess what they're not going to stay in their 300 square foot place, and the communal space isn't that big. I went, and I walked it to Laura. I walked all around that little parking lot. It'd be great if there's some housing in there but not 45 that isn't improving things. Here those lie tech funds, those Federal funds. Those are not free.

[15:01] They aren't free boulder housing partners is not free. What's happening is, you're allowing all of this density, 63 t0 165 at balsam and spruce. and all that's going to do is make the developer happy because they get rent from 45 people at twenty-second in pearl instead of 10 0r something less than that something reasonable. And how many people are using that sink in that bathroom. you know my brother is in between jobs now. He's staying at my brother's house, and my brother won't even let him. You know he's in the shed. My brother won't even let him in the house to use the bathroom because of vaccination issues. There's a housing crisis in Boulder, a severe one. Wake up. Thanks for your contribution, Lynn, and sorry about the misunderstanding earlier

[16:01] over to you, John. Okay, thank you. All right. So once again i'll bring the public public participation section of this meeting to a close. and we'll move ahead with the Onset Plan Review and for proposal to develop 56 75, a rapical a case number L. You are 2,022, and we'll start out with a presentation by Staff. followed by comments from the applicant, and there, after questions. Oh, sorry public public comment, and then questions by the Board. So take it away. Oh, and I should mention that I see we have Chandler and Scott making the presentation, and he is coming back to Boulder after quite a few years away. But

[17:02] some of the old-timers around here remember him making presentations to planning board on on other projects. And so I just like to welcome Chandler back, and we're very happy that you're here. Thanks, John. I appreciate it just to check. Are you guys seeing the presentation view here? Just just the screen, or are you also seeing my side slides? We're seeing the side slides? Okay. how about now? It looks like it's thinking and trying. But it's. I still see the side slides. Okay. there he goes. Now we've got full screen. Okay, excellent. So good evening. Plan Board members. I'll be presenting on the concept plan for a technical office use at 56 75 Arabs Avenue.

[18:14] I'll briefly cover the information provided in a staff's memo, including purpose of concept, Plan and review guidelines existing site, conditions and surrounding context, and a description of the proposed concept for the site as well as some key issues for discussion. So the purpose of concept Plan Review is to determine the general development plan for a particular site, and to help identify key issues in advance of a site. Reduce the middle. The applicant will receive comments from the board, from staff and from the public. and no formal action is being taken tonight on the project. So, in terms of public notification, a written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet of subject property. A notice was also posted on the property, and as of now, we have not received any public comments on the proposal.

[19:09] So Here you can see the site's location again. 56 75 0r apple hosts located in East Boulder. just east of 50 Fifth Street, and just north of Arapaho immediately across the street from the golf course. The site's approximately 9.8 acres in size, and it was formerly the site of Granville Phillips, which was a research and development facility. and as you can see it's currently vacant. So in terms of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, Landy's designation, the landing designation for this site is light, industrial. So the description of that in the Bvcp reads that L. I. Uses are concentrated primarily in industrial parks located within the gun Barrel area, and along Longmont, diagonal and north of Grap Ho Avenue, between 33 and 63

[20:01] uses consist primarily of research and development, light manufacturing and assembly media and storage, or other intensive employment Uses. residential and other complementary uses are encouraged in appropriate locations. The site is also within the boundaries of the recently adopted East Boulder Sub-community plan. The land use designation. There is the same. It reflects the the Bvc. P. It's light industrial. It's not located within an area of change, although, as you can see here, it is close to the fifty-fifth and a rap host station area that's the pink checkered area over there. it is identified as a future area of study on page thirty- of the ebsp. The important part of that is underlined here to accommodate light industrial operations and access in this area, as well as increase safety for new residential and mixed use development of surrounding properties. This area should be pursued for further study potential issues to evaluate include increased network access to the area and consolidation of curved cuts along Rappho Avenue.

[21:05] So the site is zoned Industrial general or Ig. This is defined as areas where a a wide range of light industrial uses, including research and manufacturing operations and service industrial uses, are located. Residential uses and other complementary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations. So building form in the Ig zone is determined largely by far. There's a 0 point. 5 far limit. Max. Building height is 40 feet. except in certain situations which I'll get to later parking requirements, or one space per 400 square feet of floor area. Research and development uses are allowed by right and well, so i'll back up. So Council just recently approved an ordinance updating the land use table, which i'm sure you guys might be familiar with. So the technical office use category has actually been removed from the code

[22:03] and essentially consolidated into the broader office use category. So even though this concept plan came in as a technical office, use quote, unquote in the future. Moving forward, they would essentially have to reclassify the use as either research and development which would be allowed by right or as an office use, in which case office uses over 50,000 square feet and size would require a use review under the new provisions. So here's a little about the surrounding context. On the site is highlighted in yellow. So much of the surrounding development is characteristic of the Ig. Land uses a variety of warehouse manufacturing and auto-service oriented uses. Land uses immediately surrounding the property, include a cyan tech Inc. Which is a research and manufacturing to the West Burning Tree Office warehouses to the east, and the Union Pacific Railroad borders the site to the north.

[23:05] and then, as I mentioned before, across the Rappho Avenue to the south is the flat irons municipal golf course. So this is just burial phot0 0f the existing site. As you can see, it is currently vacant. So in terms of flood plan. Wetland concerns a significant site feature is the existing approximately half acre Man-made Pond that's on the south part of the site, and I can show you that's you can see it on the south part of the site. There it looks kind of dry, but it is there. The pond and Dry Creek number 2. Ditch or designated wetlands, is set forth in the city Wetland regulations. The pond is considered the origin of Dry Creek Ditch Number 2 that flows from the pond off the property toward the northwest. and the ditch eventually flows below the railroad bridge west of the site. The property is also impacted by the 100 year conveyance and high hazard flood boundaries.

[24:07] so they will require a floodplain development permit for work in those areas. The proposed access regarding transit the site to serve by access to Rtd. Along both Arapaho and 50 Fifth street trip. Generation study will be required prior t0 0r at the time of site review, to determine if a traffic study will be required. The site is located adjacent to the future alignment of the Rtd. Fast Tracks rail corridor that will hopefully someday connect Denver to Boulder and Longmont Rtv proposed that a Passenger station be located along the section of this corridor, between Fifty-fifth and 60 Third Streets. However currently, there's no public funding to build this station or other related facilities, so that issue will be discussed at a later time.

[25:04] So, in terms of the proposed project, as I met, as I mentioned before, the proposal came in as a technical office use which are now to qualify as either office research, development, or some other light industrial use. The proposed building height is 45 feet. This is allowed per the conditional height standards in section 976 0f the code. because the site is not adjacent to any residential zones or residential development, so they can essentially go t0 45 feet by right. The total floor area proposed for the project is 206,400 square feet, about 85,000, and building a and about 122,000, and building b which equates to a total far of point 4 9 8, so right it right at about the point. 5 limit in terms of parking. They're proposing 60 surface spaces and 500 underground spaces. So a total of 560 parking spaces.

[26:03] where 516 would be the requirement per ig. Zone standards. So i'm going to go through the proposed project, and I just want to let everyone know that there was a kind of a snapping with a submittal, and I guess the applicant had thought they had submitted architectural renderings. but we had not received them. So I did get those architectural renderings today, and so I will be showing those to you, and I apologize because it will be pretty much real time. Feedback and staff do not really have time to evaluate the renderings themselves during the review of this. So, as you can see, the proposed project here is 2 buildings located kind of on the north side of the site. There's an open space area proposed can between the 2 buildings on the northeastern portion of the site. with access taken off of Arapah0 0n the very northern boundary of the site. As it touches the Rappaho. I'm. Kind of skirting the wetlands there

[27:03] and providing access to both the surface parking area as well as the underground lot. These are just building sections, showing the proposed building. Height at 45 feet 3 stories with the underground parking. And then this is the new stuff that you guys have not seen. and again apologies for that. But here are the architectural renderings that were provided by the applicant today. This is a view. Look from the north end of the open space area between the 2 buildings. and then this is just a larger aerial view of the 2 buildings in the context of the surrounding area. So in terms of key issues for discussion, there are just 2 key issues for tonight. First, is a. Is the proposed concept plan, preliminarily consistent with goals, objectives, and recommendations of the PVC. And the second key issue is, if the planning board has feedback on the proposed site, plan, and architecture.

[28:18] so we can move forward to key issue Number one, which is is the proposed concept plan preliminarily consistent with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the BBC. And apologies. Just I'm. I'm a little rusty coming back. Does this open the discussion for this key issue at this point? I think the thing to what we'll do tonight is for you to make the full presentation, and then we'll organize our discussion at the end. But it's. I think it's useful for us to see the full picture before we start getting feedback.

[29:01] Excellent! Okay. So, Kia, she one is just consistency with the Bvcp is feedback on the proposed site plan and architecture, and i'm happy to go back to the architecture slides when you guys get here, obviously. and that is all. So i'm happy to take any questions. Okay, any questions. Or Chandler George. Yeah. A quick question for Channer. Thanks for the presentation. It was very insightful question on the Can you explain it it's more just a point of clarification. Can you explain the maximum height? Here is 40 feet, but since there's no adjacent residential that goes t0 45 feet. Can you explain that a little bit better? Just so I can understand it. Sure. Yeah, that's so in different for different zone districts, you know, we have conditional use standards

[30:05] which is essentially, when or conditional form of bulk standards. In some cases, as this is so sometimes, if something is not quite allowed by right. But we don't. You know the code. Doesn't feel that it's necessary to put the put it through an entire use. Review, or a site review for height modification, then there can be conditional standards that basically allow things under certain conditions. So in in the Ig zone the height is 45 feet. Unless or i'm sorry. The by right height is 40 feet, unless you are on a site that is not adjacent in any way to anything residential, in which case it's 45 feet. Okay. So that 45 feet is the by right height. Here is that. Thank you. Okay, Ml.

[31:01] Thank you, John Chandler. So I have I have. I guess, a clarification. Did I understand you to say. because of the change in the use table definition from technical at at this point. Is it up to the applicant to decide whether it's R&D. Or whether it's office Is that what i'm understanding? Yes, I mean, i'm sure they are. Probably i'm sure they're gonna talk about it in their presentation, and that they already have an idea of exactly what will be there. But we will have to determine which use category they qualify, as was already a fairly broad definition. So

[32:00] we'll just have to wait and see. There's a chance that they they might just be office, or they might be research and development. There's different implications. Okay, thank you for that. You mentioned in your presentation that 516 parking spaces were required. They produce, or they provided, 560 to staff. I don't remember seeing it. Did Staff have any question about the increase. What is that? 40 40? I don't believe there are any comments about them providing in excess of the parking requirement. Thank you for that. And

[33:05] again, staff. thinking that's it. 560 cars. That's a lot of people that will be coming onto this site. And so i'm wondering if Staff had any input or thoughts about the housing work balance implications. To be honest, I did not see anything in there, so and you know, full disclosure. This case was kind of handed off to me when I came back. So the the Drc Review comments already been issued. so i'm fairly familiar with the Drc Review comments, but I do not have them memorized in a way that I would, had I been the one editing them. So I don't think that we mentioned it other than probably in the context of just older, like complaint policies that they should be aware of before they come into site. Review.

[34:09] Great! I know these are kind of. and not Yes, and no answers. But I appreciate your You're trying to get out what i'm asking. Thank you, Chandler. Oh. was that it, Ml: or do you have some more? Okay, Mark? Hi. Thank you, Chandler, for the presentation, and I'm: going to ask a couple of questions that if you can't answer. Maybe Brad or someone else will jump in. And I actually had a little brief conversation with how it today, and and my concern with this particular package, and it's partly explained by the snapf with the applicant, as you said. thinking they had provided elevations and some

[35:11] images, and and that hadn't been done so. Yes, we're seeing that in real time. But so far I've found this particular concept review package to be very light and very thin on details. And so my and I have some comments for the applicant, and and again, those those images were helpful. But you know this is a this is a big project. So my first question is. Does Staff ever tell an applicant. hey? This isn't ready yet for a concept review? And you need to come back with these additional details and requirements as noted in the code.

[36:02] Yes. yes, we do sometimes do that. and I can't really speak for why it wasn't done in this situation. you know, as far as as far as I know, it was just a very busy time in our department, Super understaffed, was before I was rehired. It was after Elaine had retired. So you know the need to anyone or punish anyone. It's it's a it's a real genuine question, and and the the because I I only have a year of experience. And and so that means I don't know. I think maybe we've done 6 0r 7 concept reviews, and they've all very greatly in their level of detail. And and the way the way we've been able to respond, based on that level of detail provided by the applicant. My next question is.

[37:05] Do our applicants allowed to come back for a second concept review. or are they encouraged t0 0r is it discouraged, or what is the what is the mode? Because if you, if it's only concept, review, and site, review, and that's it. And and we have a concept review like this, which again like very light on details, and so consequently very light on my ability to provide any feedback. leaving them open to greater risk under site review, so can an applicant. I request a second Site review Would Staff ever encourage a second site review, or is that allowed at all I I I I understand

[38:00] they can voluntarily come back for a second concept review. We could encourage it. We cannot require it. you know it. It's kind of up to them. If they want provider like concept of view, it's kind of at their own risk, because, as you say, it just it kind of diminishes their ability to receive feedback prior to site Review. You know the Board could recommend that they come back, but but we can't require it. Okay, great. All right. Those are my questions. Thank you very much. Laura. Thank you. I have just a couple of questions. One is, I think, I read in Staff's comments that the applicant would be not just encouraged, but required to relocate that parking. That's kind of towards the front of the proposed site design is that. Am I understanding that correctly? I don't remember seeing comments that would require the relocation of the parking. I think there was a comment about the access point. Possibly

[39:01] it is. You know what I actually I take notes, and I copied down where it was. Let me see if I can find it. Oh, Gosh! Let me see if I can find it. It was in the written comments to the applicants staff has indicated that at the time of site Site review, it will be necessary to relocate the surface parking lot away from the front of the project to a less visible location. Yeah, of not having the parking the front and center center, and having it be more pedestrian, friendly at the front of the buildings that makes sense, and that that does correspond with the Site review criteria. which requires constructing the parking and essentially the least visible location. So yes, it is very likely that we would ask them to move the parking

[40:03] to be screened by the buildings. Okay, good to know. So those and I thought those drawings were quite attractive. By the way, the ones that were new tonight. I don't know if you want to put those up on the screen, but it sounds like that's gonna have to change substantially with both the the ask that they close one of the curb cuts. and I think you were recommending that they they close the one that's to the East. and that they share an access with their neighbor to the East. and then also that this parking lot that we kind of see in the lower right portion of the screen that that parking lot would have to go back where they currently have open space like back behind the buildings. Am I understanding that right? So it's possible that that they could even leave it there if they came up with some.

[41:04] you know, acceptable screening, or something like that. But in general site. Review usually requires, or at least strongly encourages, that they place service parking behind buildings or in an area that's not visible from adjacent right away. Okay, Thank you. That was my one question, and then I have one more, which is so. I did. I did go walk. This sites. This is a a piece of advice I took from Crystal Gray is go visit whenever you can. So I did walk around here. That pond is completely dry right now and then this. This spot where the buildings are located is quite steeply elevated, right like it kind of goes up maybe 4 0r 5 feet all of a sudden, and I was just curious. Do we know the history there like it almost looks like it's fill, or something. and I don't know the entire history. But I did speak with Kristen Shepherd today for a little while. Our our floodplain engineer and

[42:03] a lot of it relates to. So the fact that this site is in the 100 year and high hazard flood plane. I guess we adopted a new modeling software for this portion of boulder. So South Boulder Creek. You know we use floodplain modeling essentially to determine whether building proposals are acceptable, because they have to show that they're not going to increase the flood elevation on neighboring properties, etc. And so there's different flood models that apply to different portions of the city and the flood model that we use for South Boulder Creek here is called the Mic Model. which I guess is a very complex and burdensome model. And so this site had a site and use review approval, I believe, and

[43:01] in 2010 0r there abouts. And so that was when the Granville Phillips building was demolished, so they they received approval for a new project. They demolished the old buildings. and they put a bunch of fill on the site to bring the building location out of the flood plane. But while they were doing that, or shortly after they accomplished that, we adopted the new flood modeling for South Boulder Creek and the applicant determined that the modeling requirements were too burdensome, and therefore they did not build the project. So they basically took steps to elevate the building site out of the flood plane and then decided they weren't going to build Okay, and that and that was for a previous concept of having storage units here, which would have been a much less valuable land use than this office space, so maybe it's worth it to them now. Okay, so that's that explains why there's that sort of sharp, gradient increase that there is some fill there. How does that interact with the idea of having subterranean parking

[44:05] the Does that have to comply with anything regarding our flood plain regulations, or is it just? It's a garage you have to put some pumps in. You know everything. They'll have to go through the floodplain development permit process to build anything on the site. So whether it's and and I may defer to the applicant here, if they, if they've already been thinking about this to to kind of address in their presentation. so i'm not sure if there would be pumps required or not. In the end. They just have to demonstrate that they're, you know, not affecting the wetlands, or that they're mitigating any effects they have on the wetlands that they're not increasing the flood elevations on or around the site. Okay, thank you that those are my questions. I will lower my hand. Okay, Ml. Thank you, John. I I have a follow up to what Laura was talking about. My.

[45:02] the 500 parking. the 500 auto parking lot underground in a. So we have flood plane. We have a wetlands. We have a ditch. We have a lot of water basically on the site. and i'm wondering if the staff had any input for thought about that relative to creating a sustainable urban form which is one of the folder valley call plan policies for this kind of a for light industrial. The relationship between. I mean, that's a huge whole. Where we know that water is an issue. Did that I I didn't really see it. It seems what I. What I saw out of the staff information was. It'll have to go through a review, and it'll have to meet things. But was there any

[46:08] conversation or kind of putting it back to. Is this a sustainable thing to d0 0n a site that's got this kind of water? So I don't think there is a conversation specifically about the underground parking in terms of sustainable urban form. I I mean, I think, that we look at floodplain and wetland issues pretty holistically when they come in. So if if they can show that they can safely build underground parking on this site, and meet all of our requirements and provide the necessary hydraulic reports and everything. Then I think we're okay with it. And this I I apologize. I don't know the that part of the code really well. But is there

[47:01] the requirement to keep the storm water and the previousness on site? Yes. thank you. Okay, I I'd like to follow up with the Ml's questions there on on the water. And this is, I presume, the applicant is listening to, because i'd like them to address my my concerns als0 0ne is that there are probably a number of water rights associated with the pond and the irrigation. The dry Creek ditch number 2 that could be of concern in the the changes that are being proposed in this site. And so i'd like to know if Staff has mentioned that, or to the applicant, and how the applicant is thinking of responding to that. and the second concern or question I have is with respect to the poll, and

[48:05] what the city's approach is with respect to possible hydraulic impacts of a of a garage with some pumping, pulling down the water level in an area where we are also attempting to to maintain a wetland in a pond and keeping it wet. And so my question goes both to staff and and later on to the applicant on that topic. Sure. I mean, I can say that in terms of the the water rights and the ditch. I don't think that we mentioned anything there, because Those are generally kind of State level legal issues, so they they can't really mess with the water rights in the ditch. But I don't think that we really got into that yet. It might be something. We consider it site review, if it seems like there's going to be an impact. But yeah, I can let the applicant discuss that further if they want. And then in terms of the potential impacts of the wetlands. you know again and through through the floodplain development permit process. They essentially have to show that they're not

[49:12] impacting the wetlands so, and that's just period right? Or that they're mitigating any adverse impacts. So we would not approve a hydraulic pump system if those plans showed that there was any potential for that pump to suck water out of the protected wetlands. Okay, Thank you. All right. Any? Oh, no, Go ahead. thank you, John. You prompted me to look at my list again. And so Chandler, one last question under the Bv. Cp. 2.2 0ne number 3. It talks about mix of uses. and you know, is this project I didn't see it. I just saw the R. And D. Of office.

[50:04] Is there a mix of uses? They're not proposing a mix of uses, but it would be allowed. Yeah, depending on the other uses. It would it could be allowed they could have a mix they could have like. I don't know restaurant. Yeah, I mean it. I don't have the use table in front of me right now. so depend on the use. You know there's there's some uses that are prohibited out right in Ig. But you know, I know just at to use the example that you used like restaurant, or a tap room, or something like that is allowed through a user view, it has certain conditional use standards associated with it. But yes, I mean in general, there's nothing in the code that says they can only have one use on this site.

[51:06] So if they did want to propose a mix of uses that that is theoretically possible. Thank you. George. Yeah. I wonder if staff could chime in relative to the total square footage on the site. and the fact that they're asking to park 560 cars on the site. Do you have a sense of the range based on the proposed use of how many people would be occupying this site at any one time? We they did not provide any numbers in terms of expected number of employees or anything like that. So no, not really. But I. I would defer that to the applicant for a city as calculations. It relates to what these different uses are, and what the what the total employees could be right.

[52:05] I mean there's occupancy standards. Those are more kind of building code related. So you know, we have maximum occupancy for buildings of certain size with a certain use. Classification I don't know. To be honest, I would have to talk to someone in building and get back to you with that information. Yeah, that that would be interesting. I think I think it's to M. L's point. I I think the biggest, at least from my perspective. The biggest consideration is going to be sort of how this impacts job housing and balance, and and you know what we can anticipate. You know what the citizens of Boulder can just say for job creation or employment here. Just so we can plan for it. Understood? Yeah, I can find that information.

[53:00] Thank you. Yeah. I I see how I has appeared. Usually that happens when she has some wisdom to share with us. So how long do you have any thoughts for us? No, I just turned my camera on when we went to questions just to make sure you knew I'm here, and I'm: okay. all right. I just wanted to follow up on George's point, and just for Chandler's benefit. I you might want to check in with Kathleen King, who did the modeling for the East Boulder Subcommittee plan, because I think that they did try to model like how many jobs per different land use, or different zoning or different, You know. types of uses. So she might have some modeling there that could be useful for you in terms of round numbers. Okay. Okay, Any further questions for staff. All right, let's invite the applicant to give us a presentation of what they're thinking of here.

[54:07] Hi! Can you guys hear us? Yes. awesome. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. There's a couple of things that we wanted to address before we get into the formal present shape Presentation. Just listening to your comments. Let me go full screen. Okay. First, I also want to note that with us is Kyle Flippin. With Schnitzer West. Schnitzer has been a long term partner with the city of Boulder. They developed a residential site just west of this property, at fifty-fifth in Arapaho, called Park Mosaic, so pilots here to answer any questions on behalf of the owner that you guys might have the other 2 things that we wanted to address just before we go into the presentation. I'm with Oz architecture I didn't introduce that I've been with, or presenting to, the planning Board and City Council for the last 10 years as a 60 year old firm, and is responsible for a lot of

[55:10] positive development in boulder, and we take a lot of our work in Boulder seriously, and do so and partner with clients that want to deliver great to the extent or the questions around the concept sub middle. Our firm is incredibly familiar with the requirements of the concept package. We provided everything on the checklist, and we we just found out that the renderings were not received. So I want to apologize to you for that. It's not something that is obviously intentional, and our firm is very well aware of the requirements of concept. and very much look forward to hearing your questions and comments around the design, so that we can integrate that into site, review, and tech Doc Moving forward. The next item just to address, we submitted this concept application in august of 2022.

[56:03] At that time the Use review was not, or the use standards were not adopted, and so we did not want to propose something that was not currently adopted, and we understand now what was historically technical office is now research and development, and our proposed project would align with the use standards within a research and development use so just to proactively identify some of those questions that you all had before or earlier. i'll move into the presentation itself. Chandler did a great job of introducing the project to you, and some of this will be duplicative. But what we want to really do is give you a little bit more flavor on the decisions that have been made to get to this project where we are today. So, in terms of the context, you all saw this aerial rendering obviously a Rappaho and fifty-fifth is right up here. The project that i'm referring t0 0ur our Our client developed, is park mosaic, which is off to the left of the screen. and a residential development. That's that's really successful.

[57:09] We also are aware of that extensive work and redevelopment that's happening in flattened business park, and the industrial uses that are next to us. Despite our for 60 year history, we want to make sure that you know that we are very well aware of the conversations that are happening around this very important. Our site obviously identified here in navy blue, which is the only color that's not in. This really colorful key is shown here, and there's a couple of takeaways that we had that we took when we were looking at this, and also engaging with the East Folder Subcommittee plan. The first is that it's not identified in as an area of change like flatter and business Park is as well as the 55 in a Rappaho station adjacent to us. and its use designation remains as light industrial as Chandler mentioned. So all of those influencers helped us

[58:09] propose what is currently here today, and we feel like it really well aligns with not only the history that's been that that's been uncovering over the most recent months, but it also respects the future, and where the city is trying to go With respect to these locations in areas that are remaining industrial. Just another indication of exactly what's right next to us. On both sides of our site we main light, industrial, and and are indicated as in not indicated as an area of change. S0 0n both of our sides flanking us. And then up here to the left hand side of the sheet we have the fifty-fifths in a wrap, a host sub area station, which is intended to be mixed. Use to we'll talk a little bit more in the presentation, but our site, and working with transportation and site, Review and tech dots.

[59:00] Tech ducks will start to connect the rest of the neighborhood, which is also aligns with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan and creating those walkable neighborhoods in these areas that currently are not the existing site. As you guys are all well familiar with. We talked. A lot of great discussion happened around the the wetlands and the grading, and we'll address some of those items in our presentation here. We do just want to point out the existing site. Access points currently. Our proposal remains or proposes to keep both of them, and we'll show you how, for a life, safety, and circulation that adds value to the site. And then, next, a lot of discussion was around the flood zone as well as the wetlands. So currently our development. Our building does not is not being proposed outside of the flood zone boundary, meaning there's there will not, or mapping shows that there will not be water in a 500 0r 100 year flood on the developable area that we are proposing for this building, like Chandler mentioned, because we have work in the flood way. We will go through a flood permit to do that work, but the building itself

[60:16] and the garage, and some of the comments around that are questions to a flood zone at all. Next, we have the wetlands boundary. We are very well aware of the importance of high functioning wetlands in the city of Boulder, and you'll see, as we start to go through our perspectives, how we're doing our best to really respect and preserve and hopefully enhance that area, so that it adds more value than maybe what's currently existing with the overgrown trees. So the site plan that you guys all saw earlier. So this starts to add a little bit more context. We're proposing our primary entry off of Arapaho to be the Western most curb cut.

[61:01] You can See here, we're showing the that other curb cut as it as remaining just to provide that constant fire and service access around the building. But it is not intended to be a daily vehicular access for our for our users. We'll show this in our section, or we'll talk about this specifically, but we are using that grade t0 0ur advantage in the building Most of the time. Parking has to go above grade in this instance, because the site is elevated, we're using that to the site's advantage to allow all of the below grade parking to park underneath the building and out of sight from anyone passing by, and also maintaining as much of the green space and open space on the site as possible. Even where we have the 60 surface spaces shown, we are showing those as permeable pavers to help mitigate our water quality

[62:00] within the project as well. The building so similar to the or to align with the previous diagram that we talked about are outside of the Wetlands area and als0 0utside of the flood plain area. And we're proposing, or we've oriented the buildings to really take advantage of flat iron views, solar orientation. You can see an indication for the amount of solar array on the rooftop. as well as the faces that are all organized and oriented to the western side of the property, to maintain the the primary flat earned views. Continuing to the perspective here, we just wanted to add some color. I mean. Obviously, you're familiar with the quality of development in your West, based on the 50 Fifth and Arapaho site, and this project would be no different. We are proposing a best in class building. We're exploring innovative sustainable strategies, including sensitivity t0 0ur carbon footprint, energy efficiency measures.

[63:04] And we're als0 0rganizing the views or the building to respect not only the site and the existing wetlands, as well as the flood plain, but also the flat irons and our neighbors. There was previous discussion that I can comment on just in terms of mix of uses generally as we go through a concept or site, review application. We don't designate mix of uses in the site, and you can see here, because the building is so far, or because of the wetlands, and how we're trying to respect that it probably isn't an ideal location for food and beverage or restaurants, or anything like that that was mentioned. And and because it's so far off of the the the street frontage itself. Yeah. We also like to generally leave flexibility, and how we design these buildings to allow for all of the science and technology users that will be using these buildings. So as we move into the design, the columns facing the the floor to floor, height, the loading, the service, all of that is incredibly important for research and developers.

[64:10] especially when it comes to loading and access. So again, maintaining this full circle for fire and service to support the science and research users. We do need to support their need to have large deliveries come to the project, and so part of that service and circulation is, is really intentionally integrated into this plan. We also are really trying to build a campus of research and innovation here, so to the extent that outdoor space can also be maximized to leverage great workspace and work environments for our users is what we're proposing. So you don't see a sea of parking on the surface level. We see a active plaza and a for outdoor gatherings within this design as well.

[65:04] This section really wants to talk to you about the garage, and starts to show where the height or how it integrates with the berm. So you can see the low point is approximately right here, and the high point is here, the parking just tucks right under that, allowing the the buildings to be on top of or completely cover the surface in lieu of parking. We're also working to design high efficiency, mezzanine, space and or lab space, so that we can accommodate our science users as much as possible. Chandler covered the 45 foot building heights, which we are very well familiar with in our work in boulder as well. So hopefully this starts to provide a little bit more color on how the parking integrates with the building, and why it makes so much sense just to tuck it under the buildings themselves.

[66:00] With that I believe that covers our presentation, but hopefully gives you guys a little bit more context int0 0ur thoughts, and organizing the building to not only valley comp plan the East Folder sub-community plan, but also service. The needs of our science and technology users and create a really highly dynamic. highly quality or high quality workspace for those for those users. So with that we are here to answer any questions and look forward to hearing your feedback, so that we could integrate that into the next phase of this process. Okay. thank you. All right. Board questions of the applicant. George. Yeah, I guess my question is in reference to the 60 spaces of surface parking. And why even have that at all.

[67:02] when you have such a availability of parking that you've planned for underneath the building. If you could. If you could enlighten us on that, that'd be great. Yeah, absolutely. And we're not as we move into the next phases of the project reducing the underground parking, let's say, t0 0ffset surface parking, or vice versa, is something that comes with the next layer of design. But initially, those 60 spaces, or however many we end up on the surface of the project, were intended to be short term parking spaces. So let's say a a visitor, or somebody coming for an hour, or something like that, instead of parking in the garage and experiencing, or the arrival expression from underground to the lobby, just being able to have a convenience of pulling straight on the surface and then walking into the lobby itself. And our thought of minimizing the impact of those surface spaces was to create the permeable papers that you see now

[68:03] in in the plan to help offset any impact of hardscape on our site. Thanks. They're on. Thank you. I just had one question, Amanda. You mentioned when you were talking about the pond and the Wetlands. There you said something about something different than the current overgrown trees. Can you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by overgrown trees and what you might do differently there. Yeah, sure our, as as we go through site, review and specifically tech docs, we're used to working with landscape, and we're used to working with the transportation department to bring up to the city standards existing spaces. That doesn't mean that the proposal is to redo all of the wetlands we we actually wouldn't touch the wetlands themselves. But what we will do as part of this development is work with the staff and landscape and transportation, as I mentioned.

[69:06] to bring that existing, or the landscape requirements up to meet the city standards, as we typically do in all of the developments as required in all of the developments we have in Boulder. Okay, I was just curious, because there are some very large mature trees, and I don't know where they are in their life cycle if there need to come out for some reason. But I think that would be something we'd be interested to hear about it's Site Review. If you have something in mind for those mature trees that is different than keeping them in there. That's a good point, and generally as a part of site. Review. One of the requirements is a tree inventory, and that is required in collaboration with your landscape architect at this video to decide or to help determine what species need to stay or need to be removed for various reasons, as you guys are well aware of. Okay, Thank you.

[70:00] Ml. Thank you, John. Hi, Amanda, and thank you for your presentation. I have parking a couple of parking questions. It wasn't obvious it's not obvious, and I don't know if you have any drawings that we didn't see What is the extent of the underground parking? Is it only underneath the buildings? Is it? I mean it. It's hard to know. I don't. I don't have a sense of 500 spaces. And what? Oh, great! You have a drawing. Yeah, it, I can tell you. It's essentially under the footprint of the buildings right here. It's just a big rectangle. It doesn't extend beyond into the flood plane. It doesn't extend underneath into the wetlands. It just is underneath the buildings themselves. So your little hand there is going over the surface parking spaces and over that little area. Is it literally just under the buildings.

[71:03] Yes, yes, it's under. It's essentially a deck so similar to how this area is planted. This is planted on top of the parking deck. which is one nice rectangle directly under the buildings and the surface parking, and that outdoor area. When you say a rectangle you you're so it's not just under the buildings. It's basically all that whole area would be. So we know that there's an amount of fill on the site. Can you go to the building section for a minute. My question is. is the parking elevation? Where is the original grade on this? Is it up there which is lovely? This: so, yeah, height is required to be calculated within 25 feet. It's the low point within 25 feet of the building and so the low point for this site is right here, within 25 feet of the building.

[72:18] Great! We talked about the fill that there was still on the site that changed the topography is that original grade lower than that low point. as it was mentioned by Chandler that that was not under our application. It was done, I think, 13 years ago, and so the historical grade is not necessarily something that this height is measured by. If that's your question. The parking is. is in an area that was filled. or if it is going below historical elevation of the site.

[73:03] No, it appears to be in an area that was filled, and the extent of that fill is not something that we're we we do not know, but it it is in the site area of the site that has hold still. And do you know, based on this elevation where the original topography below that fill was. That's not something that even a surveyor would be able to provide to us. Okay, so well just original. It'd be going back to the history of the site. I'm. Just curious as to whether the parking garage is actually in disturbed soil already or not, you know that's just my question, or whether it's going into undisturbed. So I so something that I will think about in the you know, look for in the future. Okay. So that parking, if we look at the site plan and we

[74:04] see this big rectangle that's going to be the below-grade parking, You've talked about the surface spaces being so, how can that tell me how that works? If there's a parking garage under them? Yeah, the assembly of that we're obviously at concept level. We don't quite have established. But what we do need to do in, and we have experienced this with this in working with the city of Boulder is, we need to capture and treat all of the water that comes to the site. And what is that technique using landscape and hardscape in combination. because underneath that surface space that's going to be pervious is a parking garage is a structure. So it's not percolating down to ground.

[75:05] Okay, yeah, I, this is Kyle. I can speak to this. This is very similar to when we have a parking garage that goes outside the footprint of the building with a naturally draining waterproofing membrane that would likely collect into into an area where we can either treat it or get it off site, or collect it for the city and county Boulders Requirements Got it? S0 0kay, I I understand what you're saying. Those were my questions. Thank you so much. Are a couple of questions to start off with.

[76:03] How? What work have you done to date regarding connections to the East, to the new Water view development, which I know us rename something else. I just can't remember it at the moment. To the north. under the under the railroad tracks to the west, to the some day transit oriented development, and and we hope a bus station, maybe rail. What sort of right now, as I look at the concept plan. it's really it. It comes down to a multi-use path on the south side of the of the property is really the extent of the connection to anywhere else other than by automobile. So have you explored anything else to enhance the connection and to make it more compatible with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan.

[77:14] Yeah, a great question. Mark. We have spent a lot of time up there, just studying and understanding the typical commute patterns of people that are either driving in from Buffy and and Broomfield and Denver to people that live in boulder or commuting there via public transportation or vehicle or bike. And one thing that's really apparent is that bike path that borders the flat iron business park on the East Side. There is, you know, as you know, approximately 300 yards to the East. There is a connection to that bike path that actually goes under the railroad. And so you know selfishly to what we're looking at in the park was exploring all options of how we continue to connect. You know Arapaho and all the businesses alike along that frontage to the park, because there's so many different amenities that are used by the residents and and the people occupying these buildings. S0 0ne conversation we've had is just working with

[78:12] the Nsf. To see. You know what's the possibility? And what's the feasibility of having our own tunnel that we could provide? You know people don't have to go all the way down to the east end of Arapaho to connect under. We could, you know, we can have our own bike path that people can stop short of that and connect, and it's not just specific t0 0ur site, but to all people commuting from a variety of areas in boulder. And then along with that, I think this understanding, c. Dot along, Arapaho, and how you know the the street gets widened, and what transfer. turn signals, and how we can maybe carve out and allocate a lane for for bike users to be able to commute along a Rappaho. And and how does that communicate with what's already been done by you guys in the East Folder Subcommittee plan Docs.

[79:02] and just lean into that a little bit as much as we can without actually being in that area. So we're we're sort of open to all things at this point, and would love to work with you guys on on how we can achieve that that mutual connection from just not our site, with everywhere else in the surrounding sites. Great. Thank you. I'm glad to hear that you're exploring those options. How did you arrive? And this may be goes to George's question earlier about not the amount of parking versus number of people, etc. And so we've experienced a number of concept reviews. Since I reviews where people have come to us with some pretty aggressive parking reduction, sometimes with an appropriate transportation demand management plan, sometimes with a plan that I thought was inadequate.

[80:00] But my question is, is. it? Seems like you have a and I know it's mostly underground, but it still seems like you have potentially over parked this site. How how did you arrive at that number of parking spaces it Was it just like, Well, we're going to make the parking under each building, and so consequently that's how many spaces we end up with because of the footprint of the building. Yeah, i'll take part of that mark, and then Kyle can add some color. So the in ig. Zoning, as you know, we're required to provide one per 401 parking space for 400 square feet, which is obviously how the number 516 spaces is currently derived at at as concept phase and at a yield study stage, we definitely we always try to make sure that our design can align with code for our clients. Now, market studies, transportation to management plans, and all of those other impacts

[81:10] we'll start to help dictate whether or not reductions are appropriate in this area or not, but at a concept level package or at a concept stage. We wanted to make sure that we could at least provide what zoning requires at a minimum. Okay. what describe the experience you have? All these people parking underground. and you have a building above. and you have a lobby and an entrance will. What will the experience be for most people who arrived by car and go into the underground garage. I I I My experience has been is that many times a a very beautiful building has a really awful

[82:00] presence underground. and and there is no connection or way for someone to exit their car and go up and enter the building through the wall that you you you're in a You're in a gray box underground, and it's cold, and it's dirty, and then you go to an elevator. so anyway, can you describe for me what your thoughts are about, whether it's employees or visitors, or whoever entering the building from the from the garage. Yeah, Another Another great question, and I could speak to that. I think this Schnitzer West who, if you didn't catch that? That's who I work for our design? Philosophy is designing these buildings from the inside out, and we're all about the user experience. We don't like people walking around in empty underground parking garages and not being able to get out. So I think that arrival experience. You know what we looked at when we kind of set the parking up to sort of navigate

[83:03] the the natural existing trees was, they provided a great opportunity for a natural barrier to sort of secure the buildings right, and you navigate around this really cool pond that's going to be activated, and we hopefully, we can, you know, have the ability to go. Add to the landscaping there, and as you arrive into the building. It's all a part of of the experience, and there's you know there's way finding throughout there that could easily navigate you into. You know, right now building a versus building B, so that somebody Doesn't Park in the first parking space available, but where they actually need to go to the very end of the site, and it's dark, and it's not well lit, and it's just kind of scary right to arrive into. And so I think that's something that we take into consideration, and we take very seriously, and what we wanted to provide is the opportunity that we're not just walking up some stairs. And now You're outside in between 2 buildings. And so we wanted to have our own arrival experience for each building that would take you directly into a lobby where you're. You know where you're at. You're familiar, and you're greeted by, you know. Concierge or security, or you're in a lobby, and you kind of you found the place that you're arriving to. And so I think that's something that's really important to us. And I know Amanda, I said. We're only at concept, but we. We have these types of

[84:19] circulation conversations now. So. hopefully, we can address those further and some more rendering some documents. Okay, thank you. That's it for me for now. Nora. Thank you. I just wanted to throw in on something that Ml. Was talking about, and I want to say this, recognizing the Ml. When you asked the question you asked it of the applicant. So, at the risk of being a know it all, I should probably shut my mouth. But if you have a chance to go visit the site when you walk up to, and and I was probably trespassing. So I apologize. But if you get onto the site, and you and you walk up to that area of fill. You can kind of look to your left. Look to your right, look around you, and see

[85:04] the elevation of the land around you, and it's honestly it's not that tall. It's just a few feet tall. It's not like 10 0r 15 for you to fill, if that's helpful to you at all. But I think it would be interesting to see when you know when the applicant goes through their hydraulic analysis and working with the floodplain regulations. I think that's gonna really inform at least my perspective on how that underground parking relates to the surrounding land, and then whether I would have an issue with it. But it was really useful to actually stand on the site and and see around you how big that fill is. Okay. I I have a I have a couple of questions. I'd like to understand how you decided what use was most appropriate for this property. Yes, you know, you know Boulder has a lot of angst about the housing and office balance, and s0 0n. And

[86:06] there are other residential projects being proposed nearby. And And you have you mentioned you have that park mosaic project a little bit to the West. How did you decide what was appropriate. Here. Yeah, thanks, John. Part of the initial understanding of what was an appropriate use here is looking at what the east boulder sub-community plan has proposed as areas of change right now and and not. And the area future development uses such as mixed use to do, as you know, and and residential, layered int0 0ffice spaces or light industrial faces. the really because of the work within the East Boulder Subcommunity plan, and the fact that this site has not been indicated as an area of change, and its future land positioning

[87:04] is still shown as light industrial made us, or brought us to the conclusion that the month plan is really intending for this site. probably because of the adjacency of its light industrial neighbors to maintain light industrial as a use. I'll let Kyle talk to residential in general. And if They' forward that yeah, I think just specifically to the residential, you know, doing our due diligence on the site with the previous owner and understanding, you know, when they did the original floodplain analysis and getting, you know, the biggest pad area they could out of the floodplain that could be developable. It, you know, talking with the previous landowner, they did try to residential, and it wasn't approved, and I think there's the the land use requirements, you know, being adjacent t0 0pen space, being adjacent to existing residential, did not satisfy those land use requirements, so i'm, assuming that's why residential didn't work

[88:08] But again, in terms of the research and development we just we've seen it, you know, a lot of different. I'd say technical Office and research and development type uses be displaced for the like. You said the booming Life Science buzz around Boulder County. And so and then, you know, we have a lot of talent and boulder that that went to the university there that are getting bachelor's degrees and and and engineering degrees that want to stick around. And there's a really good talent pool to draw from that they want to. They want to continue to work and live and play in boulder. And so that was kind of the opportunity to try to to provide a flexible working campus. That's not just an old tilt up building that was repainted, and a food trucks parked out from, but to really create community in a sense of place with with the class, a product that the city and county of Boulder sort of set out to to develop

[89:07] right. And then also, I was wondering whether you intend to alter the design to accommodate any special laboratory type. You know shealing heights, conditions and things like that that may result in a in a, in the different building and different height needs. Or are you thinking of this conventional height, floor heights. Yeah, I think you know, we want to be flexible to You know, to the tenants that we're talking to for this site. And so I think you know. To them it is that flexibility of having areas that could be allocated to accommodate some lab equipment, or like manufacturing equipment. and, as you know, just with the the the private investment in these businesses in boulder that are constantly evolving and working on the patents, and needing to move things around and accommodate the building, and have these, you know.

[90:09] large commands of power, requirements, and and ventilation requirements that's that's paramount t0 0ur design. We never just want to. We don't. We don't think we're the experts. We let sort of the the tenants in the in the city, you know, inform us about what is really needed in the market. And so I think that's something that we're trying to listen to and do focus groups and understand what what what people are needing, and they accommodate that as much as we can. So so you Haven't decided on, for example. whether it's conventional ceiling, heights or or something else. Yeah, we have the ability, and I think Amanda could pull up this section. But what we, what we we dual height space that could provide like 20. Your height for that lab and manufacturing equipment while maintaining, maybe, some more conventional ceiling heights for for people that are maybe at some workstation

[91:06] like that. Okay, Thank you all right. Other questions of the applicant. Okay? Then I think we'll move ahead t0 0ur public hearing. Section you're welcome. and you haven't got all of our feedback yet. So don't go away. So let's see. Is Vivian still here. still with you? Okay. So this is the time when members from the public can raise their hand if they would like to speak. And we do have a couple of people who are joining us by phone. and it's you would like to see. You can dial star 9,

[92:04] and and a raised hand will appear, and we'll really like to speak. Vivian. It may have just been me. But would you mind repeating that you broke up just a little bit? I want to make sure people heard the code. Yeah, it's Star 9. Thanks, Lisa. Okay, now, it's the time for for you to make comments on this topic to to planning board. So if you have any thoughts, please speak up so. Lynn Lynn would like to speak last, but there are n0 0ther hands, so you might be first and last. Lynn.

[93:01] please go ahead. You have 3 min. Thank you, Lynn Siegel. Yeah. With all due respect to the developer and the staff. you're joking right seriously. You're joking. I can't believe this. All the health sciences stuff already on walnut and then another. One and all people don't go to the office anymore. and health sciences enough already enough already. We got Steve south. This town's at its Max. That's it. In a 100 years this building is going to be surrounded with housing, so it has no right to go up t0 45 feet. Because where do you put the housing for all of these jobs? It's called Jobs housing and balance? It's completely inappropriate. It's off of the Boulder Valley comp plans chart.

[94:05] It's not sustainable 500 spaces, I think I heard parking spaces one space for 400 feet. 22 pearl gets one space for 300 feet in a living space. Where are you going to put all the storage for all the little compartments that people are living in downtown boulder. No, I'm opposed to a to use. because we have to leverage them against these kind of developments sure a to use are appropriate for housing. but not with not with the all of not with the millennium, 942 students you know not with a bike pass so jam-packed. but n0 0ne in the right mind will g0 0n them. you know, if car and you do you? You talk about parking reductions.

[95:00] Cars are going to be parked. or they're going to be on the road. And guess what? If there's no parking spaces and you do a parking reduction? There's going to be cars on the road. congesting it. because people go places. I always say, hey, wherever you are, there you're at, but not everybody thinks that they're all going places. and especially when they're way east in Boulder. There's only one place they want to go to the flat errands to the mountains. So it's got to stop somewhere. This is this is just appalling. I can't believe another. This is just i'm i'm just awestruck. you know, and waterview as if water view wasn't enough literally. Water view is gonna be in the flood. And you know when these let's clump. This is big time. This is, you know what that build up on the bottom where the parking is. That's gonna be a cup to.

[96:02] Does anyone remember 2013 0r is that too far back? This is. Thank you. Then. you know, I mean because I know lots of good work. It went into it, and I think it's good that Mark brought up that this should come back for another concept. Review first. that you in your 3 3 min is up. Sorry to interrupt you, but thank you for your contribution. Anybody else from the public want to share with the board. Okay. I don't see anybody else, John. Okay, thank you. So now it comes back to the board, and I think we'll have our discussion following the 2 principal questions that Chandler pose for us. and after that we can provide our general comments on this project that don't fit into those 2 questions.

[97:05] So, Chandler, can you put the put up the first question, please. John, you may not be able to see, but it appears Ml. May have her hand raise. Oh, sorry. sure. All right, let's let's come. What do you? What do you need? 5 0r 10 min. Yeah, just 1010 min. We'll come back at 7 48, P. M. Thank you.

[107:56] So, Chandler, can you put up the the questions that you had laid down.

[108:03] Yeah. thank you. Let's see. Does that look good? That's what we needed? Thank you. Chandler. We can see your next slide panel. Okay on. This is always you. Can you can still see the next slide. Yes, yeah.

[109:02] And I forgot to thank you earlier for your presentation. Thank you so much, very informative and helpful. Okay, I think we are all back from our break now. so and George will join us soon at all. Anyway. the issue number One is the proposed concept plan consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp plan. What do you think the interest, George? I. I I struggle with this thing because it it comes across as almost entirely by right. For this site it's an attractive building. It appears to be by right, both in height and far and in use. I also think it's the poster child

[110:02] of an adequate policy involved relative to the Jobs housing and balance and a linkage fee against a commercial project like this that will obviously impact our housing stock and a very deep level. And as a board, I don't think we have many options here because of the way it was presented. And, like I said, I think it looks like a lovely project and all it it. It appears to be by right. I I just think it's. I think it's a really challenging project for boulder, and it's one that I would hope that we or I certainly plan to bring up this type of project to the city council. To say, this is exactly the reason why we need to increase the commercial linkage fee to support more housing in boulder. That's that's somehow

[111:04] for both deed restricted, whatever it might be, because this is an example where this developer is maximizing the opportunity, and if the linkage fee was double the price, they would probably still be building this project here, because it's so attractive to do so. and I think boulder is missing out on that. So that's kind of my my my viewpoint. Thank you. Thank you. Ml. George. Thank you for framing your comments the way you did. I absolutely concur with our policies. Lead us right to this conclusion. and it simultaneously seems to be what we don't want right. We don't want all this in commuting of 500 cars.

[112:05] and no place to live. So I agree with that. I would say. speaking to this key issue Number one. I am looking at V. The Cp. 2 point 2 0ne. and its definition and information under light industrial it it, it basically says, encourage redevelopment and and fail to better achieve sustainable urban form and place making. I think, to that general question. having a giant rectangle of underground parking, that if if you, if if they had drawn the diagram. It's not just under the buildings right. It's it's the buildings articulate the corners, but it's this giant rectangle that is

[113:03] not just in a flood zone, but impacting potentially the wetland, the ditch, all of these, all of these things. So i'm not I'm. I'm not assured that this is a sustainable urban form. So I think that regards to that directive of the boulder, delivery plan or policy or ideal, it. It is not aimed at that at this point Along with that I would say that what is presented, or what was presented in the drive it's an all-glass building. and I did not see any articulation on any of the facades to deal with the sun. to deal with, glare to deal with all the things that happen in an all glass building.

[114:04] You don't see sustainable buildings designed that way. I also saw which is a good thing. It looks like they're proposing clt, which is cross-aminated timber, so a wood building, and I i'm I'm very. I I think that O. Has has been a leader in in that. But the all glass building I don't see that, being a sustainable urban form. the lawns that they're showing are cultivated lawns. you know. So we're not looking at a landscape that is your escape. And of course this is concept. But is the concept to create something that is, in fact, a sustainable endgame. I didn't see that I didn't see that evidence in those particular things. I do appreciate that they populated their rooftops

[115:01] with photo will take a raise which is great. and it is an Intel Project. but I I I think that the Boulder Valley complain is giving us some information under 2 dot 2 0ne that this project has not fully embraced. So i'll. I'll say that. So key issue number one regards to the boat about a comp plan. I don't think that this project is yet addressing that. Lesha. Yeah. I think I agree a lot with what I heard from both Georgie and at and Amel probably where I follow that on balance it does meet the BBC.

[116:03] Goals object to some recommendations, but I share some of the concerns from my other board members. I it's always kind of a rough thing, because I I don't think it's necessarily the fault that the folks, you know, are putting the plan in front of us, or or of staff, or anything like that, and so I I never want it to. I hope it does not feel that way. you know. And and yet, you know, we're yeah, we are looking at this this giant glass box, with no housing integrated, and not even a little coffee shop or something, and perhaps it will be beautifully 0 escaped, but that's not represented, and you know I har asked Ball about sheets of glass and birds, so i'll mention that, too. Yes, so I think the devil is in the details, you know. A lot of the use here is is by right. I certainly have nothing against file science. I was a biology major for a while there myself, and I appreciate that those are good jobs, but they're also pretty high paying jobs. and even for those folks, Where are they going to live, you know, and it would have been nice to hear about Tbm as well. So I I I guess I just hope that when it comes back that perhaps some of those things are addressed to the extent they can be, and I appreciate that code probably will not be changed by the time this comes back; but I think there are some ways to

[117:16] perhaps nibble around the edges and address some of these concerns to make us at least somewhat more comfortable with the direction of the of this project; and and again, I I think, as as far as key issue one, I I think it probably is preliminarily consistent, and i'm curious to see where it can go from here. Thank you, Laura. Thank you. I would say that it is preliminarily consistent with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder rally. Comprehensive plan. I do appreciate the comments of my colleagues about how could it be more sustainable. How could it be better integrated with the neighborhood? I certainly am not disagreeing with George's comment about linkage fees, and that the city could take another look at that. But in terms of this project, what this developer is held accountable to in the BBC. And the Site Review Criteria.

[118:05] I do think it's preliminary preliminarily consistent with the BBC. The land use the underlying land use and the zoning, you know, when we did the East Boulder Subcommittee plan there was a lot of discussion about jobs versus housing and leaving some areas to be industrial, to remain industrial. And this particular area was not identified as an area of change. As the applicant pointed out, it was intentionally left as a a more industrial corridor. I do feel for the applicant because of this wetland that, as they pointed out, is at the front of their property. makes it very hard to do any kind of a mixed use concept, because nobody can see what's back there? They'd have to have like huge signage at the front of the property for anybody to even know that there's a restaurant or a cafe there and then. That person would have to travel behind the wetlands into the property and try to figure out where that restaurant or cafe. Is it just? You know. My experience with the peloton is that when you take away the street frontage and people can't see it from the street, those businesses have a really hard time hanging on. So if the applicant wanted to do some mixed use here, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it.

[119:11] but i'm fine with their reasons for not including it at this stage, as far as residential goes. In the mem0 0n page 28 it points out that this property is not eligible for residential. It's an Ig zoning which you can have some residential uses if it meets the continuity requirements, or if it is in identified in a sub community or area plan. It's appropriate for residential. And I think we just added with the City Council added, if it's within proximity to the the transit area, the Boulder Junction area, and this property does not meet any of those criteria. So I think a staff analysis would say. At least, that's what it says in the memo. This property is not even eligible for residential, so we certainly can't hold that against the applicant here. So you know I I do think it's consistent. and

[120:00] i'll have a little bit more to say in the second question, i'll stop there. Okay, Mark. So now this this question that we're confronted with is about the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. and so sure in concept. I feel like this Application checks the boxes and says, Sure it's consistent with the Bvcp. As Laura just described. and I appreciate her pointing out that it's formally appropriate use, etc. But the Bp. Is a. It's an aspirational document it's a document that describes in terms about where we want to go and it, and it also should be an inspiring document to

[121:03] people building buildings, to people developing properties, and and I have no problem with putting an in an industrial life. Sciences lab on on this property, which has been developed before in the past is like manufacturing. And so I, you know I have no problem with that but a and yes. This concept review also, as the applicant noted that they reviewed all the requirements of concept review, and checked all the boxes that that still doesn't answer some of the aspects of the Bdcp which are not about checking boxes. but about improving the built environment and making the the the space that we inhabit in boulder. Better going forward.

[122:00] And so what we've been presented with here and again their their their renderings presented tonight are helpful. It would have been, and again I i'm not trying to beat anyone up about this particular snap. But but even with the renderings I I find this concept re review to be difficult way. Some of the more aspirational goals of the Bvcp. About uniqueness of design about place making. I appreciate Staff's comments that hey, we Don't and I'll i'll paraphrase for them. I'm probably overstating we don't want another suburban industrial building that we're looking for something unique. And so so far in this particular concept. Review. I I don't I don't get that. And and I think it is. It's silly to have

[123:02] Applicants require them to come to a concept review with a full design, but it's also equally silly to have applicants come to concept review with something that is very hard to judge on a conceptual basis, and you can talk about the landscaping. You talk about the parking. You can talk about the Tdm. And so this this whole package has been presented in a way that I I think. is focused on. Hey, we're checking these boxes. But my question is, are you? Are you attempting to fulfill some of the more aspirational and inspirational goals of the BBC. And I have a really hard time, judging that from from this package, and I have in in my time on planning board, I certainly have seen concept reviews that have been more careful in stating what their goals are, and how they want to fulfill

[124:06] what their vision is for their project and ways of fulfilling the Bvcp so metaphorically, emotionally. inspirationally, aspirationally. I Not Not so much. thank you. Least. Sorry that's me. Failing to lower my hand. Okay. see, I think, Laura, your hand. So well. I have a question actually for Hella. So I don't know, John, if you wanted to give your comments first, before I asked how a technical question. Oh, well, go ahead. I'll come with my comments when you're done. There, go ahead. So I just want to say, I. I appreciate my colleagues drive to have these projects be something special in boulder and not just check the boxes, but be inspirational, aspirational. Go above and beyond.

[125:05] you know, do something beautiful for the city. I really appreciate that. But I just wanted to check in with Hella and make sure our whether we are. You know. How does that relate t0 0ur authority as a planning board. If the applicant is checking all the boxes and presenting us with a project that is not in conflict with anything in the BBC. Or with any of the site review criteria? Can we push them to be aspirational, inspirational, and go above and beyond? And if so, what are our levers to do that? Well, in? Well, you're in the Concept Plan Review, so you can definitely be encouraging. Once you're in Site review, it'll come down. Whether or not the project meets the site, review criteria, and one of those criteria is, you know, is meeting on balance the and you have. You know that you have to apply them consistently and kind of look at whether they are drafted, that an applicant would know that they might apply to that project.

[126:07] and I haven't just looked at the the criteria that are in there. But I think it would come down to If, for example, 2.4 0ne talks about enhanced design for all projects. If If those things that you described, if they're described in, for example, that section, then I think that is something that can be considered in the unbalanced finding under the board of any compromise, because that is the criteria, and it's currently in the code, and that will be one that we remain in the code because we just had revisions adopted to the Site Review criteria. That will go into effect on July first, I think. Thank you. Hell! Could you give us that citation again? What was the section of the code you were encouraging us to look at? Well, I I was referring to. Actually I should check my. I have a paper coffee.

[127:01] in which it is 2.4 0ne enhanced, designed for a project, but I know at the midterm update some of the numbering has changed, so let me a little quick. If this one change it doesn't look like it did, and I didn't go through it as you guys were talking about this. But I was wondering if some of the things that Mark was referring to maybe came out of that section. Okay, thank you. So Laura was was that it? Did you have other? It it? I just wanted to respond to Laura and and just add one more little thing in my comments, and that is I. I I want to make sure that i'm clear that I don't want

[128:01] the planning board to be a capricious. you know that's not my style. I don't like the looks of it sort of sort of board. That's that's not our role, and I I I definitely understand your concerns with regard to my inspirational aspirational comments. But I also want to say that I think that a concept review is a tool to reduce the risk to an applicant upon site review. that if they come to us with enough information, and we provide right kind of feedback. then the whole for both the applicant and this board is that the site Review. Then go smoothly, and we don't. We're not dreaming up conditions at at midnight on, you know, on a Tuesday night that are going to condition and change and be very expensive for a project. So I I I I appreciate the comments, but I I think that part of my comments are trying to reduce the risk to the applicant to the benefit of the applicant, as is not only just

[129:16] referring to my preferences as a board member. Thank you. I'm out. Thank you, John. I I too, would like to clarify. I was speaking directly to voulder belly comp plan, policy, numbers. I I will state those so that there is abundance of clarity as to why I was not feeling like like it, was addressing the Boulder Valley Comp plan in a in as brought a in as broad a way that it could be s0 2.4 0ne, I think. Staff mentioned this F. Parking

[130:05] 3.2 0ne. I'm concerned about the flood plan. The underground parking the ground. Water, recharge, storm water retention. I understand that there is a very robust process. The city put put the project through to make sure they deal with it, but to call something previous paving, and then to have it be okay. But we're going to capture it and drain it someplace else. you know. Doesn't, give me a lot of confidence in in the strategies that are being set forward. The parking is not just under the buildings. It's under this huge rectangle. The other Boulder valley. Count Plan number is 2.2 0ne, and that is Boulder Valley Compliance, definition, and directive for light industrial, which is what this is zoned. and it very clear, encourage redevelopment and infilt to better achieve sustainable urban form. An All glass building does not achieve sustainable urban form.

[131:07] and, I think, cultivated long does not achieve sustainable urban form. So there are some very specific points that I would. I am bringing to the table as part of the input to this. How does the Boulder valley compliant? Inform Not just the goals and aspirations, but I think it. It can inform the particulars, and a sustainable Urban form is not is not a fuzzy anymore. There is. There are a lot of building science that goes into into that. So I just I just want there to not be. I agree with Mark. This is not a personal. Do I like glass buildings or not? That's Irrelevant You know what's really important Here is I I think that the Boulder Valley complains right industrial

[132:09] directive or or overarching umbrella. For what do we do in this land? It's an important one to to to look at and to bring it to consideration, and that so I just wanted to clarify that this isn't up personal or even professional opinion. I think it's it's looking at. weighed it with what What are we? What is the Comp plan speaking about? And what are we seeing? Thank you. Well, i'll. I'll weigh in a little bit also. And and I like to say, I think George and Mark have have really made an Ml. Your points are excellent, and I, and in complete agreement with them.

[133:03] I I think that, as far as the quantitative elements that can be checked off in terms of of the comprehensive plan. This this does meet the quantitative elements, but in terms of the aspirational ones, and the ones that are more difficult to to quantify, and the ones that we are really being asked to use our judgment on. I I think Mark made an excellent presentation in terms of the that it's not very satisfying in that respect. and I I don't intend to repeat all the points that the George and Mark and Ml. Made. But I I agree with them. I think that this is an example of of why the city's policies need to be revised in order to achieve what is so

[134:02] shocked in the comprehensive plan and part of the reason I I feel confident in talking about. That is because I've now worked on 4 iterations of the comprehensive plan, both on behalf of the county, and then on on the planning board for the city. So I think I have a pretty good feel of what is what is desired, or what the what the intentions were with the the comprehensive plan. And yeah, we see that even with that long history and all that effort, it is very difficult to to make it happen. But I I I won't go further than to say that I think the points that George and Mark and Ml. Made are are excellent, and and I agree with them any other comments on on this topic. All right, Chandler. Maybe we can move to the to the next question you had to laid out for us.

[135:05] Yeah. Can you see that? Yes. All right. Okay. Here's where we can get specific on this project board. Let's hear your thoughts, George. I I had a I had a question of clarification for staff or for hell out. based on actually something that Ml. Brought up that I thought was really interesting in regards to the fill on the site. and where the ground is being measured from as far as building height goes I I i'd like clarification on to why the the historic ground level this. This area was filled by someone who flipped the lamb to the developer. And now the ground level is all of a sudden being measured from the from a different height than the original round level, even though it was someone who intended to develop the land actually filled the site, so could could you give us some clarity?

[136:10] Why, that is the case. If there is anything that can be done relative to measuring the height of the building from the original height of the site. Yeah. Oh, go ahead, Ella. Georgia, asking a really good question. The the height is actually measured from the natural height. So the code specifies that if there's evidence that modification to the natural grade has occurred since adoption of Charter Section 84 0n in 1971. The city manager will consider the available information to determine the natural grade, and then the height is actually determined from the natural grade. So it's not. We we know that Phil was added pretty recently to the side after 1,971. So there'll have to be

[137:03] some research into the history, and to determine what the natural greatest for this property. because it seemed like the architect from the applicant actually said that they they believe that the height is being measured from a different grade height than the original grade height. That's what I heard her say. Yeah, that's not how I read the code and channel or chime in. If it's a different practice than what my understanding is. No, you're right. I mean it is. It is 25 feet from the tallest side of the structure. So. but it does also say, using lowest point of natural grade. So hell is correct, that there would have to be some research to show what natural grade in this case was. but also given. you know, depending on where on the Berm. where i'm calling it a berm. But you know where on the fill, the building is located

[138:00] 25 feet from that might be on an undisturbed portion of the site. Anyways. right. So we won't really know until they come in with actual site. Review documents but I think part of the reason for the 25 foot measurement also is to kind of deal with situations like this, where 25 feet from the point of the building that has the lowest elevation might actually extend beyond the border of the fill. That's that's all very helpful. So so I would. I would. Just this is not a comment related to this, but it just seems to be that there was some confusion presented by the applicant to relative to where they are measuring things from. So i'm glad we're clarifying this, so that we can expect that there's adequate research done when this is brought back, and we can have confidence that the the measurements are being measured from the original grade from that 25 foot, or whatever in the code stipulate. So thank you appreciate it.

[139:08] I'll just jump in here, George. I'm. I'm glad you mentioned that, because I actually remember when the fill was being put in, and there was concerns raised about the the propriety of that at the time when the fill was being moved in, and in fact, I I was one of the ones who were who were raising the flag about that so? I think it's excellent that that we have very good clarity from Hella and Chandler on this, and that the applicant is now completely aware of what's supposed to happen on that respect. So let's see. Mr. Flippin, I see you have your hand up. You may have a Are you able to enlighten us on this.

[140:00] Yeah, all all really really good. And and Chandler, you hit the nail on the head that it's the distance from you know the property line that 25 feet. And so the we have information, you know, just looking back at our files from the original Lamar that was done with Fema to to prove out that you know when we're raising this site out of the flood point to create the buildable, pad the fill wasn't done, you know, to the all the way to the extent of the the property line. It was, you know it. And, Laura, you said you went out there. You probably observed that, you know, with a natural property line, looked like it appeared, and then how the grade was probably sloped up from there. That's That's the reason that we we have that naturally occurring grade and civil grades around the perimeter site that we'd be measuring from. There's no fill put on there, and and we have the the historical survey and documentation topography maps

[141:02] to back that up so just wanted t0 0ffer some context there. Thank you. So. hey, John. I now Now I have a question. After just the the applicant speaking the apple was referring to the property line, as I understand, building height calculation it's from the lowest point, 25 feet out from the lowest point of the building to the from our building to Okay. Thank you. This conversation will now be limited to board members. Thank you. Okay. All right.

[142:01] So be interested in your fox on the specific site, plan and architecture. Laura. Yeah, thank you. I have a few. So, in addition to things that have already been mentioned. I want to uplift and support Staff's comments on page 20 0f our packet, where they say the applicant has been encouraged to pursue a design that is unique rather than a tilt up industrial or standard suburban office building with angled roofs, inviting pedestrian entrances and thoughtfully designed parking and outdoor areas. You know, I think Staff will will work with the applicant on that before it comes back for site review as far as the underground parking goes. As I said, I am going to be really interested to see the floodplain analysis and those requirements, and I trust that staff, and the applicant will not bring us a project unless it meets, you know, can can prove that they are not affecting that wetland and surrounding properties, and that they're meeting all of those requirements. As as was said earlier, so so I generally don't have a lot of concern around that, because I I Trust Staff's ability to to work that out with the applicant I also like, just in general, the concept of tuck under parking is something that we tend to encourage

[143:12] because of it. It allows for more open space on the sites. It's more visually attractive. So I don't generally have a problem with the parking garage. I would totally be fine if the applicant comes back with a parking reduction request and a robust Tdm plan. As as Mark was discussing. I think that would be fabulous if if that can happen. With regard to the earlier conversation where the applicant was saying that they this concept they want to keep both of those access points open. I mean, it sounds like according to the design and construction standards. It says on page 27 0f our packets. that a minimum separation of 250 feet is required between site accesses along an arterial roadway like Arapaho, and that this concept would not meet that so again I just, I rely on Staff to negotiate that and bring us back, you know. Have the applicant bring us back a project at site. Review

[144:03] that satisfies what Staff needs to meet the design and construction standards. It sounds like there is a little bit of an out that the applicant would have to be negotiating with adjacent properties to try to get a shared access, and if that can't be worked out. there's kind of a a backup plan about restricting the westernmost Arapaho access to emergency access only. So I I think Staff have laid out pretty well what they're expecting, and I don't feel as planning board as a planning board member that I have anything to say that would contradict that. So just just flagging that that I i'm looking forward to seeing how that gets worked out between staff and the applicant. But before it comes back for site, review. and I I think that's all I have at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Ml. Thank you, John.

[145:01] So i'll speak the key issue Number 2. Specifically the site the site plan initially here, and I have brought up the parking, the big giant rectangle, and where that sits relative t0 0riginal elevations, and it's impact to all the water. So I Yes, that's an issue on the site as far as I'm. Concerned. Bdcp. 2.2 0ne under Number 5. It talks about a parking management strategy. and I think it it's it's coincidental with this big area of parking that's underground. and the concerns with, I mean typically Yes, we've been seeing people asking for parking reductions

[146:00] which causes me to wonder who's who's going to be working in this building? If these are all going to be in commuters. every single office space and every single employee will need a parking spot potentially. But our goal is to try to look at different ways for people to arrive at the site, and I appreciated the applicant talking about 2 things. One is that that this could be a place for all the talent that comes out of see you to remain in town. and that it's actually a working campus. When I think about a campus, I think about a place where you not only work, but you can gather, you can have some casual encounter that starts to speak to the mixed use. And how do these 500

[147:02] car occupants use use the space and get many of their needs satisfied, so they don't get back in their car and go to have lunch somewhere or go to do x, y, or Z. So I I think the site plan is needs to be more thoughtful about not just the form of the parking, but the actual number of parking Mark talked about that, and I keep thinking that if this is going to be a place for at least 500 people, one per car or 560 people. There should be more than just office spaces. I mean that off the spaces do not a campus make so, Anyway, I I think some consideration should go into. How does this actually function?

[148:08] I appreciated the client talking about. They want the experience to be a great experience coming up from the parking garage, etc., etc. There isn't evidence of any of these things yet, but it would be nice to take that to the next level and say so. Where do these people go for lunch? Where did these people, you know. meet casually, and and all those kinds of things that come up with the building design. They're just not evident yet, and I think it would be nice at the next iteration to have the site start to speak to some of some of these other other things that are directly related to parking and the number of parking car, a number of cars that are being sought to Park. that all being said, I think the sustainability issue of the site is still imperative. We can't be saying those 60 surface spaces are about previous ground when they're not about previous ground there a drainage system is going to happen, and that giant rectangle is going to drain its water somewhere on this property to make sure it meets our storm water

[149:25] and our previous ground, and it me, all of these other criteria. So I think that that's a big That's a big problem. It would be nice if it could get solved sooner rather than later. So those those are my concerns about the site. or that that's my feedback on the site at this at this point in time. Thank you. Other thoughts all that. I'll give my 2 bits in right now. just to embroider a little bit on Ml's thoughts, and I have to confess that as a water engineer I I pay special attention to it

[150:08] myself. I continue to be concerned about the impact of of the underground garages on the hydrology of the site, particularly with maintaining the wetlands, which is a is a city priority. And I think so that when when this comes up for site review, I think the applicant should be able to show how how this will work, and that that the wetlands and the pond won't be drained because of pumping for underground garages. The other point that i'd like to make is that this is the site of Dry Creek, Number 2 Ditch, about which there has been a tremendous a degree of controversy in the city

[151:00] associated with to you South, and one of the aspects of see you south, that that the city made with the Cu was that that the city would be taking over most, if not all of the shares of Dry Creek Number 2 ditch. and so the city. I understand that the typically water rights are dealt with at the State level in terms of administration. but because the city is going to be the owner of the Dry Creek Number 2 ditch. the city should be paying special attention that it is not harmed by whatever happens here. to Dry Creek, Number 2 in terms of the yield of its shares, and s0 0n. Beyond that, I think Ml. Made excellent points, and so did George Mark. So

[152:01] I I I concur with my fellow Board members in regard to any number of issues, and they could probably recite what I'm. Going to say, which is to deal with the Parking and and Tdm. And that is. that the city code in regard to the required Tdm plans is very flexible. It's not very specific, and it's pretty subjective. and that leaves applicants open to a lot of board input and and potentially conditions at site, review. And so in regard to Tdm. I I I don't. I know this is concept review. But again, I've been presented with concept reviews in the past that have significant Tdm. Discussion and significant

[153:03] Tbm desires and and plans, and that are that are really forward looking. So I would simply say that if if you want to have a successful site review in regard to your parking, and I hope that you seek a parking reduction. you need to have a Tdm plan that really goes beyond eco-passes and says, Gee! We're going to electrify we're going to have shared cars. We're going to have secure bike storage. We're going to have the kind of facilities that really get people out of their car and and t0 0ur site via some method other than a single occupancy vehicle. And so I have. There's nothing in this in this concept review that inspires me to think that that's really going to. That's going to happen so in a regard to the architecture, I I I lean more heavily on on the Ml. And others

[154:15] in regard to whether or not this is sustainable. but it it it doesn't particularly inspire as being unique, or something that is unique to boulder Colorad0 0r our our mountain environment. I appreciate you, taking advantage of views but a as you, as in my initial look. And again I I've been looking at these now, for you know half an hour or an hour, whatever it it doesn't it doesn't fulfill the kind of encouragement that staff is giving you to enhance design and a a unique architecture.

[155:01] So that's it on on this question. Thank you. Thank you, George. I'll I'll try to keep mine short, because I think I don't always agree with Mark. But I I agree with everything that he just said. I I think that you market the nail on the head as far as as far as i'm concerned. And then the the other thing that I think is interesting, which is again, not not the applicant necessarily trying to be deceptive, but something that that Ml. Set out. Is this idea of this massive rectangular podium that's sitting underneath the ground that's creative. It must be a like a bathtub like structure. And again. We don't have any information around the flooding and things like that. But when when this does come back I would like to see a plan where that shows that podium there, because, as I see it, the the sate is about 9 and a half acres. It looks like that rectangle. If I drew it in my head. It's probably a 5 acre podium

[156:05] underneath these buildings and these structure to accommodate that parking, and so I think it's helpful for everyone to understand sort of what's sitting there underground, that we're not really seeing from any of the elevations and the concept. And I think that would be helpful in the Review, and hopefully to the extent that that can be minimized through a a parking reduction and a robust Tdm. Plan to try to limit the the in commuting and and traffic considerations that this will ultimately undergo. I think, would be very helpful, as well as the environmental impact of the flooding, because that is such a large area underground that that we don't have clarity on on, on how that will affect the the site and the the neighboring properties. So thank you. Thank you. Lisa. Yeah, I'll try to be fairly brief. I agree pretty much with everything folks have said so far.

[157:04] i'll just add that kind of writ large as far as things to come back, you know, overall. I'm just looking for evidence of sustainability here. So whether we're talking about drainage, whether we're talking about landscaping. you know, when I was talking about maybe some kind of a cafe or something. I was thinking about that for the people working here. It's a very large site, you know. I I think if I worked there and I had somewhere, I could walk by and get a drink in the morning. I probably would, you know, and and I do think that makes it more of a place. It may not attract people from outside, and maybe that's fine. I know plenty of small coffee shops are, you know, co-located with office buildings in boulder that that do quite well just because of the campus around them. Yeah, I I I'll be looking for that drainage on the side I just mentioned landscaping Tdm: which has been covered in depth. But you know what what other ways can we have, and what robust things you know. I think we talk about Tdm. And they're often kind of aspirational and not terribly measured. There are some cool things out there with

[158:11] gamifying and kind of incentivizing people and rewarding people for certain behaviors. I'd be looking for that. And then again, i'll just bring up the birds because I worry about all that glass. But yeah, you know I I I I feel like we're we've gone frame depth in this plan, and and I imagine that might be I don't know I I don't want to emotions like you, but maybe feeling a little overwhelming. I think something that would go long way for me is just is just seeing a fine or green detention to sustainability writ large across all of these areas that we're touching on. And then I think that would maybe not address some of our broader concerns with code, and s0 0n, but would help us fill me, at least feel a a little more excited about the plan. Thank you. I know.

[159:03] Thank you, John Lisa. I appreciate. I appreciate your your comments just out there putting it generally. I said this in key issue number one. I'll say to get in key issue number 2, I I don't feel like. The building at this point is is meeting the sustainable urban form Definitions in the Boulder Belly comp plan. and I know that all this can do extraordinary buildings. very mindful, and twenty-first century buildings regards to carbon and setting themselves in the context correctly to deal with the sun and the wind, and all the other elements that will impact the building. So I do hope to see an evolution of this building that will speak to

[160:04] it, being a a sustainable building, and hopefully even a resilient building as we move into the 20 first century. With all this big weather that happens. and I would take that to right to the landscape as well. But yeah, so that that's my hope. as the project moves into the next phase is to just see that evolution in the in the building itself. Thank you, Laura. I just want to throw in on what Ml. Was just talking about. And, Ml: I I appreciate that you pointed out that the Bvcp. Does define sustainable urban form. There's a whole page on it on page 43 0f the Bvcp. And I was wondering ml if you could point out specifically what you think in this definition the building doesn't meet. I think that would help me understand more where you're coming from, and and maybe help the applicant as well.

[161:15] and I don't know if if Staff are able to pull up the Bvc. I I would. I would say that building streets, utilities, and other infrastructure that protect natural systems. We've all been talking about the water on the side. That's a natural system. Minimizes environmental impacts to have that amount of glass facing all directions. I think that will have an environmental impact and support clean energy generation. I appreciate that they've got their showing Pv. Panels it every which way on the on the roof. But you know there are more effective ways t0 0rient Pd. Panels and less effective ways, but at least it to start, and I think if you go through some of the others, there will be nuance in them in them as well. But

[162:07] in in particular. I think that there again OS knows what sustainable with sustainable urban form looks like, and I think that they can step up and and and get there. Our comp plan is pointing. It's a pointer. It's pointing to. We want building to do right by the environment. Thank you. That's helpful. Okay. Any other thoughts. Okay, now we we can move, and if you have any of the other thoughts about this pongs had preview, now is the time to make them. You don't have to limit it to question one and question 2. But

[163:02] in general, if you have any thoughts or need to. or give any other guidance to the applicant or staff. Now it's the time. Ml. I I would like to just remind ourselves and staff that this is as as George struggled with this is got a lot of use by right going. putting it where it's at. and we're struggling right. We're struggling with 500 in 60 people driving to this site to work. Where are they going to live? What impact are they going to have? And I think that we have to be? We have to find a way to bring

[164:01] these kinds of concerns to bear. As we review the legislative pieces that were asked to review. Because we come to this kind of It's like what we really want this, but our codes are giving us this. and it's a very difficult place to to be. We see the Citizens Boulder speak up about whether we've had enough building, or whether Don't make it dense, or whether this or that. our code defers to the built environment that we've got going, and we forget. You know we did this. And now we're trying to be smart enough to say. How do we start to redirect where we're, where we're guiding and enabling our built environment so that we can actually start

[165:00] achieving some of these things we want to achieve which is housing for middle income people which is diversity, which is how a city that wherever whichever neighborhood or area we're in. we can feel like we can walk to things once we're there that there's that there there, and it's not just a piece along a an arterial that you go into and leave and don't have any connection or interaction. I and and this, unfortunately for the applicant. But I think this project brings a lot of these things up because it's in it's in a part of boulder where we're putting a lot of attention to rethinking. How do we want our city to unfold? And you know it? I think the takeaway, if I were the applicant would be, how can this project help

[166:00] Bolder mate some of its lofty goals? Some of the big visions for how we want to live in Boulder. That would be brilliant. you know, if the if the Development Community could get on board and say, we agree, Boulder should be more diverse, Bolder should provide a real community in its projects and in it inills and and we should create stellar buildings that are resilient, and that Don't create a liability when a big storm happens. I think that that would be a very awesome place to have people come to build them boulder with that with that in mind just like, help us help us create the vision that we all need to for the 20 first century. That would be great. Thank you. Lisa.

[167:01] So something that I think is maybe more for a planning board and and staff which I know is working on this. I know I know you're you're trying to pull this together. But here we see, and I think there's a lot that's exciting about it. But another kind of class, a bioscience research facility going in, which is. I I don't think it's bad, I think there's much that's great about it again. I I enjoy biology, and I think it's a growing sector in boulder, and then it's diversifying our economy in interesting ways, and ties them all at the University, and s0 0n and so forth. However, we're looking at another site that's owned by industrial. It's turning into Class a. you know, really expensive, very highly paid jobs hopefully. Eventually a really beautiful building. Not not that this one wasn't necessarily aesthetically pleasing, but we have some other asks of it in the next incarnation. And again, you know, I think this is more of a planning board. And for staff. what are we losing in these sites? Is this what we meant when we said, light industrial. Is this what we thought we were preserving and zoning this for?

[168:07] And if the answer is yes, then great. But i'm. I'm not sure. This is what we thought, where we thought we were going for it with with it, you know. And so far be it for me who who yells about form based code all the time to suggest having more layers and complexity to it. But I I just want to be mindful of what's moving out and what's moving in. and i'm looking forward to that staff, update on on what's happening to what I think of it as as the older, more traditional I industrial, which I wouldn't necessarily wait is better or worse. But I think we want to think about the balance of of what is still in the city, and what is coming into the city. I just I keep thinking about that. Every time one of these projects comes forward. Yeah. So i'm struggling tonight as i'm, sure you folks have all picked up on. because this project is consistent with its zoning right it. The East Boulder Subcommittee plan, said

[169:05] This parcel should remain light industrial. We just did a use table update and talked about. What does light industrial mean? And it includes research and developments. And this building appears to be consistent with our definition of that. And so i'm just reminded of, you know. Oh, gosh! All of a year ago, less than a year ago. when I was being interviewed by city Council as an applicant for planning board. and one of the questions that they asked, every single applicant was. Would you be able to fairly in a quasi-judicial process, enforce the code, even if the code is not everything that you want it to be. And so I think that is a challenge that we have as planning board is. We want the applicants to be aspirational. We want them to have the same vision. It's very hard to codify everything in a legislative update, as we just did with the use tables update and foresee that it's going to give us projects like this, where when we see the rubber hit the road we see the project on the ground.

[170:07] We have some hesitations about the thing that we just did the thing that we just updated, which is the definition of what's allowable in a light industrial parcel like this that we just maintained as light industrial in the East folder subcommunity plan. It's not like we haven't had a crack at this apple quite quite recently, right? And so I feel for the applicant who's trying to comply with the code I feel for all of us on the board who are trying to fairly enforce in a quasi-duticial manner when this comes up for site Review. Not yet. We're just in concept review the code while recognizing that it's not necessarily producing the outcomes that we want. And so I do appreciate the comment that Lisa just made about taking this into how we deal with our legislative matters, and absolutely I am on board with that. But but I I am nervous about how. when an applicant comes in front of us, every single one of us has aspirations, and we can find something in the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan to say.

[171:04] on an aspirational visionary level, this project could be better right. And so i'm I. I do fall back on the trust that I have seen in our site, review process and in the comments that were made when we talked about updating the Site review criteria that we don't tend to deny projects on these aspirational bases. So I do think I I support us all. Let's go there. Let's tell the applicants our vision and concept review. Let's just be careful about you know, doing what city Council has charged us to do, which is to enforce the code fairly regardless of whether it's giving us everything that we might want. That's what I'm struggling with tonight, and I thank you all for listening to me, and I assure you I have been listening to all of you, and I'm really sympathetic with everything that everybody has said. Thank you. Mark what, boy we're really an emotional bunch tonight. And actually, I I like this. I I think it's. It's excellent that we're we're having this discussion right, and I want to bring it back to the applicant for a minute, and that is.

[172:12] the applicant has has something in their pocket, and that is, they can do a lot of this by right. and we, when we know that as planning board, and I think at Concept review it is appropriate to voice aspirations as codified in the Bbcp, knowing that they are aspirational. And so, you know, you talk to developers, and you talk to people in business and say, boy. I could really do something great if it wasn't for all these crazy restrictions in the code and everything else. Well, in this case the applicant can do a lot by right without seeking. You know community benefit and stuff for height, exemptions, etc. So I would simply say, hey.

[173:09] you have an opportunity to do something really great for your firms for the people of boulder and and rise to the occasion, and and do this, so that when when it does come back to site review, you have a bunch of planning board members that both acknowledge that what you're doing you're doing to code. and that you've checked all those boxes, but you have fulfilled those aspirational elements. But you've done it with the flexibility and the knowledge that you can do a lot by right, so great have at it, and and and and do your thing. and do it creatively and with excellence, so that that I think you you actually may have been beaten up some tonight. But you're still in a very good situation, as far as being a a development goes.

[174:07] Oops. George. Yeah, I'm gonna i'm gonna separate my comments from the applicant, because I I haven't heard that to to to what Laura was saying, I haven't heard anyone having issues with trying to enforce their duties is board members relative to the zoning that exists here. I I think that stepping away from what the applicant has presented, this is the poster child of class, a office in light industrial sheep's clothing. That's what this is. So I The only thing I take issue with is, I don't know whether or not when people were putting forward the idea of preserving light industrial. that the community would think that this is what the outcome would be. the outcome. Being essentially a massive suburban office park

[175:07] class, a office campus isolated from the rest of boulder where we have and let's not kid ourselves. We got 560 cars paid car spaces. I guarantee there'll be more employees on this site than that. You know upwards of a 1,000 people in commuting to this project daily, and we negate everything that has been done in the East Folder Subcommittee plan by promising all these housing units, and then exactly that, not adding in what potential development is. And and this is nothing against the developer right? This Bio sciences space is super hot. Our rental rates in boulder are still low compared to the coasts. These spaces on the coast of the country are currently renting for a $100 a square foot triple net. Our market prices here are between 50 and $70 triple net for these guys to make a substantial profit.

[176:05] And so this has. My comments have less to do with this by right, mostly by right development, which will get developed in some form or fashion relative to this. But this is the type of project that we need to surface to the city. to to have people in the community understand what we're getting. because what we're getting is just a whole ton of high paying jobs in commuting int0 0ur town and and negating subcommittee plans like what we did in East Boulder Subcommittee plan, because we we we've we've allowed this to happen through our zoning, and we should take a look at the use table and say. Does the definition of R&D. Is this really the definition of what we're trying to accomplish in and light industrial. We should take a look at the policies around the linkage fees, because we know that there's a high degree of profit in this development, even where our linkage fees are.

[177:09] and some will argue that our linkages are already the second highest in the country. But I would argue that Boulder is one of the most stable growing real estate markets in the country, and our linkage fees should be higher. And this is an example of a project maximizing irrespective of linkage fees that exist today. and if they were doubled they would probably still maximize and develop this, except we'd have a lot more of money for Boulder to put towards whatever programs we need to support some kind of something like this. So those are kind of my final comments. Thank you. Thank you. Laura. My, this will be my final comment. I just want to follow up on that by saying this site is within the East Boulder Subcommittee plan. It's not negating the East Boulder Subcommittee plan. It is what we planned for in this area.

[178:06] and when that East Boulder Subcommittee plan was going through this board through Council. Through all the processes that went through the major question was the balance of industrial versus housing. and many of us who were on the working group. Many of us on this board argued for more housing. and some of us argued for. Let's be really really careful about preserving industrial space, including general, industrial and light industrial, and that question was considered very carefully. And and maybe, George, you're pointing out that people didn't really understand what this could lead to. but and and so maybe this experience is pointing to. Gosh, maybe maybe we didn't quite get it right. But as far as those plans are concerned, this is consistent. This is exactly what this property was owned for, and intentionally it was not zoned for residential. So and I agree with you. 100% about the linkage fees like I would be in favor of.

[179:03] you know, getting more affordable housing from our commercial development by increasing the linkage fee. Absolutely, I just. I just want to make it clear that this this is what we planned for. But my my point, Laura, just to just to appine on that comment a little bit was. This is class a office. This is not like industrial. That's what this is, and I don't think when you, when you use the words light industrial, to the community. I don't think they think giant glass office buildings with a 1,000 workers in them. and so I I I Well, I I understand that you. You may think technically that's correct, but it's all about freight, right? It's like any other thing. It's framing it to the community because it's also I don't. I don't know if it was ever frame to the community what the jobs potential of all these sites could be, because of the way things are zoned because we're not going to get. We're not getting. I mean, this is exactly a thing right. We're not getting the

[180:04] the the the art. You know the artist shops and the and the you know the guys working out of light warehouses, you know this is this is all. This is is class, a office at the end of the day. So it it is in the East Boulder Subcommittee plan. They talked about every single place, type, and what could belong in those place, types and offices included, research and development uses are included. Kathleen King helped us model. How many I and you even commented on this like how many jobs were expected for the 10. You pushed her to do this, and I appreciated that. How many jobs were expected for the different categories. So again, maybe we didn't quite get it right, and this project might be showing that up. But I think that there are limits to how much we can anticipate with planning, and I think people have been doing doing their best. And at this point we kind of we have what we have in terms of how the property is owned, and what's allowed on it. So. But I think you're bringing up for the future, for

[181:12] that exists, and and a lot of this light industrial is going to get torn down for exactly these types of projects. And so I don't know. I don't know whether people really comprehend the the the the depth of that, that what we're, what we've done, and what we're doing is essentially through through through the zoning that exists, and, like I said, I was the first one to to volunteer. Essentially this is all by right. but by what exists here right? But we're going to get class a office in in light industrial clothing. So anyways sorry I don't mean to be red, but i'm i'm done ml I gosh.

[182:02] George, when I first looked at this project. That's exactly what went in my mind, I said, Well, now, wait a minute. This looks like class a office. Go, look at the definition. I think our basic problem with that day we had our conversation on the planning board about shifting the definition of office. because what we did is we on tethered it from industry and in industrial use to be able to be all by itself, as R&D. Suddenly R. And D was innocuous, and it wouldn't do any harm to have our d be a use by right without having to have industry attached to it. We did that we had that conversation, and I would like I I would like to wonder out loud. Is. can we have these kinds of conversations that

[183:05] I mean? This is the first time we're seeing this right, because the Council just approved this last week R. And D. As a use by right. without having to be attached to industry. It isn't a technical office. It needs to have some association to an industrial thing. This is a new little beast that we created. Wouldn't it be? Wouldn't it have been nice that we could have gotten some scenarios played out to us by staff when we were making Having that conversation, we had that conversation. What? A month ago. Not that long ago. And I still remember thinking, Well, yeah, office, that's that's simplify it. Let's make it just tell the truth, it's R&D. But that we did that one little thing which was, we untethered it from having to be related to an industrial use that suddenly gave us class a office in an industrial area.

[184:05] I mean it's just it. It's to me. It's. It's startling that we did this with our eyes wide open and just in the last handful of weeks. and I would like in the future. when we're making these seemingly simple kind of changes. If if we could. Staff could, and we could remember to say, what what does this allow? That couldn't happen right now? What could be an outcome that we currently don't have. We did that. We thought we were just changing the language to simplify the definition. but we did a lot more. and I I think George is thought on. You know we created.

[185:01] We created something that I think we're going to be very sorry that we did. because of the consequences to 500 plus people driving in to just this one site. and there's a whole lot of you know. Flat iron is going to is going to blossom in this. and this is what it so I I think we have to require from ourselves and staff to be much, much more comprehensive. and the changes that come before us to the legislature. so that we better understand what the outcome is going to be. Because. you know, again, I was there part of that conversation about offices, and and here we are so shocked and surprised that we did this t0 0urselves.

[186:06] Thank you, Lisa. Yeah, I I think i'll just echo a lot of that. You know that that I don't. I don't think it's the job of the developers to highest and best use. So then, the roles that we set right, and they're going to do that every time. That's what you're supposed to do that they're doing their job, you know, and and I think we just need to. and I don't think that means that we did anything wrong necessarily with the subcommittee plan, or that anybody didn't try really hard that we weren't trying to simplify language. But we learn as things come before us, and this again, does not fall in this applicant or any other applicant, and it's not a fault of. you know, Bios science, or you know, very nice labs which i'm sure lovely to work in them would be very fun to work in it's it's not that it's Just wait. You know. What what did we create with that code? What is now coming before us? What do we actually want? And where do we want it, you know? And and I don't think that

[187:02] means the subcommittee plan. Did anything wrong? Our planning board or anything like that. It just means that we're we're going to learn as we go, and that we may be a tweaking sooner rather than later. But I I also want to be mindful of everyone's time, including my own, You know. I I think we've we've covered it pretty thoroughly. I don't want to pick up, for I I know you have lots to say, but we're we're getting there, I hope. All right. Sorry I I think. Last thing I think this is the last thing I think I heard that this this project came in for concept review under the previous definition of technical office. So i'm not sure that what we did in terms of changing the definition of office really changed anything about this site, or the number of employees, or the number of cars or in commuting. So I just wanna make that point and leave it there. Lisa. I really appreciated your comments, George Ml. John Mark, I think you know, everybody is saying really, really important things tonight, and and I think we are converging on a better understanding of things. So thanks everybody.

[188:05] Thank you. I'm. I think, all that make a couple of comments, and that'll conclude this conversation that unless anyone has urgent needs, I I would say that I I really appreciate the comments that I think started with George and Mark, and everyone else added an embroidered a little bit on. But I think they're absolutely relevant, and having I. I also have to say that, having participated in the East Boulder Subcommittee plan is as the planning board leads on. I think that it's true that a lot of people did not realize what the likely outcome was of some of the decisions that were made there correct. The decisions were made. We have to live with them. Now we're in a judicial capacity, or we'll be at site review.

[189:00] and so this is something that that pertains mostly to the next time we we do some legislative no planning type operations. not not in our judicial semi-trajudicial capacity. The other point i'd i'd just like to make to the client, and I should have mentioned this in our previous conversation. But but I didn't see my note here. and that was then I would encourage you to talk to the neighboring owners about their projects and plans, because one of the things I notice is that everyone does their own plan independently of their nature. and sometimes that's unavoidable. But sometimes you can do tremendous things cooperating with with your neighbors and making a an area more desirable for everybody. And so

[190:00] I would encourage the applicant to to have it, and maybe they have, and it wasn't going to happen with the neighbors. But I would encourage them to discuss with the neighbors what sort of options that might be mutually beneficial for them and for the city as a whole. So we'll just leave it at that. Okay. Any other comments on this matter? Well, thank you. I think that brings this concept review to a close. and I would also encourage the applicant, if they think it's useful to come back for another concept review after they've refined their plans. So in response to what they've heard tonight. I may not be here at that point, but i'm sure the rest of my colleagues here would be interested to in another.

[191:04] So thank you. and that brings us to the end of our hearing. We can move into matters from Staff and our attorney and ourselves right Any thoughts here? Nothing this evening. I have to answer any questions from you. Okay? Hello! I just want to report you all met Elliot, who worked for our office for a little while. He moved on to a different job. I don't know if I ever told you guys about that. But the world would. Another attorney in our office has started to work with me on planning and development legal issues. She's been with our office for a little bit over a year, so we will see her in some upcoming meetings, and I just wanted you to be aware of that. She's wonderful. I think you'll like her. She worked for the Colorado Municipal League for a while, and in their attorney section, and has advised the Bla for the last year.

[192:22] So you know. See, Laura, pretty soon, and I think you'll enjoy working with her. Thank you. Good to know. and matters from the board. I have one matter i'd like to bring up. You may recall that about a week ago, after our previous meeting we got a a letter from some of the folks in the 20 s and Pearl neighborhood. in which they express their dissatisfaction about a couple of things. One was a only being allowed to speak for 2 min. and the other was

[193:04] with with respect to some of the things they had understood that that I some from my remarks. and I just wanted to let you know I I took contact with them personally, just to to clarify what I was trying to say, and and I'm. We agreed that I would meet that we would meet together in the end of March. where they could talk about it more, and by that time I will be off the planning board. And so I've checked with Hella, and she thinks that that is a a reasonable hello. I hope you agree still that that's a reasonable thing for me to do to to meet with them in person, just to explain the procedure in the process under which

[194:00] meeting took place, and how those decisions are made. So I I just wanted to, since you all received a copy of that of that letter. I just wanted to let you know that I was following up on that. and I think that they're satisfied with doing it in that way. Okay. more. I have one matters Item: I can update the Board about with regard to the airport community conversation. so that if folks are interested that process is moving forward. There is a website. Now up if you Google Boulder, Municipal Airport community conversation, there's like an FAQ. There's information about what that process is, and there is an application. So if you know folks who might be interested in serving on the working group for the airport community conversation, that application period closes February 20, eighth. So in a in about a week. so I would encourage you to distribute it. Check out the website.

[195:05] I did get confirmation from Staff that this community conversation is intended to to begin the response to Bvcp t0 6, point 2 3 around, assessing the potential to redevelop part of the airport site for housing and neighborhood serving uses. There is more. That policy is now cited on the website. as you all know, as I expressed at the last meeting I had some concerns about the process design, and how that was being structured. I have conveyed those concerns to Staff, and I am very encouraged by the responsiveness of staff. I have spoken with with several folks about it, and i'm seeing some changes in the languaging that they're using. and potentially the structure of the process. I'm. Very, very encouraged. So I want to thank Staff for hearing me out and trying to make that process one more responsive to Bbcp. 6.2 3, i'm. Looking forward to good things from that. And again I would encourage everybody to, if you know folks who might be good for that community conversation, working group. Let them know that the application period is open, and it closes February 20, eighth. In addition to the working group.

[196:13] There will also be a couple of open houses and be heard Boulder surveys in various ways for people to participate If they don't want to be on the working group. The working group itself is a fairly small commitment. It's 5 meetings on weekdays, 2 h long meetings between now and the end of the year. so not a huge commitment. But I think it will be a really important place for people to have their voices heard and happy to answer any questions I can as the liaison, or or refer you to staff. If there's something I don't know. Thank you. Lisa. Sorry i'd move my screens, but my mute button was hidden. I was just gonna say, John, thank you for meeting with those community members, and then for connecting with them personally. And it sounds like, maybe even in person. I think that

[197:03] goes a long way, and it's very kind of you to do it generally, especially at the end of your tenure. It's it's a generous thing, so thank you, and good luck. I hope it goes well Now I I think it was useful to do that. Thank you. All right. Anything else. Okay. Good night to you all. Let's adjourn this meeting. Thanks. Everyone.