October 3, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:10] Meetings called to order. Our first order of business will be public participation. Vivian, do we have anybody who has shown up who would like to speak in public participation? I don't see any hands but in the meantime I can read the rules for engagement. And then we give folks a chance to raise an ML. You can also kind of practice maybe muting and unmuting and we can see if that's If that's working. Okay, so thanks Devin for pulling up the slides. And I just wanted to. Start off. By thinking everyone from the public who's joining us today, we really do appreciate that you are taking your time to attend planning board meetings. My name is Vivian and my role in these meetings is to facilitate the public engagement portion. And the rules I'm sharing are in place to help us achieve a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes.

[1:12] Disruptions. So after I read this we'll start with open comments from community members. To raise any issues or share comments that are not related to items on today's agenda. And we want our participants to know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by city staff. In community for productive meaningful and inclusive civic conversation and we worked with the community to develop these expectations for meetings. And the vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue while also recognizing that we want to make sure everyone who is participating deals emotionally and physically safe and welcome. We wanna ensure that we make space for different viewpoints in our meetings because we believe it leads to more informed decision making. Next slide. And there is more information on our website about the productive atmospheres vision. And I'm gonna narrow in on what we need to know for tonight's meeting.

[2:05] There are a number of rules of decorum and the Boulder revised code and we have some general guidelines that are advisory in nature. We ask that all remarks and testimony raised might be related to city business. We will not allow any participant to make threats or use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obsenities, racial epithets, another speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting or otherwise makes it impossible for us to continue as prohibited. And we do also ask the participants identify themselves by their first and last name. So we can call on you by your full name. When you would like to speak. When the Zoom Webinar format, this allows participants from the public to speak at designated times, but we will not be turning on video. For community members because of security concerns. In this platform. There's no pre existing list for signing up to participate today during open comment or for the public hearing item later.

[3:02] So if you're in the meeting, we welcome you at the appropriate time to raise your hand and you can do this. By going to the horizontal menu at the bottom of the screen and there are 3 clickable items so look for the hand icon and it'll raise a hand next to your name and then we'll know to call on you. If you have an expanded menu, you can also get to raise hand. By clicking on reactions and I will monitor to see if anybody is joining us from the public. By phone and provide those instructions later. Okay, so this would be the time. When you can raise your hand to speak. And I just wanted to also remind you that there is a Q&A function if you have a question about the process or or the technology but it is not meant for side conversations regarding agenda items for example. So there's only one item, one hand raised. That's a member of the public Lynn Siegel.

[4:01] So go ahead, Lynn and you would have 3 min and then will pull up the timer. So you just made me late for my Empower Hour candidates forum on climate and energy. By reading the rules. Rules that can easily, someone can check off. Easily. How many tens of thousands of hours have been spent reading rules? This is utterly archaic. That the city of Boulder, a supposedly progressive place is reading the riot act to every person who's trying to speak. This is stop it. Just stop. What a waste. And wasting my time. At an energy form. Why do you do that? Why? Because the higher ups tell you. You tell the higher ups because you're the leader. Lynn, why don't you get to your point, please, instead of complaining? We're very happy to hear what you have to say, but you've said the same thing.

[5:01] Because I want to complain and I have a right to complain. Sorry, sorry if you don't like it, Sarah. It's just not an efficient use of your time, Lin. But I'm sick of I'm sick of doing it. I'm sick of doing it and you never listen and you never change it, do you? That's not true, Lynn. Please go ahead. Yes, like you don't change about more efficient housing. And I'll tell you how you do a fish in housing. Seattle and went up to the Mountaineer's Lodge. You sign up for. Set up and serve or whatever at the lodges where you go skiing. You're in a dorm? So there's not individual bedrooms? You know, if you're lucky and you go early enough, you don't get toilet duty, you get set up and serve or or buying food or something to help with the whole communist kind of thing. You know, but it worked really well, really, really well. And that's the kind of affordable, truly affordable housing.

[6:02] That you need to do in Boulder. If this is such a free and progressive place. Why aren't you? Why are you instead talking about the smaller and smaller you can get? The more and more the developer gets. Why is that? I don't understand. In an insatiable market. In an inelastic market, there's only one thing that goes up. When you get smaller. And that's the income for the developer. It doesn't help anyone. And larger places that are shared do. And if people don't want to live that way, well then they can pay the higher price. But why don't you offer that option to people? Instead of offering them up to the developer. Who inflates the value of all the properties and people like me have to go and fight at the board of equalization now and later the board of assessment appeals for the $3,000 that my taxes went up from 5,500 to $8,500 a year.

[7:06] My insurance just went up from 1,600 to 3,500. So think about that. Thank you, Lynn. Please wrap it up. Thank you. Alright, thanks, Lynn. Okay. Is there anyone else, Vivian? Nope. Okay. Next will be discussions of dispositions planning board call-ups and continuations of which there are none. So we will go right to the public hearing item. I see that ML is actually here, which is wonderful. We see you. Versus being on the phone and alright, so this agenda item which I'll read in a second, we've set aside 15 min for staff presentations, then we'll have Q&A. We want the staff to get through the presentation. Thank you. A clarifying questions from the board. Then a 15 min applicant presentation. And then a 45 min board discussion and just a reminder it's a concept review so we're we're talking about things we do and don't like but we're not voting on anything.

[8:10] Okay, so this is concept plan review and comment request for a mixed use proposal to develop. 5 4 5 0 airport boulevard with a hundred 47 attached dwelling units and 2,000 square feet of non-residential space in 4 three-story buildings. 117 and the 147 units are proposed as efficiency living units. This is reviewed under case number LU R 2 0 2 3 dash 0 0 0 2 6. And Shannon, please take it away. Alright, wonderful. May share my screen. Yes.

[9:00] Okay, we all see that and can you hear me all right? Yay, awesome. Okay, so good evening planning board members. I'm Shannon Muller with the City of Alder Planning Department. I'm excited to get your feedback on tonight's concept plan. So I'll briefly cover the information and staff's memo, the purpose of a concept plan, the existing site conditions and surroundings. The proposal itself and some key issues. So again, the purpose of the concept plan review is to review a general proposal and help identify key issues in advance of a more detailed site review. So the applicant will receive comments from the planning board, staff and the public. And as Sarah said, no formal action is being taken tonight on the project. And as Sarah said, no formal action is being taken tonight on the project. Public notification was provided in terms of written notice and notice was posted on the property. Staff did not receive any public comments on this proposal. Moving to this site itself, this is located south of Airport Boulevard and it's accessed via an easement across the neighboring lots to the north.

[10:06] Here you can see the property canists of lot threed with it which is 4.2 9 acres and outlet A which is 3.3 one acres. It's bordered by existing developed properties in the Lake Center business part to the west, north and east. The boulder and left hand and North Boulder farmer stitches run through the site. Through outlet A and there's a dedicated open space and scenic trail easement along the ditches further south to the southeast is the San Lazaro mobile home park in unincorporated Boulder County. There's the Sterling Court Industrial Park to the south. The, bike park is just to the southwest and the Boulder County jail facility is further east as well as the municipal airport. Just to the northwest. So this property was approved as part of prior site reviews that also approved the buildings immediately to the West and development was approved on this site 3 different times through the site review process between 1997 and 2,018 but no building has ever been constructed here the buildings to the west consisted here.

[11:20] The buildings to the west consist of 2 29,000 square foot 2 story buildings to the west consisted here. The buildings to the west consisted here. The buildings to the west consists of 2 29,000 square foot 2 story buildings that are occupied by Blue Canyon technologies and the building just to the north is an 81,000 square foot building. With 3 levels over one level of parking. Occupied by also energy and scaled agile. The buildings are brick and glass and designed to fit into an office industrial park setting. They're surrounded by parking and landscaped areas. Since lot threed was never developed as previously approved it's vacant but there are some items on the site like curb cuts into the property a parking area some retaining walls partially constructed pedestrian walkways underground utility infrastructure and some associated easements.

[12:04] And then outlet A to the south contains an existing stormwater detention facility and again those easements and the scenic and trail easement previously mentioned. There is significant topography on this site. It slopes down, from north to south, at least 30 feet, and contains multiple retaining walls. This in turn allows for significant views facing toward the south and southwest. In terms of transportation, the site is accessed again from Airport Boulevard and then through that access. Easement across salots through the north. The nearest transit stops from this property are located at the intersection of Elm on an airport. So over a half mile walking distance and there's limited bus service at those locations. The transportation master plan calls for a multi-use path in the scenic and trail easement through this site and that is plan to connect to Vermont bike park.

[13:00] There is a missing link on this triangular property. To the southwest in between the subject proposal includes adding the multi use path connection on the property itself. Terms of the BVCP, the Lot 3D is designated light industrial that allows for light industrial uses as well as other residential and other appropriate complementary uses, excuse me, at appropriate locations. The outlaw is subject to that scenic and trail easement, so it's appropriately designated, open space, development rights, and open space other. The property is in the East Boulder Sub Community Plan area adopted in October, 2,022 the designations in the East Boulder plan are consistent with the comp plan. The property was not designated as an area of change where new walkable neighborhoods were specifically identified. Subsequently earlier this year as part of the use table and new standards project module 2 that focused on industrial areas.

[14:07] The code was updated in regard to regulations for residential uses in the industrial zones. Residential uses have been permitted in IM. Zones since 2,004 through approval of a use review only for approval of a use review only for residential projects have been approved through that process.

[15:08] Use review for residential uses. So again, in terms of the zoning, this property is zoned. I am industrial manufacturing and so it would require a use review for the residential portion of this proposal. So moving to the proposed project itself, this is a proposal for 4 3 story buildings. It would have an approximately 17,000 office. Square foot office component about 2,600 square foot of restaurant slash retail. A hundred 47 dwelling units of which the majority would be ELUs or efficiency living units. Those are defined as units that are 475 square feet or less. As well as to one bedroom and 28 2 bedroom units and it would also have proposed a 15 to 16% parking reduction for this proposal.

[16:02] As you can see on the site plan, there are 2 vehicle access points on the west end of the site as well as a vehicle or connection at the northeast corner to the property to the north. Pedestrian access into and through the site is largely attached sidewalks adjacent to parking areas. The proposal does show the construction of the plan multi-use path along those stitches and connections from the site down to that path. Here again is the architectural images that the applicant provided. Building A over toward the western of the site, buildings B and C toward the middle and then building D is located at the east end of the site. Moving to required processes. So following tonight's hearing, the applicant would need to file for a site review amendment and the parking reduction requests could be considered as part of that and it would also require that use for residential and industrial areas.

[17:08] If those were approved, it would then move on to technical documents and industrial areas. If those were approved, it would then move on to technical documents and easements and that sort of thing. So for key issues for tonight, staff identified 3 key issues and I'll go through those quickly. The first one was if the proposal is compatible with the goals of objectives and recommendations of the BBC P to highlight again this proposal is located in the light industrial area. This does allow for residential and other complementary uses inappropriate locations and refers to policy 2.2 one light industrial areas where additional guidance is provided. Staff identified the following policies in the memo and provided more detail. And analysis of these policies and there in the first 3 staff felt that the proposal was consistent with in terms of providing infill and a compact development, providing those trail linkages and providing a balance, in terms of providing housing.

[18:10] The, the bottom group of policies staff was recommending. Revisions to the proposal to better meet those policies because this proposal is located largely in industrial park setting. Staff, recommended, revising the proposal to really provide more of that neighborhood feel. And really needing it to provide a neighborhood in of itself since they're really lacks a lot of things in the surrounding area that folks would need. Again, referencing policy 2.2 one light industrial areas. Very important to provide and go through each of the subcategories of that policy. Policy 2.3 6 physical design for people just providing more of that pedestrian oriented design. 2.3 7 environmentally sensitive design really showing how the proposal in the site design itself provides more of that environmental sensitivity.

[19:05] And then again, enhanced design for all projects, would be looking for the proposal to kind of create that neighborhood, establish a neighborhood feel, create its own sort of relationship to the public realm where it really does not have a public realm right now. Providing really ample transportation in terms of the TDM and as much transportation connections as possible since it is located in a challenging location out there along airport boulevard showing how the parking is well designed and integrated into the site and again the on-site open spaces how those are going to serve folks that are living there especially folks that are going to be in more of an ELU type living situation. Key issue too was for feedback on the proposed mix of uses. Again, these were the mix of uses that were proposed and again it would require that use review for residential and industrial.

[20:05] So staff was looking for planning boards feedback on the proposed mix of uses. Staff looked at seeing how the design could best address the predominance of ELUs that are really making up the bulk of the units on this site and how the site could best provide for on-site services and amenities in policy to point 1. 2.2 one there's references to really providing those onsite services and amenities that aren't typically available in industrial area. And then again just showing how the proposal relates to that open space to the south. The proposal is eligible to request a use review due to its contiguity to that open space and how it relates to that we felt was important. And then moving to key issue 3 was we'd love to get feedback on the overall conceptual site plan and architecture.

[21:00] Again, looking at these items in terms of the site design and building design. We looked at the new site review criteria that this project would be reviewed under several of the items under access and transportation trying to show how the proposal really addresses the needs of folks. That they don't have to necessarily depend on automobile, how it could best provide a pedestrian oriented environment and minimize the amount of pavement. And then in terms of the open space again, really showing how it's going to meet the needs of the folks that the units are designed to serve. And then lastly, in terms of the building, citing in public realm, how those buildings can be created in more of a streetscape type of design and the relationship of parking to those buildings. In terms of next steps, this item is eligible for call up consideration by city councils and the applicant would then proceed with taking this feedback and submitting applications or could possibly submit a new concept plan review application if they so desired.

[22:03] The application would be reviewed under concurrent site review amendment and user view applications and it would be a staff level decision that would be subject to call up by the planning board. So that concludes my presentation. Happy to take any questions. Alright, thank you so much, Shannon. Really appreciate it. If anyone on the board has clarifying questions, that would be the time to raise your electronic hand and I'll call on you. Okay, Laura, then ML. Thank you, Sarah. Shannon, thank you for that. Speedy but very thorough presentation and for the packet. That was very well explained. My question has to do with the relationship and hierarchy between the East Boulder Sub Community Plan and the changes that were made to the use tables.

[23:02] And I I recall feeling and it may have just been me some confusion about whether the contiguity requirements that were done in the use tables update would trump any sub-community or area plans because we spent 3 years trying to define the areas of change in the East Boulder sub- Community Plan. But it sounds like St's interpretation is that that change that was made by city council to the use tables to allow industrial in more areas to transfer over into or evolve into residential. Trump's the sub-community plan. Is that what I'm hearing? Generally, yeah, that's a good way of putting it. Yeah, the, the plans are more of policy level guidance that then is implemented through those changes to the zoning code. And so what happened through those use table changes were the regulatory changes that went into effect to the zoning code.

[24:05] Yes. Okay, thank you. I think I understand. You done, Laura? Okay, ML and. Hold on a second. ML and then Curt and then Mark. Great. Thank you, Sarah. And, thank you so much, Shannon. It was a very thorough and well. Done packet. I really appreciate your. Analysis. So I think, and this was just at the end of your presentation, did I, am I understanding that? The use review. And. Whatever other requirement might be coming up. Will be done at the staff level? And you won't come back to any more? Yeah, so this Unless we call it up, is that correct? Oh, there it is. So the site review agreement and so the use of view won't come back automatically.

[25:01] Yeah, does not come back automatically. It would be subject to call-up. There could be a situation where depending on like say if a height modification was added into the proposal or something of that nature that it might be a mandatory. Planning board. public hearing but but outside of a situation such as that it would be a staff level decision subject to call up that's correct. And because the parking requirement is such a small one as well. Or parking reduction. Yeah. Yes, if the parking Yes, if the parking reduction changed so that it exceeded 50% then it would be a mandatory public hearing for planning board. That's right. Okay, thank you. Alright, Kurt and then Mark. Thank you very much. Shannon or anybody else on staff, do you have any feel for why the previously approved industrial projects were never constructed.

[26:01] Do you have any? Historical information on that. I don't. Yeah, the most recent one was approved as recently as 2018. It was a 40,000 square foot. Office industrial building that might be a great question for the applicant if they have any knowledge of that. Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you much. Alright, Mark, your turn. Yeah, and I may ask a couple I may come back around. As as evidenced by my email earlier today and Sa's response. My questions are going to focus on. The connections for this site. . So my first question is Have we actively pursued? Are we going to actively pursue? Why haven't we if we if the answer is no. The missing link connection.

[27:06] Which I believe from looking at the maps is owned by the Sterling Circle Industrial. The industrial park yeah So it seems like We have allowed. The industrial park. To develop and that's a fine little industrial part. I like it. But just because of the plot, the way it lays out. They, it's private property and they control this missing link. So have we missed opportunities? As Sterling Circle has developed. To acquire an easement. As part of other development rights. To connect the Vermont bike park to the subject property. And are we doing anything about that now?

[28:05] Because to me, this is critical. I'll talk about my comments later. This is critical to this site. But tell me about that connection. And, and what the status is and what we've done about it. Yeah, so that, industrial park has been plotted for many years. The area with that missing link there. I did reach out to our OSNP staff to see if they had any information. About this. During the review process and they had been in contact with that property owner, I believe as recently as the past year or 2 and talks. Regarding an. I think there has been effort. Made in regards to that. It didn't sound like there was any, current like forward progress where it's like actively happening, but I know that work has been.

[29:01] Okay. Taking place. I'm trying to connect those missing links. So. Is do we have a tool? A legal valid tool. And I certainly want us to operate within, you know, All legal scope. To have an applicant for one property. Facilitate to actively pursue help out with creating a you know doing something with that with that sort of missing link. And again, it could just be generic. We have lots of situations like this. This is not completely unique. My question is is are we. Prescribed that we We can only discuss. Connections that are on a subject property. For in terms of development bus noise so that's maybe a question for Laurel or someone else.

[30:12] Yeah, I can try to answer and loyal can try and if I say anything wrong, but yeah, my understanding is from a regulatory context from a development review context. We are only really can, you know, extract improvements that relate specifically to the subject property. So we wouldn't be able to try to. To have them develop this other person's property with the trail connection. Yeah, I agree with Okay. Alright. When I call. Please. Does that also preclude us or prohibit us from? Making an approval contingent on development of a missing link on a different property contingent on development of a missing link on a different property.

[31:02] For instance, could we say. Hey, you know, this project would be great if that link existed, but it doesn't. So we're going to deny it. Is that legal? Hi. Again, Laura, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I think my understanding is you would have to find. Or whoever the decision maker was would have to find that it didn't meet some criteria of. The required approvals such as the site review or in or the use review criteria if that's I think that's correct. Yeah, that's correct. In order for something like that to be defensive, we have to have some sort of. Area in our criteria to point to to say something like that. Okay. Great. Thank you. And thank you, Mark, for letting me jump in. Sure, well I'm I'm gonna build on that because that's that that really goes to the heart of this and So. I'm sorry, Mark, can I just remind you that these are clarifying questions and you can actually bring this up when we have our discussion.

[32:09] Okay. Yeah. Yeah, so, so I'm, again, I'm trying to avoid, I'm trying to clarify what is allowed for later discussion. I definitely have thoughts on things, but I am trying to raise questions that I think should be answered. And that is. If while we can't do what Kurt suggested and say condition. An approval upon something that is not on a subject property. We could deny something. Simply because it didn't need. A criteria in the BBC. But. If the applicant ever came back and said, hey, I've solved this problem. We could we could approve the project.

[33:03] But we we could deny a project. Because of a failure to meet. Code conditions like lack of connections. But we can't condition it due to. Lack of conduct conditions, lack of connections. To some future condition is I don't know if I'm being clear but Laurel Shannon, tell me if you understood that question. Hey Channa, did you want to jump in there? Would you like to? Oh, I guess the question was if I understand Mark's question, it was the difference between conditioning something. Versus denying something. Okay. Yes. Based on something that's outside the boundaries with a particular parcel. Right, so you still have to have denial findings. And say like what it is that you're denying the project for.

[34:05] And kind of again, circling back to those criteria. So it all is kind of based on the criteria. And the code. So when we, we read it those denial findings, we like list up the criteria that it doesn't mean based on your conversations and what you decide. Alright, okay, I'm gonna stop there for a minute and let someone else take it. I'm gonna follow up in a similar direction, but I have a question about. Really the property to the southwest. So there's this very strange, the property that the missing link goes across. It's a very strange kind of arrow shaped parcel as far as I can tell it's got a big triangular, as far as I can tell. It's got a big triangular head, but then it's got a big triangular head, but then it's got a big triangular head, but then it's got sort of an arrow shaft. Down, that connects to sterling circle. Just between. The property with the red roof, which is the Boulder Potter guild.

[35:10] And whatever building is to the southwest of that on this. This, map that we're showing here. My question is, there's this very strange Nero. He's of the parcel that as I say goes between Walter Potter's guild and some industrial building. And when I toured the site. I wrote up to the Boulder Potter's Guild. I came from the Sterling Circle side and I walked up that through that that narrow area, which has very well defined social path on it. And then across a couple of bridges across the. The ditches. To get up. My question is. I guess. What is the, do you have any idea what the original purpose was of leaving this?

[36:08] Nero what looks like it would be some sort of an access way. To between the Boulder Powers Guild and this other building. It doesn't seem like it's usable for anything else. And. If we wanted to try to establish a public connection and official connection. Rather than the very unofficial connection that exists today which requires you to go past some no trespassing signs and stuff. If we were to try to make that an official connection. What would be required? Would it be adding it to the TMP and then getting it to happen somehow. So that was a long question and hopefully that was clear. Yeah, I I believe that would be sort of the process if there was a desire. For the city to try to make that connection typically it would be shown on the TMP you're talking about kind of crossing The ditches building a bridge in this location and crossing the ditches.

[37:18] Exactly. Yeah. So. Yeah, that would most likely, yeah, go through that process of being added, added to the TMP. And then for the city to you know try to acquire the access and so forth. And the first part of the question was, do you have any idea why that property was shaped that way? Because it makes it it makes it look like it was originally thought of as a connection. Yeah, when I looked at the plot for that subdivision, it appeared to me that that kind of triangular error shaped lot as you said. It was a plotted lot and it was intended to have access off of sterling circle, with a vehicle or access point from that location.

[38:01] I'm assuming it has not been developed since it would be rather expensive to construct a bridge across the ditches to construct a bridge across the ditches to get to the small piece of property, a bridge across the ditches to get to the small piece of property that exists beyond the ditches. So it seems like property to develop as you said. So that was my understanding when I kind of looked at the plot for that, industrial park down there. Again, in terms of the subject property we're talking about tonight. Industrial park down there. Again, in terms of the subject property we're talking about tonight, I think just going back to the subject property we're talking about tonight. Again, in terms of the subject property we're talking about tonight, I think just going back to the regulatory standpoint, since this project, there is a need for this missing link connection, this subject property probably would not be the property that's creating that need. We would we would definitely like to see it connected and and so forth. I think we would have difficulty extracting or basing a decision off kind of these off-site improvement.

[39:01] We typically try to avoid making requirements based on those, but we did want to point it out in the staff memo since it, it is kind of a missing link next to this property. Thank you very much. That's all. Okay, last call for questions. Nonseen. All right, Shannon, thank you. Time for the applicants. To please appear on screen. Hello. I see some. Markles showing up who must be the applicants. If you all could, there you are, there's one. Hmm. No. No, I'm gonna be making the presentation. Says is your father or brother going to be joining you visually? Okay. Okay, great. So you'll have 15 min, to do so.

[40:01] So please, go ahead. Alright, let me share my screen here. Okay, so everyone. See my shared screen. We do. Okay, great. Alright, well, my name is Jason Markel. I'm vice president of Marcel Homes and wanted to thank Shannon for such a thorough and thoughtful presentation. That was outstanding. You know, Markel Holmes has been building in the city of Boulder for 50 years now and, you know, we're committed to working with planning boards. City Council. Staff and our professionals to enhance our project in every way possible. Us we believe sketch plan is the quintessential platform to incorporate outside ideas and share our projects vision and site constraints we've been designing around. We are emboldened with rates at 8% commercial properties on the decline and Boulder County's housing crisis to contribute, address, and add to the attainable housing in the city through thoughtful design.

[41:13] Some of the projects we have collaborated on with the city include decoder Ridge Village. Northfield Commons. Calmia 38 Northfield village Kalmia court and Keller Farm In addition to our City of Boulder projects, we have a lot of projects in the older county such as North End, West Grange, Silver Creek, Blue Sky, White Hawk Ranch, and Lions Valley Park. So almost a hundred percent of our building throughout the last 50 years, you know, takes place in Boulder counties or a true, you know, locally owned and operated local builder here. And I think you'll see that that contributes to our, you know, thoughtful design. And accountability to the residents here.

[42:09] So part of that accountability is, you know, we hold ourselves to high. Standards including design, community enrichment and high efficiency high-performing building practices. We believe in leading by example and are recognized in the front range as a leader in high in green building, high performing homes. And some of our, you know, awards or the US Green Building Council, you know, lead, leadership award, indoor Air Plus leadership award, the best of Boulder, builder award. And you know Guildmaster Award for Service Excellence. So. You know, with our, project at Lake Center near the airport, you know, we plan to continue our sustainable and green building practices here. And with our southerly orientation. We're excited to take advantage of the passive southerly orientation with our, you know, large roof overhangs.

[43:07] And I wanted to, you know, reiterate the presentation stuff. Sorry, I don't want to reiterate, you know, the presentation staff delivered instead. You know, I wanted to shine a light on our design objectives, site constraints and features to show how we arrived at our plan and are looking forward to future improvements. You know, our project is located near the Vermont bike park and Boulder airport taking advantage of the city's wishes of building more projects in light industrial areas. This is not the first project of our kind, the Velo community 4 blocks away from us successfully paved the way with a residential neighborhood and a light industrial area. Like Velo, we do have an adjacent residential county property. And keep in mind that this is not a downtown project. Considering our location, we have identified a need for attainable housing and cost-conscious planning.

[44:03] Along these lines, we need adequate parking and transportation amenities for our residents to travel to and from work each day. We plan on introducing zip electric cars. Battery power D bikes and battery scooters for last mile connectivity. And with that in mind, you know, we think, you know, bike ability is sort of the new walkability with all the battery assisted technology out there. And so, you know, our RTD bus stop, you know, is, is a 2 min bike ride. Our, you know, city park is 4 min. 15 min bike or bus ride to downtown and Boulder Junction is just a 7 min bike away. So you know, in years past with what could have been, you know, a long walk with the lime scooters, B bikes and zip cars, you know, everything's much closer as far as connectivity is concerned.

[45:02] And we are talking to the missing link property owner. We are requesting, you know, the city's help in addressing the property owner's wishes. To add you know density bonuses on adjacent properties. For their help in creating the missing link connection. And so we're happy to facilitate this process. And I know it's in our best interest and I think it's in the city's best interest and I think we can make it. You know, of interest, you know, with the property owner as well so that we all come away with a win here establishing that connection. So again, we're happy to facilitate that. And they're gonna be working hard to make that happen. Sorry, next slide is looking at the open space on the property. We have a large, you know, open space that you guys have seen in previous slides. Our southerly open space, I think is our best amenity. It's preserving the views, are flat on views to the southwest.

[46:07] And so with that, it enriches, you know, our best amenity. And we also have 5 distinct social gathering areas on site, one in front of each building. So you'll see each building has its own. You know, social gathering site that is independent of the others. And so we plan on kind of weaving a fabric and making each of those. Special in their own way. And then we also have a central park. So this park here besides building B. Is sort of our family gathering area and that's more of a central park and it's going to be different. From all these other, you know, amenity locations. So staff. Recommended a few things in there, write up. And we read through that and considered the rooftop decks. That they recommended we think would be a great addition to the project.

[47:11] And so in addition to all these other, you know, open space areas, having these rooftop decks on buildings be and see we think would be a really amazing amenity capitalizing on the views. And we also have, you know, open patios in front of our mixed use building. And so with that open patio, we plan on having a restaurant. On the first floor and so having a really nice large open patio in front of the restaurant we think would be a really great amenity not just for our project, but sort of weaving in the greater neighborhood because if you've ever been there. Obviously there's a lot of, you know, offices and workers around. And we think, you know, a breakfast and lunch restaurant would really enhance the community feel.

[48:04] In that area. And so. One of our site constraints. Is that we have, you know, topography on the slot. And so we also have an existing. Retaining wall. Running basically this whole red. Swath here is a is a pretty large retaining wall And it. Greatly contributes to the buildability of the lot because it flattens out this whole area, which is really nice for the, you know, building construction. But what it does create is it creates You know a setback and and it creates it in 2 ways. One, the setback is required for engineering because we can't build right on top of the retaining wall. With the pressures. And then 2. We need the setback because if we put these buildings right against.

[49:02] The wall, the city codes and how we look at max height calculations. Will, you know, the lowest point in 25 will be, you know, 15 feet down the retaining wall. And so we'll lose a story. And so if you we did a you know, little, section here to kinda show you what's happening with the retaining wall and why we need to set the buildings back. But in this lower, you know, one, if the building was, you know, The minimum spacing from the retaining wall, we would still. You know, have our lowest point in 25 down near that open space. Which would chop off an entire story of 3 buildings. And so we'd be losing 44 units. If we did that and we'd be losing 37 parking spaces because we'd still need to be set back from that retaining wall. So if we set it back even further. So that we don't lose our lowest point in 25, we gain those 44 units.

[50:09] Which greatly enhances the affordability of the project. And we wanted to do something in this space right here. And so with in that space. You know, we strongly believe that we need parking. You know, in this site and we don't wanna take a large parking reduction. And so we wanted to add. You know, parking, to that site. One thing, you know, that we are gonna propose. Is that you know we want we listen to staff's concerns over you know, the parking and you know we strongly believe that we need to mitigate. You know, some of the hardscape. And so with this section, we wanted to show that we're committed to in future submittals.

[51:03] You know, having some more increased pedestrian environment and in doing so we want to have detached sidewalks from the from our road or alley. And so with detaching the sidewalks, will gain, you know, green space. And we will add. You know, landscape buffers. And parking buffers with landscaping. And so. Let me. Go over and scroll down here. Okay, so then if I can just remind you, you have about 4 min left, so just FYI. Okay, perfect. So let's see, so the section depicts advancements to the plan, you know, in multiple ways. And one of those ways is trying to create an increased pedestrian environment by creating front porches on our ground floor units.

[52:05] And so we think if we can put some front porches accessing our ground floor units and possibly elevating them so that there's some privacy and you know contributes to the livability of the unit. That when you know, people are walking by on these detached walks, we can have sort of a more intimate. Relationship with the building in these pictures shown above with front porches. And so we'd also want to add compact parking against the buildings to facilitate the detached walks and increase tree lawns and landscape islands to break apart, you know, the parking hardscape and attached walks. And with that, you know, we are also envisioning a height modification. Because based on feedback from staff, you know, we're striving to add architectural variety and with more interesting roof forms we can achieve that.

[53:07] And to add, you know, liveability, we want to increase, you know, plate heights. And with the enhanced pedestrian environment, we'd want to elevate the first floors. So with those 3 things. And factoring in the topography of the site. I think we're probably gonna move forward with requesting, you know, minor height modification. In future submittals. And. You know, in conclusion, you know, we welcome any questions and concerns and look forward to working with you on elevating this plan for future residents of Boulder. And yeah, happy to field any questions. Jason, very nice presentation. Is this your first presentation? Planning board. I know your father. Cadmium. Yeah, for the city of Boulder, you know, we we're actually pretty excited because you know the last I don't know, maybe.

[54:05] 4 or 5 years. We haven't had a presence in the city and a lot of that was due to land availability. And so, you know, I've been making a lot of presentations to Longmont and Lafayette and Lewisville. Okay. But yeah. We're excited to be back in Boulder over after all these years and, yeah, look forward to working with you on this project. Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Are there any clarifying questions for Jason? Curt and then Mark. Hey Jason, thank you for your presentation. I asked staff about the history of the field industrial projects on the site. I'm just wondering if you have any feel for why those failed was it anything to do with. The site per se or was it just external factors?

[55:01] Do you know anything? You know, I think it was a combination of the decline in commercial viability of projects. And so I can't really speak to, you know, Reynolds exact, you know, thing, but what I do know is that, you know, it been for sale for quite some time. And you know, we are identified, you know, You know. An opportunity you know to capitalize on the new light industrial Changes and sub area plans and so you know we decided to yeah make a go of it and you know it required almost a year's worth of sort of investigating different avenues to make it happen and you know working with staff and doing our pre apps and so yeah luckily. You know, we were able to achieve our contiguity and sort of facilitated. A residential project in this area.

[56:07] Okay, thank you. One other quick question. The, your, proposed plans show an access to the northeast. Is there also a an excess easement? On the northeast side through the adjoining property. Yeah, so let me. See if I have a site plan here. Okay, there we go. So here's our main entry over here. And then we have a This topography in here is a little robust and so you know You can enter here and then we have a easement. Taking you around. This building so you kind of come up and around this building which gives us our secondary.

[57:04] Okay, so they're. Okay. Egress But the main thing. Yeah, it's on both sides. And so. Yeah, when Reynolds plotted that he had that, you know, in, in the you know in the re plotting of the property. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Alright, Mark and then ML. Alright, thank you, Jason. My question, my first question, involves the mix of unit types. And. What market signals are telling you that in this location. In this time. 117 ELUs and I forget how many 2 bedrooms. Is the right mix. And And do you? Perceive the potential that. The ELU boom is a bit of a bubble and and sometimes people way on the outside can kind of see a bubble but sometimes people on the inside don't see it.

[58:18] But so my question is is what makes you what makes you confident? That this is the right product. Next at this site at this time. Yeah, no, it's a great question. You know, we see it in our adjoining neighborhoods in other communities such as Lafayette Lewisville and Longmont. You know, there's the affordability crisis, you know, is ever present in And so, you know, we even see it, you know, in Longmont, Louisville, Lafayette, and people are struggling, you know, to stay in those areas much less. Boulder. And so, you know, we thought, you know, when we look at our demographics that You know, ELUs.

[59:05] Are sort of that. Missing link to keeping, you know, workers here in Boulder. And so if, people are having to, you know, travel to Longmont and even, you know, De Kano, you know, then there's an obvious, you know, crisis going on and, you know, there's some you know parcels of land or better suited for you know families. You know, maybe the missing middle and some parcels we believe are, you know, better suited for, you know, workforce housing and we've sort of identified this parcel. As one that would probably be, you know, a better, more, you know, workforce ask. You know, housing initiative. And so that's why we decided to sort of double down on our ELUs.

[60:04] Okay, you said and rightly that, hey, we are taking an advantage of code changes code changes that we in the not disin past adopted and city council adopted, allowing residential development in the I. Ig. Zones and. My question is do you perceived that the code is somehow, does the code somehow drive you to, or is, the code completely independent of that, but your perception as a developer is the code driving independent of that. But your perception as a developer is the code driving you to be able to use. You know, I, I don't believe the codes driving us to EL use. I think our location, you know, is.

[61:03] I think our location, you know, is driving, you know, more the ELUs. I think our location, you know, is driving, you know, more the ELU, thought process. But, you know, I think obviously, you know, bolder. Has the capability to, you know, build very high end and you know I think that might be disingenuous to address a housing crisis to just build super high end. Units here and so that's sort of the impetus is One trying to address a housing crisis to acknowledging, you know, your location and that you know you don't want to necessarily over build. In an area that might not support, you know. You know, crazy price per square foot units. And so, you know, I think It's sort of a multitude of factors.

[62:14] Right. Okay. That are sort of leading us in that direction, but you know, What we have done in the past is you know we built hundreds of affordable units in Boulder and you know most of our communities over the years you know have addressed, you know, the sort of you know affordability missing middle and obviously you know to pay for all of that we've had some you know market rate you know paving that way but I think on this property. Yeah, we've identified it as, you know, a prime candidate for, Yale use and workforce housing. Okay, last thing. I appreciate your concern for market affordable workforce housing. But I still kind of, and I'm not anti EO you, at all. But I kind of get the feeling that somehow. ELUs are being typed as workforce housing and maybe I'm just misunderstanding you but you know there's a lot of the workforce out there.

[63:11] Least to my perception that has families that are married couples, kids, etc. So, do you equate workforce housing? More with your affordability target. Or are are you equating it more with the type? And the mix that you've you proposed to put on the site. Yeah, I mean, you know, we have you know, a fair amount of 2 bedrooms, you know, to sort of cater to families and with our Central Park, you know, we will have you know, some amenities for children in the Central Park. And so we're not trying to you know, turn a blind eye to families and just cater to, you know, I guess what you would call like, you know, single workforce housing residence.

[64:06] We're thinking that you know this location probably is better off with workforce housing and we sort of wanted to achieve. In affordability and in doing so you know the larger the unit you know the more expensive it's going to be and so in addressing that I feel like it naturally as a sort of a market rate. Attainability, wants to be, you know, you know, smaller units and in doing so it just so happens to sort of fall into that ELU. You know, you know, square footage, but we've been designing, you know, kind of micro units in Longmont. We've been, you know, designing some micro units for use in Louisville. And so it's not just

[65:05] You know, that we feel like we need to address the ELU concerns in your code. It's more that, you know, we sort of self you know, govern the affordability of the project by market rate attainability. Alright, thank you. Appreciate the presentation. Thanks Mark. And just a reminder, the city doesn't actually have a definition of workforce or workforce. It's really a tool. That is, we don't know what to tool for. Just doesn't have to no definition. So ML, you're next and then George. Thank you. Thank you, Jason, for your presentation. And, I think you definitely. Made some points that I had recognized. Just to follow up a bit on what Mark was talking about, in your applicant statement One of the things you mentioned was or said was, in, your quote, recognizing the necessity and requirements of deep restrictive affordable units.

[66:16] Mark Al Homes is taking a proactive step by incorporating innovative, non deed restricted workforce housing. Feature and efficient living units. Can you? I'm puzzled by that. You're clearly stating. That we need deed restricted affordable units and then you're saying you're addressing that by providing non deed restricted. Units. First. Are these units for sale? And. Where are they landing in the market if they are for sale? Yeah. So, you know, just to clarify. You know, obviously there's a mandatory affordability deed restricted component.

[67:03] To the project. And so I think you know, I think what we were trying to say is yes, there's a, you know, deed restricted component to this project. But one thing that we are trying to pursue And this is sort of what I was talking about in my last comment was that by restricting the size of the unit you're restricting you know the price of that unit. And whether that's for sale or for rent. You know, you are restricting that in a market rate driven. You know, way. And so I think that's what we're trying to say is that you know, with this location we can't fetch. You know the downtown rents or the downtown, you know, for sale, you know, price points and so with having, you know, our, you know, square footages where they are, it's sort of a market rate.

[68:06] Initiative to have a and it's will hit a different, you know, price point than the affordable, but at the same time it's you know, keeping it in check with the square footage. So are you saying these are for sale units? No, you know what? We have not reached, that point yet. And so, you know, we sort of perform it both ways and, you know, we're still sort of you know, looking into that and I know, you know, we'll be working with, you know, Michelle Allen and you know, trying to decipher, you know, if this is going to be for sale or for rent, but at the moment we haven't pinned it. Yeah. Okay. Okay, thanks. My second question is, when you showed all of the, accessibility. To biking it was through that missing link there so is the project dependent on having that kind of connectivity.

[69:10] Well, let me, go back to. You know, a slide that shows the, more vicinity. Right. Map so You know, we have. Yes, we are showing this connection, but our project comes all the way over to here. And so with, you know, battery powered, you know, transportation. You know, all you're doing is going straight up here and around and that's a that's a nice you know walk that has, you know, biking and it's even, you know, right sized in areas. And so. You know, I think while this would be the preferred method to get to, you know if you if you studied you know coming from here to airport in Vermont and you studied going.

[70:06] You know airport road down there. It's really not that much of a, you know, change in distance. It's obviously preferred because you're not on the road, so it's just more friendly, to bikers, but I think distance-wise. It's not adding. You know, a ton of distance. I don't think it's a deal breaker. But obviously it's something that we're going to pursue heavily and something we'd really like to see. And, just along with that. And my understanding that you don't see this as necessarily a site. That creates walkability, all of your. Information here is about biking and busing, not about walking. Yeah, and you know, I think, you know what? My thought is with this project. Is yes, you know, you can walk to, bike park, but just looking at the area.

[71:10] You know, in these areas. You know, I'm not sure we would be here 10 years ago. You know, I think there's been some major advancements in connectivity between Uber and Zip cars and scooters and B bikes and a lot of people just owning their own, you know, battery powered, you know, electric bikes. And so I think the connectivity when you look at it. Needs to incorporate all the new technology that's happening in that space. And you know, bike, you know, walkability is great, you know, when you're, you know, downtown, but even, you know, being over on, you know, thirtieth and Pearl. You know it's either there's a few things that are walkable but i would suspect a lot of people in that area are biking to.

[72:05] Amenities instead of walking. And so I think you you look over here at our site. And I think, you know, the viability. You know, is this new sort of connectivity transportation fed that's happening or you know just you know. And Uber away type of thing is really lending itself to the viability of the project. Thank you for that. I appreciate your considerations of 20 first century technology mobility. Thank you. That's all my questions. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Thanks, Emil. George, you had your hand up. Is it still? Yeah, I did, but I realized that probably had more comments than questions. I think I've heard enough. Thanks. Okay, thank you. All right, we're. We're already 15 min into questions. Is this a question that's top starts a brand new subject or a follow up on something, maybe something that could be a comment when we get to our own.

[73:03] Feedback. Oh, well, it's a question for the applicant. It's about the restaurant. To the proposed restaurant use. Yeah, please go. I'm, I just am concerned about whether there's, that's a viable use in this location. Have you done a market study to determine that that would be? Actually viable. I haven't done a market study, you know, yet, but you know, our offices are, you know, nearby, you know, black belly. And you know some other you know eateries here near 50 fifth and Arapaho. And I sort of think it's a very similar you know, environment where you have like a flat irons Deli on Central. You know, and there's a ton of, you know, like industrial office workers in that area. And, and it's sort of a, you know. Food food desert if you will. And I think.

[74:07] You know, people want to sort of. You know, stroll down and you know have something that is either walkable or viable. And so I think bringing in and in eatery, you know, and I, you know. When we looked at it and I've analyzed it and talked to, you know, restaurant owners, you know, if something is, you know, high quality and, you know, servicing a need, you know, we think it'll be very successful just with, you know, everything that's surrounding it. And so we don't have any strict, you know, market studies. You know, backing that claim, but just looking at how many folks, you know, work in that area. I think it's gonna be a successful venture. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much, Jason. You can, turn off your video now.

[75:04] Will now open up for public, comment if there is any public comment, please raise your electronic hand and Vivian will call on you and then soon as that then we'll go right to our discussion. Thank you. Sarah. I mentioned this would be the time to raise your hand for the public hearing. Please go ahead and do so and you have 3 min to share your comments. We have 2 members of the public joining us. And no hands are raised. Okay. Alright, thank you so much. So we're gonna go to public comment. Oh, I'm tired. To our own discussion. Oh, sorry, Sarah. Lynn Siegel has just raised her hand. Go ahead, and you have 3 min. I thought you said there were 2 people. So this is the deal. Real affordability.

[76:00] I grew up mostly in the Pacific Northwest. We had the Mountaineers Lodge or other Y just like that. Where you go up for the weekend. And everybody takes a job. And there's dorms where people are. There's not individual bedrooms. And there's a big kitchen. And everyone eats together and everyone cooks together. And it and it works. It's very communist. Just like Russia and it works? In the United States and it has. For decades and decades and this was in the 60, Si tell you. So this is not new stuff. It's a European model. Works really well. And that's what you can do for truly affordable housing. I heard Jason. He kept on saying he needs to. Go to.

[77:01] What was the name of that group that that you know toast masters because he kept sound saying You know, you know, you know, you know, well, we don't know. We're asking questions. It seems like to me. And. There's a lot of You know things going on. That we don't know about. And what I'm finding is . That There's a square footage. Per person cost. Of living in a place. And it's a whole lot cheaper when you have a big place that's divided among multiple people. And this is as an option. Also, when you do efficiency living units, people aren't going to stay there for long. They're going to move through because they're getting married. They're having kids. They're not, you know, it's so it's it's a short-term kind of event.

[78:04] That's not very stabilizing for community. That where people are moving into 2 bedrooms or 3 bedrooms and they're staying there. So that's a factor that like never gets brought up. Does it, you know, when we're talking about stable communities and and also affordable communities. And also workforce housing. And I heard the term, you know. Attainable. Again. I was looking for my notes, sorry. And jobs housing balance. Jason was also talking about Lafayette and Lewisville. That they're doing these efficiency units. So we've already got this sprawl thing going on. And other evidence of. Any market that we're dealing with. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you for participating in the public hearing. Please wrap it up. That, yeah, that just proves the inelastic market that we're, that we're in is expressing itself into the other communities and they're having workforce housing issues too.

[79:11] So. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you. Okay, I see no other hands raised for public hearing, Sarah. All right, so again, we're not real, this is not a site review, it's a concept review, so it's our opportunity to give feedback to the applicants. And staff as well on. Elements of the proposal that we have questions about, concerns about suggestions about I think what we'll do is, we'll go around the horn. On each of the key questions if that's all right with folks. So the first key question is the proposed concept plan compatible with the Boulder Valley comp plan. And I'm just gonna go through, go around the horn and you don't need even to raise your hands and if I miss you just let me know I missed you.

[80:03] So I'll start with Mark. Okay. As far as this fulfilling Bbcp. Goals. Yeah. Yeah, it does kind of, but. There are some serious challenges here and I think that you know concept review is the time to if you're going to be speak direct speak in a way almost harshly with an applicant it's better to do it a concept review with an applicant, it's better to do it a concept review than when this thing is baked and and a concept review than when this thing is baked and and suddenly you're you're asking for something that that is long since passed. So when this thing is baked and, and suddenly you're, asking for something that, is long since the opportunity to fulfill the 2.2 one light industrial areas. Infill. Should contribute to place making. This without. Really great connections.

[81:13] To. The bike park. The open space to the north. The, through San Lazaro to the, laughing goat coffee shop. And post office. Without really good connections. This, will not be a place. I think this is a, this is a site. I spent, you know, a bunch of time out there that making it into a place is both a design challenge and a connection challenge. And what I've seen so far. And again, this to me, this is One of these concept reviews that the applicant has chosen not to bring us something that's super far along.

[82:02] Which either leaves it open to interpretation or it seems weak. To me this seems like a really cool design challenge that has been. It hasn't been flushed out very much and so it seems weak to me. Housing should be the other under under 2.2 1. Housing should be located in your other residential uses or retail services. Well. It's not unless there's a connection. Over to the area I described the post office and live and go, etc. We should encourage a richness of transportation amenities. And again, this is a concept review, so I don't see a TDM plan. But I don't really see any sort of, creativity around TDM in this proposal so far. And finally, I'll just say. Under 2.2 6. In the process of considering development proposals.

[83:09] The city county will encourage development of paths and trails where appropriate recreation and transportation implementation. Will be achieved. Through coordinated efforts of public and private sectors. And so my infant to both the applicant and staff. And I agree with almost all of staff's comments. But if we want to facilitate a development like this of a residential property like this in a solely industrial area. We have to have better coordination. Public public and private sectors to create a connection to this area. Otherwise, it's just going to be a weird isolated area. And I, I would struggle with the idea that this is really fulfilling BBC goals without a real effort to make those connections.

[84:05] Thank you. Alright, thank you, Mark. I'm gonna to Lisa, then George, then Laura, then Curt, and ML. So if I forget my order, just remind me. So Lisa, you're next. That we're not hearing you. We're not hearing you, Lisa. Okay, we'll come back around. George, you're next. Yeah, I mean, I didn't really have clarifying questions for the applicant because, similar to Mark, just To me, this just comes across as a project where the developer got a good deal on the LAMBs trying to figure out. What to do with it. And came to a pretty half baked, concept, that I don't think necessarily meets a whole lot. Is trying to achieve. Don't have many comments beyond what Mark said. I think my comments are more, down the road, in the different parts.

[85:04] I'm trying to. Given how how challenge I am on on the concept that not exactly sure where to put my comments. I'm gonna hold off more until later. Thanks. Okay, thanks George. Laura, I said you were next and then and I'll then current then I'll come back to Lisa. Sorry Lisa. How are you next? I'm happy to defer to Lisa if she's ready. Or I can go, okay, I can go. Yes, so I agree with Mark and George. You know, you guys know I'm a fan of residential. And I think that this project is really trying to push some boundaries and test some limits here. I think staff did a really good analysis in the packet. I would point to their analysis starting on page 19 of the most current packet. Where they talk about the BBC policies that are met and the ones that are a bit more challenged and like Mark, you know, I'm very concerned about BBC P.

[86:02] 2.2 one, the light industrial areas. You know, it is a goal of ours to preserve light industrial areas but to allow housing where appropriate. And this policy as well as the East Boulder subcommunity Plan talk about housing being more appropriate. A logical pattern and in proximity to existing and planned amenities including retail services in transit. And I think staff did a good job pointing out in the memo that that's kind of a heavy lift for this project because a lot of those amenities don't exist. And so these residents are basically living in an office park. And we'll have to drive or bike or scooter out to get everything that they need. There's just not a lot around there. Even one restaurant would be nice. But it's not a lot of amenities for those restaurant for those residents. So, you know, staff on page 22 say overall staff finds that the proposal to introduce a largely residential mixed use project into the industrial and business park area is challenging from a site design and neighborhood building perspective.

[87:02] And requires additional revisions to meet the city's site review criteria, which includes meeting the intent of the BBC P as we just talked about. So I'll point out other things that are more detailed in the sections to come, but but I do want to flag. I think it's going to be a heavy lift for this project to be anywhere near what has been described so far. Oh, did I say ML next? ML, I think you're next. Is that my order? Sorry. I don't remember, but I'm, I'm, I'm said to talk as well. Okay. Okay. I, I'm in, you know, happily concurring with, with Mark and George and Laura at this point. And I would just say that, you know, to me this project is an early adapter to the change zoning. And transportation evolution but the livability is is seriously lacking and I think that the referenced the staff reference BDCP policies.

[88:04] On page 19 and 20. You know, it's just not, responding. To what the Boulder Belly comp plant is laying out as as little ability and the kinds of neighborhoods that we're looking to to have built. So I I think that the applicant. Needs to take the staffs. Very thorough analysis of this. Pretty seriously and Take a look and see whether this project makes sense for this site. You know, it might come down to is just the appropriate place. Alright, and Mel, thank you, Kurt and then Lisa.

[89:04] Yeah, I'm pretty much concur with what everybody has already said. I definitely agree with a lot of those staff comments regarding site design and I guess we'll talk more about site design later but I feel that the the current proposed site design does not meet BBCP policies, 2.3 6 and 2.4 1. Because it's just too car centric. It's it's Billings surrounded by a bunch of parking. I think that well, I'll talk about that in the next section. And. And I'm also concerned. About the restaurant use. I totally agree. There's a lot of, you know, workers in the area, industrial uses, office uses and so on. And there's probably demand for a restaurant, but in this location, will they in some obscure place down sloping driveway off the street.

[90:09] I have concerns whether that would actually be viable. So that's That's also the grid flap for me. All right, Kurt, thank you, Lisa. Hopefully your your audio is working. No, it's still not working. Are your earbuds on? Yeah, okay. Okay. I'll make how about I make my comments and you keep trying and then. Where's comes to worse, type your comments into the chat and I will read them out. How's that? Oh, Lisa just did that. She said, I concur with staff and other planning board numbers. Okay, thank you. If you have anything you want to add that specific, just let us know. Alright, so I also agree, I agree with Mark on the connection issues.

[91:00] I grew with Laura on that. 2.2 one issues. And it raises for me a broader policy issue that I just want to bring up for staff to consider. Which is the decision made by city council this year to allow housing in I. I think might, maybe, maybe to step too far. I mean, I realize that there's they've set up criteria, but. I just wonder if maybe. They jumped the gun given all the other residential opportunities that now exist in East Boulder sub-community plan and. T that. I also am concerned that this project doesn't meet some of the following Boulder Valley comp plan goals, commitment to a walkable city, which is 2.2 4. Or and 6 dot 0 5 reduction of single occupancy auto trips because it's way off in the middle of you've got to walk everywhere.

[92:00] I mean you have to drive everywhere. The failure, it doesn't meet 6 dot o 6 transportation system optimization. That's the meet 6 step one for transportation impacts being mitigated. And 6 dot 1 9 transportation infrastructure that supports a walkable 15 min neighborhood. So those are my comments. Okay, we're gonna go to question number 2, which is does planning board have feedback for the applicant on the proposed use of mixes. I will start with George this time. Here, I'm open my notes real quick. It's gonna sound tripe. I just don't get it. Right. I'm struggling with, with the mix. The developer said they don't even know if it's for rent or for sale. This is obviously for rent project.

[93:03] Can't imagine that you're gonna sell a hundred 20 plus in this location. It just seems like an island where people are gonna be driving in and out. And so for that I just It just doesn't really compute to me. I understand. I understand what they're saying about affordability to me. That's just code for maximizing the price per square foot because they're struggling. To figure out the project from a residential point of view any other way. I would urge them just to reconsider how this project is being put together from from a mixed perspective. Thank you, George. All right, Laura. And then I'll go to Curt and then Lisa and then ML and then Mark.

[94:04] Thank you. As I said, I'm open to residential on this site if the applicant can rise to the challenge. Of all of the things that staff have advised in this staff memo. I'll point to some of those more in question number 3. But specific to key issue number 2. Staff said on page 21, given the predominance of ELUs, staff is recommending that the proposal indicate how the site design addresses the unique needs of residents of ELUs and they talk about increased gathering spaces, storage areas, and other considerations specific to the types of households expected. I think some thought needs to be given to that open space down by the farmers ditches and how that's a huge part of your sites and how that becomes something other than just something pretty to look at as you're looking out over the flat irons. You know, what's what's going on down there. I would think about that and how that can be an amenity for those residents.

[95:00] And yeah, also just again emphasizing the proposal needs to incorporate on-site services and amenities serving the daily needs of residents so they don't have to be leaving the site to get everything that they need. I'll stop there. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Laura. Kurt, I think you're next. Thanks. Yeah, I agree with Laura's analysis and, largely with what George said also. I do think that housing could be an appropriate use here. There were good connections and if there were more amenities around, which may come over time. Hopefully. And I don't have a big concern about the proportion of Yale use. There was just an article in city monitor. In the last couple days talking about the rise of solo renters that young people are wanting are more and more inclined to rent on their own even in very small spaces rather than chair housing. And so I think that there's going to be a growing need for that. I also I feel that The ditches and the open space to the south could be a great amenity.

[96:08] It's not a particularly great amenity if you have kids. So it because of you know safety concerns. So if it were if they were units that were primarily designed for families with kids, I think you'd have to kind of wall that off, which would be a shame. But if it's designed for people who are adults, then maybe you don't have to keep it so separate. And it becomes a more usable space. So, you know, I think with some, some thought and some better design, it could work. Again, as I said earlier, the I am concerned about viability of the restaurant there a restaurant is needed in the area.

[97:03] I don't think that this is the right place for it. Alright, Curt, thank you. Lisa, you're next. We can hear you. Let's see if this works. Can you hear me now? Okay, great. Yeah, again, very similar to folks we've heard from before. I don't think I'm necessarily opposed to residential on the site and I appreciate that given the value of or the cost and value of land and boulder and some that it You know, there's this desire to figure out how to make it work. But yeah, I also just kind of don't understand what was proposed and why, other than maximizing value, which of course is important. And I would just be looking for a better overall site design and. It's just a really, really high number. Efficiency unit that other people have brought up and, and there's nothing really about it. That meets a need that isn't met elsewhere that I find compelling, you know, so I'm not seeing, you know, an elevator building with single floor living and laundry in that could be.

[98:03] You know desirable to older folks from like oh okay well I can see that and maybe we get some of these other units too or patio homes or row homes or townhomes and I realize that all of those pushed the value up. Of the property and can mess with your pro forma but there's just nothing that compelling and as much as I like the idea of Mixed use and of like on site. Services, you know, the restaurant also doesn't make sense. Again, if it had been maybe proposed as a co-working space that also encounter service in like a cafe or something that'd be like, okay, people who work there go there, people rent some of the space. I don't know. May not be doable on that site. But yeah, I think I'm looking for something. More creative and a better use of that space that that also maybe bring something a little more compelling to the table. You know, when this comes back hopefully. Thank you, Lisa. I'm glad you got your audio working again. And then Mark.

[99:01] Thank you. So I think one more time the staff got their comments, spot on, key issue number 2. It appears specifically regarding the proposed mix of uses. Well, there's not really much of a mixes. There there's one restaurant. And there's some office area and the vast majority I think it's as 80% of the units are ELU. So. It's not. It's not a very mixed 3 of the buildings are complete residential. One of the buildings has a mix of use. So I would say that. In order for it to become a true neighborhood in a residential project. You really would need to bring more amenities to the site. And I also think that the location and actual usability of the open space.

[100:08] Would need to be carefully considered. It was pointed out that the open space adjacent to building number A was the restaurant patio. Okay, I think that there just isn't careful consideration about how this how are people gonna live here What does that look like? What does that feel like and how is the open space being used? Beautiful amenity with the creek and all of that and there's there doesn't appear to be any connection to that whatsoever. With the high number of Yale use, these are adults that are going to be living here. Nobody's going to be drowning in a creek. How are people gonna be using that as an amenity? So I, I think that there's kind of a lack of kind of sitting in the project and saying how are people actually going to use it. And to that end, I think that the mix of uses. Has not been informed on, you know, what's really going on here.

[101:08] Alright, Emil, thank you, Mark. I don't have anything. Beyond what's been said on this question number 2, I've got a few comments on 3. But Nothing else. All right, thank you very much. My, I have 2 comments. One is I think that a development up there with a majority ELUs is not a great idea. I, it also raises for me a policy. This project raised for me a policy question about whether. Our new dwelling type mix requirements are specific enough. I feel like this applicant Got his dwelling type mix in there with. 2 one bedroom 2 and it was 2 of something 117 of something 2 of something and then all the rest were something else. And I I felt a little bit like that was cheating. I think it may just be that we aren't specific enough about what what we what we expect from a dwelling type mix.

[102:07] I think there's a lot more that could be done on this. On this plot of land, but I think there's a more existential challenge, which is. This is a plot of land that probably should not be developed until the city makes its decision about what it's going to do with the airport. Because if the city decides not to change the uses of the airport. This is going to be one of the weirder residential areas in town. If the city does decide to make some changes at the airport and go with some more residential, then there's some, then it's connecting to something else. That makes it a more viable more community, it's more oriented towards. 15 min neighborhood, a neighborhood feel.

[103:02] It's like connecting to other things. So it may just be that, your You're thinking too far ahead and you might want to end up waiting until the decision has been made about the, about the, airport. Okay, question number 3. The planning board have feedback on the applicants to the applicant on the conceptual fight plan. I'm going to start with ML this time. You can take off. Well, thank you, Sarah. Let me see. I, I think that one of the things that the staff pointed out was that the reason that this can claim. Residential use is because of its proximity to open space. And there is absolutely no relationship created to that open space. In the project. Site plan as it sits now. So that I think is something to, Take note of.

[104:08] Secondly, if you look at the site plan and you don't No, what is being proposed? You would think it's a suburban offs. The way the parking is surrounding the building and kind of the open space. It appears to be left over. That just needs to be. It completely reconsider. Once you realize that, oh, these are people gonna be living here. And given the way the world is now, some people are going to be working and living there, right? We, a lot of people work from home. So I think the site plan. Needs to be. Thought through more carefully. As the comments we've been making up to this point. You know, where is this place? How do people live there and what is their experience? So I think in general. Building wise and site wise.

[105:11] This needs to be considered. As a human centered design project because everything around it is office buildings which are going to be vacant. Evenings and weekends. So this is the there there up at the top of the hill. I would suggest that the folks that they're going to be moving forward, I know that they unless we call up aren't required to come back to planning board. Plan to go to dad and get some input about. The buildings and you know just to tighten up the the aesthetic of what might be proposed. It's kind of loose right now in a sketch form which is totally fine but I think the site plan needs a significant amount of rethinking if this is in fact going to become a residential development as proposed.

[106:12] Thank you, ML. Laura. Thank you. I want to follow up on a couple of things that, first of all, what Sarah said about waiting until the city makes it decision about the airport. I don't know if the applicant has been tracking that. But you might want to go to the city's community conversation page on the airport. If you haven't and see the 4 designs that are being considered. At least 2 of those designs would include restaurants of their own, at least one restaurant. Even if we keep the airports. And so you might be competing with that. That restaurant for customers and access kinds of stuff. But that's an interesting thought to wait until there's a little bit more certainty about what's going to happen with that airport site before you. Make your design decisions and come back with a final design. As ML said, I think she raised an extremely good point about that continuity requirement includes continuity to open space.

[107:07] And I think the rationale there was you know, that's an amenity that residents will use. So for example in the East Boulder said community plan there were residential areas book ending Valent Park with the assumption that that would be a really good amenity for those residents and right now the open space on your site is mostly something pretty to look at. It provides a wildlife corridor. I'm sure it provides some flood functions, flood plain functions, but it's unclear how it functions for the further residents. And so I think that that's an important thing to look at. And then I also just want to point out a bunch of things in the staff memo. I'll try not to be too repetitive here, but in addition to talking about an onsite restaurant, they suggested a corner store might be a good option there for providing a manities for your residence, really emphasizing human-centered design. I think the word human-centered is used more in this memo than any other concept or site review that we've done as far as I've been on the board.

[108:03] Really needs to be human-centered, not auto-centered, gathering spaces, hopefully indoor and outdoor gathering spaces for your residents because this really is going to be if it is a residential development, a tiny little island, as George said, that needs to be replete unto itself and be a place that people don't just drive in and get into their units and never talk to anybody and never do anything else until they drive out again, right? It needs to be a place where people can have some community. On page 10. Staff talks about establishing that streetscape and the kind of elements that would make it a good streetscape. I'm not going to read all of those, but I thought that was a really good comments. On page 17, they talk about how your TDM plan is probably going to need to be stronger and have more stuff in it than the typical TDM plan because of the walking distance right now to the nearest transit stop. They do talk about on page 11, the last mile amenities that I think the applicant has already talked about having such as bike or scooter share, ebike charging, cargo bike storage, on-site car share, that's going to be really critical.

[109:06] And by the way, I think I heard the applicants saying they are going to ask for heights, so it would come back to us for site review. It wouldn't be a staff level application anymore. So that's good. I think I think we'd like to see this again. And lastly on page 11 of the memo staff have a recommendation about alternate building designs such as tuck under parking with units above in order to reduce the amount of surface parking and the high percentage in permeable surfaces on the site. I did see in the staff or sorry in the applicant packet that you wanted our input on that because you felt like that would raise the prices and and not be as feasible. I do think that's something worth considering and it sounds like with the height modification you might be able to go there without losing a floor. So it looks like something that to try to incorporate if possible. And I will stop there. I just want to say before before I give up the microphone for good that I really do appreciate the applicants creativity and trying to make this site really work for something that the city needs.

[110:07] I think it is a big challenge, but I'm glad you're doing it and please keep going. We would like to see this again. Thank you so much. Thank you, Laura. Okay, Mark. Then Lisa and Kurt and George. Some of my comments are. Okay, I'll just point out again that when I look at this in relation to site design and the BBC and I direct this both at the applicant and the city. And and their partner in the county that we are asking a lot in the BBC P. Of of applicant development applicants. But we say repeatedly. That. For instance 2.2 5 integrating land use and transportation planning will occur through both public investment.

[111:09] And private development. Like I said, 2.2 6. Implementation will be achieved through the coordinated efforts of public and private sectors. And I bring this up. This site. If I'm picturing myself living there and it's desirability to live there, I think I want I want this connection to what is a beautiful corridor. To the south to the southeast clear to the southwest. I have almost 180 degrees of either ditch blind with trees and we actually talk about ditches in the BBC P as being an amenity and something that needs to be coordinated with for maintenance and so forth. Right now that ditch is choked with a bunch of small trees and would have to be maintained. But you have amenities and views. And a connection. But it's almost all to the south. None of it is to the north.

[112:07] I don't really want to be connected to airport road and the jail and the other great businesses up there. But I want to be connected to the South. And but that connection. Shouldn't be the sole burden. Of the applicant that needs to involve Open space and mountain parks and fulfilling the connection. From 60 first street clear back west to the multi-use pad that involves working with the ditch company to create both maintenance and footpath and being able to travel. And enjoy that ditch. Seasonally and then of course to the to the southwest you've got Vermont bike park you've got the dog park And but if you can't connect there, then then as ML says, there's no, they're there. So I, I look to both the applicant. And, and staff to really stretch that if, if this is something that's, that is going to happen and the applicant is going to pursue this.

[113:17] Then it really needs to be some coordinated efforts. With multiple departments. To achieve our BBC, BBC goals and the BVCP is clear that this will take something more than just staff approving an application or recommending approval it's going to take some real nature effort. Across parks, across transportation, open space. To make it actually something that we're proud of versus a weird little residential island.

[114:00] In an industrial party. Thanks, Mark. Lisa, I think you're next. Yeah, I think similar to what I said on last ones, I'm just not try that much more to add beyond what we're hearing from other planning board members. I think Yeah. I'll just say I think that there are a variety of interesting directions that this could go in and ways that this could be improved and hopefully this site review is fruitful and gives a developer some ideas. Yeah, and I'll just say I'm hearing a lot of good stuff from other plenty of board members and I'm not trying that much more to say that's new. Okay, thank you, Lisa. Kurt and then George. Thank you. Yeah, I think we're all kind of on the same page here. I agree with what a lot of people have said. I really feel that the site design needs to better embrace and and address the ditches. Which are a great amenity. It feels like it, doesn't really acknowledge that they're there. One thing that I'm not a designer, but if I were designing this, I would not, do this sort of arbitrary alignment of the buildings with cardinal directions.

[115:11] To me that doesn't make a lot of sense. It leaves these weird little triangular open space spaces that are don't seem very usable, I would align the buildings if you were just to stick with the existing buildings that you're proposing, align them with the ditches. So that they're really addressing the ditches and it gives you much more, I think, functional open space then. So that's one specific, suggestion. And I also, I totally agree with Mark about the connections. I would love to also see connections that the connection that I was talking about through this weird little arrow. Property down to sterling because there are some great Businesses down there. There's the BOLDA BOSS field, which is kind of cool. There's, a bike shop and some other retail.

[116:03] There's a yoga place. Taekwondo place and stuff. There's all kinds of things actually that are quite close and walkable, but they're not they're not currently accessible at least in any official kind of a way And also through to Sam Lazaro, that I know that on Low Space walking bike map, there is shown a connection to that. There is shown a connection to that I think, there is shown a connection to that I think Mark asked the question about on email through to one of the streets in there. If that were connected through, that I think Mark asked the question about on email through to one of the streets in there. If that were connected through then that would it would improve connectivity for this. Site and also it would make it more viable the the other amenities like the restaurant more viable because it would then be accessible for the residents of. Lazaro. And I really appreciated staff's, very insightful comments about trying to create a streetscape.

[117:07] I think that's super important. There isn't a streetscape here but to the extent that you can try to create a streetscape, I think that that would be wonderful and that thing that I suggested about aligning. The buildings with the. Ditch and then having a parallel street, I think that that would. Thank you. Thanks. Right, George. Yeah, I'll be brief. I think I generally agree with kind of all planning board members. I think,'s comments resonated with me at the front end which was And. Similarly to a number of planet board members. Certainly not opposed to a residential use here, but. The idea of this being a human development in otherwise industrial office park area think the design needs to be heavily reworked.

[118:08] I'll leave it like that. Sometimes we, look at these things and we start to. Think through sort of how what we've been presented. Could be repositioned so that it would work in this case. I just don't think it's. I think the developer really just needs to rethink it. And come back with something. Significantly different. Thanks. Thanks, George. And my comments are I'm in line with pretty much everything I appreciate, Emil's comments, which were reiterating and reinforcing staff's comments about creating a cohesive neighborhood and human-centered design. And I actually think that When you get to the place where it's the right time to make another proposal, that maybe the way to think about that is instead of using all that surface space for parking is to build a parking garage.

[119:01] Back in the corner so that you have all this other space. For green space and for housing. And then you actually can build a neighborhood center, a design that is, creates a sense of a tiny little neighborhood. But I think that you you're so wedded to the parking because you are in this weird location that you basically. Created what looks like an office park. Looks like a car park that has some buildings in it. And there are ways to get around that. But again, I think you. Might want to wait for a little while until there's a better sense of what else is happening on the hilltop. Okay. With that, we will wrap this one up. Let's plan for a 12 min break. So we'll come back here at 8 10. And we will go through our 2 matters items and one of which will take about a an hour.

[120:03] All right, we'll see you back at 10 min after.

[131:26] Alright, if you're in. The sound of within the sound of my voice, please come back. Excellent. Alright, we're now moving to Matters. Our first matter as a progress update on the implementation of the East Boulder Sub Community Plan, zoning recommendations. Kathleen is going to be our staff person presenting to us tonight. We set aside 20 min for staff presentation and we thought it would make sense for her to be able to go through the whole thing.

[132:00] Before we ask questions. And then of course she'll stay on and we can bombard her with all the questions that we have. Brad or Charles, did you wanna frame this out at all or should we just get started? Just get started. Yeah. Okay, great. All right, Kathleen, please go ahead. Thanks. Okay, I'm gonna Share my screen and it seems to work better if I share first and then project. So we'll try that. Okay, you seen a presentation? Okay, great. Let me. Move some things around. Yes. Okay. Well, great. Thanks so much, Sarah. Good evening. My name is Kaplan King and I'm a planner on the city's comprehensive planning team. So it's great to be back at Planning Board this evening with an update on a key implementation step.

[133:03] Of the East Boulder said community plan. I think most of the board members were involved in the planning and or adoption processes for the sub community plan that took place. Over the last few years, so I'm looking forward to working with you all on its implementation. So tonight we're gonna be talking about zoning. I'm gonna give a presentation first and go over some of the background and early process information that we've collected so far. Because I'm speaking to a couple of different topics. As Sarah mentioned, I'm gonna ask that you hold your questions and we can spend some time following the presentation to go through those clarifying questions. And then I have some questions. For you all focused on form base code and I look forward to getting your feedback. Okay, so we'll start with East Boulder and just give a reminder to folks about where this is. The East Boulder sub community. Is one of the city's 10 subcommunities and it's generally located North of Arapaho and east of Foothills Parkway.

[134:08] So it includes areas like Flatter and Business Park, the hospital, that want city park, the site that you were just looking at. Today the area is generally industrial and really office focused. The city went through a three-year planning and engagement process to identify how the community would like to see East Boulder evolve over the next 15 to 20 years. And that resulted in the East Boulder Sub Community Plan, which was adopted by the board and City Council. Last year. During that process and captured in the plan, the community provided intentional direction for how they wanted certain neighborhoods to look and feel as they changed through redevelopment over time. So the plan uses a tool called place types that describe allowed in conditional ground floor uses. So, this is the types of businesses or homes that we wanna see along a street frontage.

[135:03] Allowed uses above ground floors, so whether upper stories should be residential or commercial or some combination of the 2. Usable open space describing expectations for the amount of outdoor space for social gathering. Or connection with nature. It also describes building character. So this imagines what buildings might look like. And the kind of atmosphere they create. It includes guidance for. A street level activation describing what kinds of design features might foster an appropriate exchange between building users and people on the street. Also includes street scape character direction. Which speaks to the kinds of landscaping, lighting, and even street furniture that might be appropriate. It also talks about access and mobility. Considering how people and goods will move through these working and industrial neighborhoods. And then finally expectations around parking where it should be located and how it should follow the city some principles. So the plan is pretty specific in its direction.

[136:05] But I think is maybe Laura pointed out earlier, we don't yet have the regulatory tools in place to ensure that Redevelopment will deliver these types of neighborhoods. So one of the key recommendations included in the plan and identified as a priority for the first phase of implementation. Is this East Boulder zoning and form base code study? So this is what our team is currently working on with support from a consultant team that includes code specialists. We've been working with the coda metrics team over the past few years as part of the city's design excellence initiative to improve the public realm and lead to design a better buildings in the community. So, folks from Code of Metrics developed the city's pilot form base code. And that was recently updated to include some guidance for the Alpine Bossom site.

[137:03] So this project. Then I'm gonna talk a little bit through, it includes 2 major components. So first the zoning and a strategy to help property owners who are interested in rezoning their properties. Work with the city to update their zoning district, and then secondly form base code. We're considering whether form base code is an appropriate tool for East Boulder neighborhoods and how it should be updated to implement the East Boulder Sub Community Plan. So for the, zoning element. We have generally 4 areas or neighborhoods in East Boulder, which the sub community plan calls areas of change. And these neighborhoods are where we're looking to go from these industrial focused districts. To more walkable mixed use neighborhoods. So for the zoning, our options are to either. Use one or more of the city's existing zone districts and modify that district. To match what's called for in the subcommittee plan. Or we may consider creating new zones that would align with the guidance of the sub community plan.

[138:09] So this is something we're studying right now. And I'll be coming back to planning board in a few months with our initial recommendations on this piece. And then. Secondly, we're considering which if any of these areas might be appropriate for form base code. So, in general, Fourm-based code establishes, establishes building form and design standards. And then focuses on connection between building and public spaces like streets and plazas. And it provides a high level of predictability in the review process. So, in Boulder, areas that are regulated by a form based code. Are identified on the form base code areas map in Appendix L of the code. The code describes that these areas should have plans associated, which East Boulder now does. And then the underlying zoning regulates the allowed uses in the area.

[139:08] So whether we choose to pursue form base code or not. Either way, we have to update the underlying zoning. The current zoning that's there doesn't allow for the sort of mix of uses that were imagined in the plan. And then, the form base code then actually acts. As an overlay, providing specific guidance for things like building mass and scale materials that can be used on facades. Outdoor space types in design for streetscapes. So this is all put together in what's called a regulating plan. So, on the screen, these are the regulating plans that are currently in the code. And they cover those 2 areas identified on the map. So Boulder Junction. An Alpine B. For East Boulder we would use some of the planned tools and the sub-community plan. Like the place type map, place type performance standards.

[140:05] And our mobility plan to develop regulating plans for East Boulder neighborhoods. So why are we considering extending form based code to East Boulder? Form base code in its purpose is really intended to create those walkable, human-scaled neighborhoods that are. Disccribed in the sub community plan. And as a tool, it can help provide direct regulation around the outcomes that we've committed to in that plan. So we do think it's a good match. But but before we commit, we wanted to take a look back at how form base code has delivered on both. Local architecture in the public realm and places where it's been used so far. So in the city, there's actually only 3 projects that have gone through form base code review process. Just, in initial conversations with some community members, I think. There's a misconception that all of the recent development in Boulder Junction was completed under form base code.

[141:06] But it's actually only these 3 sites. So the first 2 are projects on the southeast corner. Of left street and junction place. And then the third larger project is the 30 per project. Some of the buildings and spaces are totally completed and others are still under construction. But we can take a look at the character and quality of these places as they are today. And ask the question, you know, is it working? So. I've collected images from some of the sites and I ask that. As you consider this question, you're not necessarily critiquing the architect's choices but instead consider whether the specific and measurable components of the code. Have improved the quality and character of the neighborhood as a place. So I've pulled. Just a couple of elements of building design that are regulated. Massing in proportion, minimum heights and requirements for transparency on the ground floors.

[142:06] Things. Related to setbacks. Driveway access locations, facade materials and recessed windows. So here's some images of how those are playing out in the built projects. And then in the public realm, looking at the pedestrian first dimensions for streets and pose. How compatible the streetscape is with adjacent buildings. The form base code provides really specific material guidance for those pose. Throughout the area and then expectations for outdoor lighting. These are just some of the design elements that are regulated by form base code. And the specific requirements. For all of these elements are identified through that regulating plan. Which again assigns building types, street types, and outdoor space types in the neighborhood. So if we do pursue this for East Boulder neighborhoods, there's a point in the future where we'll ask you to really get into the kind of nitty gritty of these details.

[143:08] But for now I'm just giving a general overview and asking for initial and more general feedback. So as part of this process, we've been working with the community through a couple of different engagement venues. To collect their feedback on both the code itself. And the form base code review process. We've assembled a technical advisory committee of members of the local design community. Who work in Boulder as well as other places and have experience with designing for development. And then we've also engaged a series of focus groups. So. These include area property owners and developers. Area business owners, mobility service providers, and mobility advocates. And then also a group of local, excuse me, local planning and housing advocates. We're also holding kind of one on one interviews with groups like Boulder Housing Partners and those interested in redevelopment in the area.

[144:12] In general, community members have identified some challenges with code and process. Some benefits to the form base code and opportunities for improvement. So. Starting with the challenges we've heard from So, on that technical advisory committee that they're worried that the specificity of regulation in form base code can limit creativity. From the business owners and business community. There's definitely a concern about affordability of commercial spaces and Just East Boulder's ability to support small business as the area redevelops. And then. From folks that have gone through this process. Already They've described that, you know, the projects despite going through the form based code review are still getting called up, which adds to their overall project cost.

[145:13] And then for, benefits. In general, folks really appreciate the predictability of the form base code review process. We've heard from designers that it really supports. Their work with clients and trying to convince clients to either kind of do the right thing from a design perspective or choose higher quality materials. And in general. The community that we've engaged with and and talk to Do believe that the forum base code, works as a way to prevent bad architecture and, some of the for building design that we were seeing which kind of lick, kicked off that. Design Excellence Initiative. Community members also identified some opportunities for improvement. So, things like updating the material palette for East Boulder so that it.

[146:13] Better matches the industrial aesthetic. In the area and also considers how the quality and cost of material will impact unit costs kind of down the line. They've also asked us to consider design features over 55 feet that could support. More variability. In roof styles. And also they're actually looking for more information and more direction on design of. Public realm and things like plaza and streetscapes So we also, as part of the process had a staff workshop. With folks from our development review team as well as the city attorney's office to understand.

[147:03] Their perspective on how well the form base code and that associated review process are working. So some of the challenges that they've identified. Is our that the project so far have not delivered outdoor spaces that feel Welcoming to children or families and you know, my team also worked on the update to Boulder Junction phase 2 and that's something we heard through that process as well. So that's. Echoed in a couple of different projects now. There's some feedback that the bluff street buildings don't have a lot of variability. In color or window patterning. And, you know, those those projects were designed by the same architect. So. Just, you know, thinking through how we can, putting guidance to that adjacent buildings maybe don't mirror each other is something we're thinking about.

[148:02] We've heard from builders that, the maximum building length limitations. Drive up costs and ultimately unit prices. And then, as you may know, the Alpine Balsam site is going through a form base code review right now and we're learning that. The form based code and the review process. Work really well for total redevelopment, but it's been more challenging for adaptive reuse. Some of the benefits that we've heard from staff. Those specific and measurable regulations that are included in the code make negotiation with the development teams and their architecture teams much easier. Folks feel that the view corridors have really resulted in those preserved vistas. In the Boulder Junction neighborhood in particular. We've heard that the pose are really well used and liked by residents of the kind of Design requirements for those seems to be successful.

[149:05] And then also that high quality materials have, elevated. The aesthetic quality of that neighborhood. Send the opportunities that staff identified. Looking for ways to get more variability in roof styles we've heard not only from staff but from community members that the flat roofs throughout that. Project are not desirable. Also the idea of allowing for longer buildings if they can be broken up by courtyards. Or articulation of reform. And then, there's also an idea about developing a menu of options for. Ground level activation requirements. So. You know, I think for the. Couple of builder junction buildings. There was a pretty heavy requirement for a ground floor retail.

[150:01] And they're having a hard time filling those spaces and activating those spaces and so thinking about other active ground floor uses. That we could allow for. As we update the code. So we're gonna take all of this feedback along with your input tonight to complete the first phase of our project. And that is an inventory and analysis that looks at form based code in particular. And then it's applicability to East Boulder. So. In the next month, we'll move into rezoning recommendations and we'll work on. How we may incorporate community benefits identified. In the sub community plan into future rezoning strategies. And once we have solid recommendations about those 2 pieces, I'm going to bring that back to planning board either end of this year or probably early next year with some draft recommendations for how we might move forward on this implementation effort.

[151:00] We'll take board and council feedback at that point and create some, draft zoning and potentially draft form base code updates and regulating plans that will put out for a citywide public review. And then we hope to. Complete the effort and go for a adoption next spring so we can see some of that plan come to. For a wish in in the next couple of years. That's about it. Since the sub community plan really sets the vision for the area, this work is pretty technical and detailed so I hope I've given you a general overview of what we'll be working on, but I imagine, you do have questions, so I'm happy to take questions now and then we could go into more discussion. Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you, Kathleen. So for folks who have questions, please, raise your electronic hands and I will call on people.

[152:00] Alright, Laura has raised her hand. Thank you. Sarah and thank you Kathleen for that presentation. It's really nice to see you. Nice to see you. Thank you for all your hard work both on the subcommittee plan and now the implementation phase. It's so exciting that that's where we're at. Yeah. Yes, I'm very excited about it. I do have a few questions. You know, you mentioned that all 3 of the projects that were completed in Boulder Junction under form base code got called up by planning board and that was before my time on planning board so that means about half of us weren't here. Can you help us understand? Why those projects were called up and if changes were made as a result of those call-ups. I also imagine that planning board was curious to, you know, get more detail about those projects since they were the first ones out the gate. So can you just help me understand what happened with those call-ups? Yes, and I might ask child away into because I'm sure he knows more about those than I do, but my understanding is projects do get called up if there are exceptions. Being asked for. So a couple of the project had exceptions. I believe that there were no changes made.

[153:14] As a result of the call up. Okay, so it wasn't like a voluntary call up that we called it up because we were concerned about something, but it was like a mandatory call up because there was some something that was requested that was an exception. I'm gonna ask Charles. No, I actually think that they were called up and I think the since they were the initial form base code related projects, I think there was a lot of curiosity initially. They're also very big projects. That were kind of transformative at the time. I don't recall any changes that resulted from, the call out conversations, but, Actually, now that I think about it, I think there may have been some material changes that were that were discussed on thirtieth and Perl.

[154:02] But my recollection is really that they were called up, I think, out of curiosity to, have the opportunity to perform a more surgical review of what was being proposed based on the size of the project. Thank you. I do have a few more questions, but I don't know, Sarah, if it is appropriate to ask you and George and Lisa, if you wanted to throw in on why those projects were called up or what the results were from your perspective on planning board at the time. I think I may have been the only one who was on planning board at the And that was at the tail end. So, I, George, I know George wasn't, when Lisa is talking to her babysitter so Maybe we'll come back to her. Lisa, were you on planning board when, the. Alright, we'll come back. We'll come back. Okay. I just have a quick, were they called up by planning board only or by council and planning board or some combination.

[155:01] Planning board only. Okay. Okay, thank you. I think I called one up. I called up the air gas building because it was a hundred 50 feet. . That's my recollection. I could be wrong about that, but that's my recollection And I don't know what the other 2 that were called up. Okay, thank you. I have a question about, you talk about. Potential for unoccupied roof volume and other architectural design features above 55 feet. Can you say more about what might be considered there? I know that you know. There was very specific ballot language that was approved and put into the charter around what kinds of things can be over 55 feet. Is it within that or is it something different being considered? Okay, would it require going back out to for public votes to change that? I'm not sure. Is this recent ballot language that you're referring to?

[156:03] Okay, in the city charter sure. Oh no, I'm talking about like in the seventys. I think it was 1974 when the height limitation in the city charter yes I'm sorry I'm using the wrong words it's late. Yeah, yeah. So the things that, some of the folks on the technical advisory committee have talked about our like parapets. Different types of screening for H back then what's currently allowed. Definitely there's an interest in, rooftop access and having. Taller railings on roofs. So those were some of the things I remember from that meeting. And maybe you haven't done the analysis on this yet, but are you thinking that these are things that would be sort of staff interpretation and would fall under the existing charter language or is the city considering asking the public to vote on this again for something that's different than what's in the charter.

[157:00] Around the height limitation. Yeah, I'll have to go back and look at the charter and see what. The specifics are of what isn't is not allowed up to that 55 foot. But anything that we're discussing would be Described really specifically and have. Specific. Okay. Measurements and materials and all of that would be laid out in the form base code. So there wouldn't be a lot of room for interpretation, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Hmm. Gotcha. Gotcha. No, my question about interpretation was, is this more about how staff interpret the existing charter language around the height limitation versus would we need to. Ask the public for permission to modify that charter provision on height. It's Yeah, I'll have to look into it more. I don't have a good answer.

[158:00] Hello, Laura. Okay, thank you. One other question and then maybe pass around. It said on page 59. Staff have been challenged by developers on incorporating family and children oriented spaces, and developers are describing that these spaces don't meet the market. Can you say more about that? Like what are they saying about it doesn't meet the market. Yeah, so. It came up a little bit, I guess, and it's a little of a Chicken and an egg situation is my interpretation if maybe if you build it they'll come but right now the types of products that are getting built in that area and what their market testing is showing is that. A lot of the unit types and spaces. In the Boulder junction area in particular are, Not, family driven. They really are for more. Single folks or kind of younger workforce or couples without children.

[159:13] And you know, that's what they, are finding that they can rent their units to and what the units are marketed for. And so They're describing, you know, we really need to provide. Places that are active for that kind of demographic and so putting a playground is not a usable space for that demographic. Perhaps, but I think there is an argument to be made that if you create the place for families, it could draw families. Okay, thank you. I might have some more questions, but I will pass for now. I'm gonna try to go around the horn. Ml and then Curt.

[160:00] Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Kathleen. For, This update you guys have been busy. I'm getting a all the input, to get us to this point here. So I'm understanding that the first question we're looking at here is, has the form base code delivered to desire outcomes of previously adopted plans. We're talking about. The 3 sites at T-bap really? Is that because balls, yeah. So. Okay. And I'll just step by ML, I'm sorry. You can certainly answer the first question. But we were actually just if there if you had clarifying questions for Kathleen that would also time to ask those questions. Oh! I missed that. I missed that. That's okay. Okay. Clarifying, actually I do have a question.

[161:00] I'm looking at my notes here. Sorry, I apologize. So in your. In answer to this question number one. I saw the And, analysis of the input that you've gotten and where the staff is at. Did Let's see. Have a general We response to. Is this successful? Is this something we want? What is staff's opinion on? Implementing. This and further into East Boulder, community plan. I don't think that I saw kind of That conclusion from staff. Yeah, I think. What we heard in this staff workshop is in general. The form base code is working.

[162:01] The buildings that have come out of a form base code review and the process to. Deliver that review has. Worked really well and I think that the staff pointed out a number of components like the quality materials, the view corridors, things like that that they felt like were really delivered on that were identified in that transit village area plan as being really important and key to the future success. So, yeah, I think what I heard in that stuff workshop is in general, they think it's working, but they're certainly improvements to be made in both. The regulations and the review process. And you made, you made a comment. Or maybe it was written on one of the slides. Under staff feedback benefits. Specific. And measurable regulations make negotiation with development teams easier.

[163:04] So is the review process in fact a negotiation between staff and developers? Or what is that refer to? Yeah, I think in site review, you know the Some of the criteria is left to interpretation by staff and the development team and staff and the community and planning board can all have different understanding of how that should be interpreted. And so there is a real negotiation process that goes on between staff and development teams. To get to an outcome that everyone agrees is appropriate and and workable. In form base code because the requirements. Are really clear and measurable and the applicant has to demonstrate specifically how they've met each of those requirements.

[164:06] There's not as much need for that negotiation. I see. So thus it's a benefit. In that regard. Yeah, I think so. And I think we've heard that from both staff and. Folks who've gone through the the form base code review process so far. Those are my questions. Thank you so much. And then Mark. And if after mark if no one has questions then we'll try to answer Kathleen's questions for her. Great. Thank you and thank you, Kathleen. My first question regards the ownership of the 3 properties that you identified that have gone through the formist code. I know that 30 Perl is VHP project. Are the other 2 non BHP? I'm just wondering, I know that VHP has different, you know, needs and requirements and and drivers then like, yeah, completely private owner.

[165:04] So I'm just wondering if it works for other people. Are the 2 other project non BHP owned? Yes, I think the answer to that is yes. Yeah. Okay, okay, great. Thank you. And then you said that one of the identifying challenges, I guess, was that form is good doesn't work so well for adaptive use is what you'll find Outline, awesome. Is that, are you talking about that specifically with regards to the 1 billion building or what? Can you give a little more detail on what you mean by that? Because I'm hoping that there will be a lot of adaptive reuse in these boulders. Yeah, I think it's one of the topics that we have to dig into more, but what I understand is the Alpine Balsam site a portion of the site is in an existing PUD. So there is these like overlapping, a portion of the site is in an existing PUD. So there's these like overlapping layers of regulation and trying to decide which one comes out on top and how to make them both work together.

[166:13] So I think that's a component of it. But then, for the existing building, you know, whether it's material or recessed windows or you know what are the components that the existing building is not meeting in the form base code. I'm not sure, but we'll look into that more as we think about how to update. The code so that we can. Use form base code for adaptive reuse.

[167:02] Yeah, it's pursuing a form based code review, so it would have to meet it. It's in a form based code review area so it has to meet it. I don't know where they're at in the process and whether they'll be asking for exceptions, but that might be an outcome. Okay, then getting into that a little more specifically. So as it currently applies, in order to approve whatever's happening with the pavilion building would it have to meet all the requirements of the Okay. All right. Thanks, Kurt. Mark. Thank you. One of the. Comments I heard from. One of the developers of the building. That is noted in. One in number one and 2 on your. On your diagram there. Was that form base code is requires a design of a 4 sided building and that that that is can be at times very expensive in the sense of I don't have a back alley or I'm designing the alley. Side with the same criteria as as the front side. As the street side and that it's expensive in terms of mechanical screening and trash removal and all those kind of things that generally are kind of around the back of the building and and many times not not much money has spent on that.

[168:18] So my question is, is our revisions to the form base code requirement for East Boulder. Being considered to lighten that burden so that we don't create. The same kind of expensive spaces. That a true 4 sided design. Requires is that part of the east folder plan to make it so it's not quite so expensive if you have an holiday or a backside in the building that isn't really. Facing anything. I think there are. A number of components of the. Form base code that will be looking at specifically for cost implications.

[169:08] Because. We've heard that feedback as well as some of the other requirements that, these development teams are. Describing is really driving up ultimately the unit cost. So. I think it's a yes and answer. And you know. The building types and the street types that were created for Boulder Junction. Are probably not all suitable and we can't just take those and apply them to East Boulder will have to create new ones. Particularly because East Boulder is an industrial area. We know we're gonna have trucks coming through there. We know we need loading and unloading zones, all of those kind of things will take into consideration.

[170:02] Great, thank you. Okay, look, Laura, before I call on you, Lisa or George, do you have questions? Clarifying questions. No, okay, Laura. Were you Sarah, do you? Okay, I have just one more and that is Kathleen, were you listening to the project that we just talked about for concept review? Yes. Okay, I am curious to get your thought, you know. I did mention at the outset that what is being considered for that site is not consistent with what was envisioned in the East Boulder sub-community plan. And you mentioned that the outset of this session that, you know, the tools aren't really in place yet for how to implement the East Boulder SET community plan, including the zoning and this form base code. And so my question to you is once those tools are in place, does the zoning and the form base code. Would that have in any way directed or guided or changed what is possible on the project that we just looked at?

[171:00] To make it more compliant with the East Boulder, said community plan. I don't think that this project will impact that site. We're really focused on Zoning and rezoning the areas of change. And updating. And potentially applying for base code to those areas of change. Once all of that is in place, there may be a future step where we re-look at that residential and industrial again because it was updated in response to the East Boulder sub-community plan in part. To serve this sort of interim period. So, you know, we may reconsider that in the future, but that's definitely. Further down the line. Okay, thank you. And just one really quick follow-up. I think I heard you say that the form based code that is being considered would be specific to the areas of change in the East Boulder subcommunity Plan, not necessarily for the whole East Boulder area.

[172:07] Is that is that right? Just there is 2. Just those areas of change. So just where we have direction. From that place types map and the place type performance standards. Yep. Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, so Kathleen, shall we move on to the 2 key issues? Yep, that would be great. Okay, so key issue number one. Was has the form based code delivered the desired outcomes of previously adopted plans? And I guess maybe Kathleen, do you want me just to go around the horn and see what everybody has to say that work for you. Yeah, I think that would be great. And, maybe similar to some of the questions that came up, if there are.

[173:00] Concerns or issues that you've identified in some of that built work that you'd like us to study or address in code updates, I'd love to. Note that as well, because the next time. We come back for this project. We'll have some, some draft. Recommendations for you to react to. Would anyone mind if I started? So, I think in general. In the right amount in the right places form based code is a positive thing. I will say that as I've seen 30 pearl go up I have not. I'm not finding the sort of. Which is I think intended to create us. Think delineate to make the build these big buildings look like they're slightly smaller.

[174:06] I don't think that's worked. And I think in fact it's quite unattractive. So I would, I think that's a part of form that is a type of. That's a component of that particular form based code that I would try very hard to not emulate anywhere else. Bye. Knowing, knowing that. Basic. Design elements that we approved for the hospital site. I'm a little concerned that that's going to look the same way because although some of us were pushing for actual townhomes, what we got was facades that would look like townhomes. And I'm really worried that we're gonna get that same sort of. Unattractive.

[175:00] Really full looking facade. There, and I think it'd be very inappropriate for the neighborhood that it's a budding. I think that the smaller roadways in the TVAP one work very, very well. Unfortunately there's not enough green space to, Make it a fully enjoyable experience. It's just nice that there's less traffic in that area. And then in terms of the lack of good outdoor space that is, absolutely my take on both T. And although I don't think 30 pearl is done, I know that they were critiques by the then planning board of. The way the public space. The shared public space was sort of. Internal to the buildings and also where the parking garage entrance was. So I don't know exactly what's happened with that. Ultimately in terms of what the final design was, but. Do you think you really want to make sure with with form based code, whatever? Elements are included that there be a lot of open space.

[176:07] A lot of, free standing trees. And that you really do create Maybe you don't have space for playground, although I think your point, which is If you don't build playgrounds, you're never going to get families to move in there. Into those into those highly dense areas. You want to have a lot of open space that or where people can hang out and congregate. Because they're not gonna necessarily walk all the way up to. Central Park or Chautauqua or North Boulder Park to do that. Or or even east. So those are my comments and I appreciate my colleagues letting me go first. Curt, why don't you go next?

[177:01] Thanks. Yeah, my feeling about Form is code is it produces all solid sort of B. Or maybe B minus buildings. And it prevents that architecture but it also prevents really good architecture. And so you end up as we're seeing, we end up with a lot of pretty darn similar looking stuff. I mean, you know, there's, there's superficial variation, but. The basic concepts are all the same and I worry about. Having too much of that proliferating throughout these relatively large areas of East Boulder. So that's my primary concern. I'm also concerned because I believe that Coburn is the only developer that is. Done any of the form is code stuff, right? That's right. And so. Can anybody else?

[178:00] It wasn't, wasn't, T. VAC wasn't Coburn. Tvap was What's his name? There was Coburn and K, It's a Scott, whatever his name is who now. Doesn't live in the city anymore. Scott. Help me here, Charles. Scott. Hold 10. Yes, Scott, yeah. I can't remember his name, but the big building. With the that what's that? Yeah, anyway, that building is not a Coburg building. The one noted on your map is one and 2. I believe that's not a covert building. I don't think. Yes, I don't think it's only COVID. We're just like Okay, so I think I think the point is I was wrong and more than one developer. That's good. I'm glad to know that I was wrong and more than one developer can do this. And so that's less of a concern. I am though concerned about not just this. There's the aesthetic outcome, which is super important.

[179:05] But then there's also about whether the form base code makes things impractical to develop, right? And I think that that is maybe still a little bit. Tvd because you know, is an area where the values are pretty high and we've been able to get some new projects through the. But I wonder what would not happen if we What projects would not be able to happen if we applied the former school? So those are my concerns. Okay, thank you. I'm George. Do you have anything? I, you know, I think my comments are generally from the system. I don't have much more to add. Okay, thank you, Lisa. Yeah, I think it's interesting to look at.

[180:03] I'm taking kind of in both directions. There's the things that Form Base Code did deliver here. I like the Pose. I agree, you know, that in some ways the variation of the fronts wasn't quite as much as it could have been, but. I like that they were more . And often expensive materials that went in. The lack of amenities for families is really disappointing. You know, they were promised to pocket park with a little click on there and ask somebody with a young child I'll say that when there's a playground. Okay. You use it even if you don't live in that neighborhood. Because you're trying to wear your kid out before you go into the house. Okay. You're trying to, you know, get Get some energy out before nap or you know like you use playgrounds when they're available. And I now constantly notice which faces do or don't have playgrounds. And I will choose where I go in the city based on whether or not that amenity is available to me. You know, and so I appreciate that description of it kind of as a chicken and an egg. Problem.

[181:04] I didn't take as deep of a dive as I wish I had into kind of how we ended up divide designing and defining form base code in this context. I have a vague memory that could be true, could be false, that it wasn't quite full true form based code that we sort of watered it down a little bit. And so whatever that happens, then we say, but we didn't get the results we really wanted. I'm like, well, yeah, do the thing, you know? So, I'm Soul fan of form based code. Done, fully done properly. Sounds like staff is, you know, kind of trying to taking into consideration being really thoughtful about what it's delivering, what it's not. And, and I, and I, see, you know, I, take the point that they were all called up. But planning board this was a really important developable area. I don't think that really has that much necessarily to do to form base code versus anything else. We were always going to call those up. It's a big deal. I also expect us to call up a lot of Alpine Balsam and I don't think it's because or not because of our base code.

[182:03] We're gonna call it up. We wanna talk about it. Anyway, I don't know that's useful for staff, but those are show my thoughts on this one. Thank you, Lisa. Mark. Did I already call any Mark? Okay. No. So, I am generally in favor of the application of form base code in in designated areas and I I concur with Kurt and Sarah in that. Sometimes bad stuff happens under either system under just a code inside review. And then then sometimes under form base code, you can have. Some bad things happen. But one of the things that under both systems that I am distressed by and Sarah touched on it is the kind of variation for the sake of variation, whether you're trying to Falsify a big facade and make it look like townhouses and it's really not or you go from brick to metal to wood and then back to brick to melody wood and and you

[183:15] get this you get this patch working variation that says oh isn't this interesting design we don't have this single big material but you know big there's nothing wrong with a big building and big buildings can be beautiful and interesting and big buildings don't always have to incorporate many different materials. And stuff. They can they can be beautifully designed from one material or 2 or whatever. But, and I look at, you know, you look at the University of Colorado, you look at Edinburgh Scotland. You look at you know Many big buildings in Manhattan. It's like, oh, some are really beautiful and it's not beautiful just because they have a bunch of variation. So, and the final thing I'll say is that whether it's in our code or just applied in form base code.

[184:08] I do fully support. The idea of different types of rough lines, different types of growth structures without. Currently we have a 55 foot maximum height limit. But screening and HVAC and all that stuff is all, well, you can put as much ugly, corrugated sheet metal up on a roof. That's seen by tens of thousands of people a day driving by on Flintville Parkway but you want to put a slope rough on, well, that's, that's a no no. So if I would love to see informed base code. Especially in these industrial buildings, in areas of change in East Boulder that we have design that is more creative, more pleasing, and part of that would be to not have near so many, we're never gonna get rid of flat roofs, but I have near so many flat real forms.

[185:13] That's my comment. Ml and then Laura. Oh gosh, there is It's such a big subject. I, I, I narrow it down to a couple of things. One is. I think in one of the benefits or one of the to do's or somewhere that you mentioned develop a menu of options for ground level. Activation requirements. I think that that is a fundamental key. To a lot of the things that people are having concerns with. Like what is the experience of the people who work there, live there, visit there? And how does that experience unfold?

[186:11] And you can't just say, well, here's a building and there's the setback and there's a sidewalk and throw some green in. I think what makes a a vibrant. Space hasn't been articulated nearly enough. If you walk through some of the existing. Sites out there at the at the T. App site. And I, and I don't know. If it's form based codes job although it sounds like it might be just given that that was one of the comments you guys made. But I think that that's an important component. And furthermore, in relation to I'm gonna kind of segue into the buildings themselves.

[187:02] One of the comments was that busy buildings result. From the specification of materials and so many materials and how they transitioned and yadda. I absolutely agree with Mark that. I think. Requiring material. How it just for the sake of requiring material pellet. Is the wrong way. To get. A good building. I would suggest that if if we take the first floor and look at awnings and overhangs and you know buildings can shape themselves. There can be overhanked overhung spaces. There can be anchor floors. There can be.

[188:01] Amazingly, wonderful things happen. In that first. Second floor. That aren't about making a wavy gravy room for doing something that the pedestrian is not going to really experience. But to articulate and to carve space. And to think about that experience at the ground level. As being 3 dimensional. I think you're going to start addressing some of the concerns about. Boxing buildings. Long facades. Too many materials. Inactivated under used spaces. And That I think opens up a conversation. For the designers to begin thinking. Outside of the box, right? I'm gonna make the best building I can because I I'm now going to be doing prompted by the form based code, I'm going to be prompted to consider.

[189:08] The base as having some articulation other than just in the line. Is it a long wall? Should I recess it? Well, how about if you overhang it? How about if you give it a form? How about if you bring in these other? Means. To define edges and to define space. So I would I would suggest looking at Massing factors and especially on the first and second floors that I think will help solve a lot of the problems. That form based code seems to. Seems to bring up. In the experience and in the. Final unfolding of what the building is. I would absolutely agree with the idea that if we want. Families to move into this area? Don't back down. You know, because the developers say, hey, the park isn't matching or we're gonna keep getting.

[190:09] Hi-end housing for single people. If we want communities that have a diverse population. We have to start creating opportunities. For these people to show up. And if there's, you know, if you can't find yourself. If you can't find yourself in the, where am I gonna hang out? Where am I gonna do my stuff? Well, then you're not going to go there. So I think. That staff needs to be. Very clear. On the kind of community. Yeah, that will result. And, you know, if it's not gonna be the highest profit margin for somebody. Okay. Well, that's okay. You know, that's why we're, that's why you guys are planners. The outcome is about what we want in our city.

[191:03] So I'll, stop with that. But thank you, Kathleen. This is, this is a very vibrant project and I like that it. Is trying to sell them for. The next steps. Thanks, Ml and Laura, you get to. Give us the last word on this question. Sorry. Oh gosh, too much responsibility, Sarah. It's okay. That's okay. I'll do my best. I want to really agree with a lot of the comments that I have heard. I don't think I heard anything that I disagreed with, although I'm not entirely sure I understood. I don't think my architecture knowledge is sophisticated enough to have followed everything that ML just said. But I think I agreed with just about everything that I heard. I want a second Sarah's comments about open space gathering places and trees. I want a second Kurtz comment about the Let's really make sure if we can that form base code. Has opportunities for creativity and for things to look a little bit different. I don't know how you do that.

[192:03] I think that's a huge challenge, but. But that we don't want form base code to be limiting excellent architecture if we can avoid it. I want a second Mark's comments on variation for the sake of variation. I don't think we want to promote that. And what he mentioned earlier about four-sided architecture, I've heard those comments as well of you know, needing to have spaces for trash and electrical boxes that make sense. I I will add 1 one thing. This might be too fine grain if it detail, but as far as materials go. In visiting the Boulder Junction area and I'm not sure if it was these specific projects but the use of rusty metal as a design choice, I feel like is not going to be timeless. It's not going to be something that age as well. I think just like shabby chic farmhouse kind of stuff. I think that having materials that look like they're decaying is not going to be something that that plays well over time. So the rusty metals for me really strike a sour note. And I think that's a That's what I want to say about question one.

[193:05] Thank you. Thank you. Alright, Kathleen, before we go on to the last question, do you feel like you got adequate feedback? I think rusty metal is Yeah. Yeah, okay, That's up. Yes, all of that is super helpful and I think. Provide some good direction for other elements that we're gonna analyze moving forward. So yeah, go ahead and move on to process. The very last question is how well is the form based code review process working? I will answer first. I have no idea because I'm not trying to implement it. Okay. So I will pass along to George your thoughts. Similar. I feel the same way. Curt.

[194:01] Well, I think it was completely appropriate. The planning board called up these first 3 projects because, you know, We didn't know whether this whole new system was gonna work and what the outcomes were gonna be and that sort of thing. So I feel like that was. Very informative and wise decision, but I think going forward as we gain more confidence in. The outcomes and we know what we're going to be getting. I think we could definitely limit that. I don't know exactly what mechanism to use to do that, but I think it would be appropriate to make that a much more limited power. Laura. I'll say I agree that I don't really have any particular insight. And how well the process is working. I think it's great Kathleen, the amount of stakeholder outreach that you have done to talk to the people both on the staff side and on the applicant side of how this is going.

[195:02] So I would defer to that. The I just want to put in a plug that I do think that the, the goal of form base code of making the process faster and more predictable. If you're seeing that that is working, I think that that is laudable and we should keep going in that direction. I'm all for it. And I agree with Kurt that it was appropriate for planning board to be calling up these first out the gate kind of projects. And hopefully we will see less need for that going forward so that some of these projects can actually realize the benefits of having a more predictable process with with less intervention that's more discretionary. Alright, I'll just respond that briefly, Laura, which is, Hmm, at least when I was on previously on planning board, they were called up. In part because they actually were not just a biting by form based code. They were actually asking for, variances.

[196:00] So I'll just, to be clear. ML Lisa then Mark. Thank you, Sarah. So I do have a comment based on, Kathleen, you're helping me understand that it is a negotiation. And so I would. I would think that the form base code review process works well when the applicant Sees that their context and this is speaking to form base code in in existing context working with existing buildings and in a context it isn't a black piece of and to that end, I would say that the industrial aesthetic in material form. And in sort of space development. Should be. Should be on the table.

[197:04] I think a developer needs to be able to see themselves in the in the opportunities and in the options and and especially if we're gonna apply it to even T that 2. Which has existing. A lot of existing fabric as well. To have the review process. As a negotiation. Have enough. Have enough responsibility, showing up responsibility to an existing fabric so that the develop so that they can in fact be a negotiation. Rather than just 8, okay, it's been working and it's figure out how to make it work that there are there are things on the table. That can became a starting point. That would be the only. I love that it is a negotiation.

[198:00] It's kind of, Interesting that That's how it goes, but I. I think that place at the table for the various contexts would be a, I think, a Oh great. Addition to that process. Yeah, ML, I'm Lisa and then Mark. Yeah, so it's. Without getting into the nitty gritty more than I've been able to, it's hard for me to know. How well it's working. You tell me. But I will say that, you know, based on what we heard from staff, I think the fact that that PUD is in place. Really made things a lot more complicated. You know, so that's one of the things that I think would be interesting for future sites or other places. We're applying for base code is. To look at mechanisms if they're available to ease other restrictions so they don't have these conflicting structures that are both sort of trying to manage some of the same things in you have to somehow accommodate both, you know,

[199:02] The idea ideally with 4 base code I think would be to simplify the process for planners and also for developers when they're scoping projects little and developing of them and going through the review process. You know, so, I don't know exactly how else working, but I think the extent to which we're kind of. Following an old thing and trying to do a new thing at the same time is probably making things unnecessarily bureaucratic and confusing. And possibly producing some strange outcomes. And Mark, you get the last word. Well, I'm so confused by the bless, even if I'm going last. I guess. You asking. How well is the form base code review process working, meaning our review of projects that have been built by form base code or you asking. That form base code is undergoing a review. And consequently How well is that process of reviewing the form based code going?

[200:03] I'm confused like what you're asking. Okay, I appreciate your, I'm sorry, that's not, clear. I'm sorry. That's not, clear. Okay. Okay. No, I mean the form base code review as a process in comparison to not the review of the process of this particular effort. Right. Okay. Well, having never reviewed a foreign base code project. Then I guess just fine, but. I will say that it is that as more projects are built under form base code. Certainly it will be a child, I'll just accept, as I say, you know, be a challenge for me. To say, well, this was done under form base code and by golly, I'm just gonna trust the system and let it go and all my thoughts and feelings and opinions and stuff.

[201:00] You know, so it will be a challenge to, Release that after. Concept review, site reviews, you know, you go through years of this stuff. And you, you think that You have something to offer and and that you know you've read the BBC P and so it'll be it'll be challenging I think for us I know it will be for me to to help how much we trust the system to put forth projects that we say, yeah. Looks good. See you later. Okay, Kathleen, any last words? Sorry, Mark. I know I said your yours were the last words, but let's just see if Kathleen have anything else she wanted to say. I Don't I have some Just cause it's. Fun. I have some images in response to the idea of form base code limiting creativity that the consultant shared with me and it didn't necessarily come up in the clarifying questions, but I just want to show them because they're fun.

[202:18] Sure. Alright, so I'm gonna share my screen really quick. I don't know Kathleen this is planning board. I don't know if we allow fun I know, but just for a little fun before I leave. So, Leslie from Coda Metrics sent me these images of different buildings from around the world. That she said you know they don't meet all of the details of Boulder's form base code but in general these buildings meet the principles of form base code. And so I just thought I'd. Sure this for a little inspiration and cause they they're a little wackier. Kathleen, that building. The building on the on the far left of the 3 pictures. That's in.

[203:02] Yeah. Barcelona. Help me here, ML. That's a I got a gaudy building. The gaudy building. And I'm pretty sure that was built like. 80 years ago before there was form based code. So. Sure, sure, yes. But the principles of design. That are in form base code. Are also in these buildings. So I just, I thought that was kind of fun that she shared that. So I wanted to show you before I left. Are you sharing these images with the developers? What's that? So it's just a sign to find out how awful current modern architecture is maybe. Maybe it's a sign of how bad some modern architecture is or. Mass-produced architecture. Well, I, I don't know about that. But Laura, your question, in the technical advisory committee, they asked that. That's nice. In the code, we actually provide. More images for inspiration. So. Yeah, we'll collect more and, put them in there.

[204:01] Love to see. Yeah, yeah, the, with the ground floor. And those actually speak to some of the things I was talking about. Right. At the fact that you can have overhands. From the base and the shape doesn't yeah. So awesome. Thanks. Fun with code. And I think it would be great to try to work backwards from some of those and say, What if this is the outcome, the kinds of outcomes that we want, where do we start? You know, what is the form is code that will allow these things if our current code doesn't allow them, what's the kind of code that would Yeah. All right, Kathleen, thank you so much. We now go on to matters item number 2 or B, which is a draft. I'm sorry. Review of the draft retreat agenda. We have 10 min set aside for that. I do not know if it's Brad or Mark and Kurt. I don't know who's exactly taken on this responsibility.

[205:07] But since Brad has appeared, I'm assuming it's Brad. Yeah. Well, I don't know that it is, but I'm happy to be part of. I do plan to be part of the conversation. Certainly happy to defer to Charles or Mark and I think while we can see that I can say with confidence that. We always appreciate the committees, input on this. Charles, did you want to lead into this or you want me to? Later. By all means, feel free. Okay, well, I can also stay with confidence, at least from a staff perspective, we're really excited about the upcoming retreat. The group that has talked through it both, with Mark and Curtin. I hope they speak up. Has been thoughtful about it and then we had a internal discussion about it. Polish it a bit more so at that point we were able to confirm to the availability of.

[206:10] Facilitator is not the person that. I don't know if this had gotten related to you yet or not. Park and Curt, this is obviously not the person that has worked with council the past. But Samuel Wallace is from that same firm, the person whose name I'm forgetting. That you recommended wasn't available that night so Okay. Yeah, Heather Bergman, who I think is the principal at the firm, highly recommended her colleague Samuel. So we're getting the next best thing and a couple of us will be meeting with him tomorrow just to polish up the agenda. We just, you know, we can't see it. We can't see anything bread. Oh, sorry, nothing. As you can see the main. Focus is. Just some of the, interaction. What's that? Sorry, my mistake. I was just gonna say if you got the agenda in front of you, you know that the main subject matters are the interaction of, the department to the board.

[207:10] The discussion about, effective board meetings and discussions. A bit about criteria based decision making and then we want to give folks a chance to. Feel comfortable in front of the dye since we'll be moving towards the in person hybrid, by early November. So just get that a little bit of a feel for things. We'll have the appropriate staff for that. I did want to introduce a thought to the group that had not come up yet and that was the possibility of actually making the dinner time and introduction and gathering time a full hour instead of the half hour that is currently shown. Just given that we've all been away from each other for so long and recognizing people. Might be traveling and settling in plus the.

[208:02] Actual act of getting the food in one's mouth and all. Seemed like we might wanna be a little more, generous with that amount of time and and be able to do some Hello. You know, get to know time informally and maybe formally. So. Wanted to put that at this possibility. Where are you proposing to move the entire agenda back so we would adjourn at 8 30? Yeah, I think I am suggesting that. As a member of the subcommittee, I'll say, well, we're going to see what, Mr. Wallace is made of, because this is a big agenda. We'll see if we'll see how he does helping us get through this in a timely fashion. But I certainly can with the 5 to 6 dinner hour. That's my.

[209:06] Does anyone have, to, Curt, do you want to add anything and or does anyone have questions? Comments? I just want to make sure that people, everyone was going to be able to meet at 5. I think maybe we discussed this time frame, but, I just wanted to verify because obviously we were nearly started 6. So I don't wanna to infring on people's. Day space. Well, I don't have a problem with people meeting it. Starting if I will probably be late coming to the meeting. Big board meeting that day. Which I will have just been wrapping up. So. So that seems like extending it to an hour for dinner would help you, Sarah, since you, so that you don't have to arrive late and grab food real fast. Whatever works yeah that would be fine and if not I'll show up when I show up I promise I will be there I just may not be there exactly at 5.

[210:03] I'll say for myself I'm fine to Meet at 5 and end at 8 30 so that we can have that full hour for dinner. As a fellow facilitator. I'm sure that Samuel Wallace will do just fine with this agenda. Some things might get compressed and some things might expand, but I'm sure he'll roll with the changes. And I think this looks great. So kudos to the staff and subcommittee that helped to put this together. And I'm very excited about it. I have just one question. Which is for the municipal building, I think in the past I've parked at the library. Probably will drive given the time of year and the time of night. Do you have a different parking recommendation other than the library? It might be a Devon question. Okay. Well, there's parking directly adjacent to the Penfield Tape building. Oh. Yeah, it's just if you were to keep going down from the library, keep going east from the library.

[211:00] There's, keep going east from the library. There's parking that's literally. Almost right next to the front to the side door Oh, okay. I'll look for that. Yeah. So it's on the west side of the building. Yeah. I'll look for that. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Charles. I'll actually also be sending out a map, a little bit later, with that actual information of that, of the parking and everything. So it's a lot easier. Awesome, Devon. Thank you. I should have known you'd be on it. Okay. Of course. One other thing, okay, I'm not very techy. And since we're doing this dry run of the technology and procedures, I'm just wondering if. Maybe a little more time for the dry run, a little less time for dinner. Might be. helpful or maybe I can I know I will only be doing this for a few more months and maybe I can come in for a separate dry run, but. I might need some additional help and just a 30 min. Hit this button.

[212:03] Yeah, I think you'll find that Probably the 30 min is fine, but we also would be happy to. Okay. You know, meet with folks. Separately or you know stay a little longer. Alright, any other anybody else have things they want to say? Comments. Alright, well thank you to Kurt and Mark for leading the charge on this. And, if there's, are there any other matters, Brad or Charles? Devin. Not for me. Nothing from staff now. Okay, Laurel, anything from you? Alright, anything from other staff the board members? Alright, then right on time, Lisa having to go, we are going to adjourn. It is 9 31. See you guys in 2 weeks. Thank youThank youHave a good night