December 19, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Vivian's joining us on zoom. Good evening. so you won't see. Well, you'll see them after we stop sharing. Yeah, thank you. All right thanks everyone for joining us. The city has engaged with community members to Co. Create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and boards and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages. identities lived experiences and political perspectives for more information about this vision and the community engagement processes, you can visit our website. The following are examples of roles of decorum found in the Boulder, revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person, obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited.

[1:11] participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before they are allowed to speak online. If you're joining us in the Zoom Webinar this evening, when it is time for the public hearing items and public participation. You may raise your hand. If you wish to speak, you can do this by using. You can hover your mouse over the raised hand. Icon. I don't think we have anyone on the phone, so I won't go over that another way to do this is to also click on the reactions, button and click the raise hand and we will see you. And when it's your turn we'll call upon you to speak. and that's it. Back to you. Chair. Thank you. And this is my first time cheering in person. So forgive me if I get a few things wrong. This is our opportunity for public participation. Do we do online folks first?

[2:12] Share before we get too far into public participation? We'll need to do a roll call. Oh, we haven't done that before. Yeah, just to to say Who's here and who was in here? Does someone else do the roll call? Everyone just gives their name. I think everyone can just give their name. Laura Kaplan. Mark Mcintyre, Sarah Silver. ML. Roblis. Kurt Nordbeck. Great. Thank you. Good okay? To answer your question. We typically have been taking in person public testimony. Comment first and then online. Okay, so if anyone wants to, has wants to speak to any item that is not on our public agenda tonight you are welcome to step forward, and you have 3 min to speak. Is there anyone here who would like to make a public comment.

[3:08] seeing no one stepping forward. Amanda, is there anyone online? Yeah, it looks like we have one online so far, Vivian, will you help us with that? Sure? Lynn Siegel, your hand is raised. I see you have 3 min, and if others would like to speak. Please also raise your hand so that we know. Go ahead, Lynn. Can I blow my nose? I just got off my bike. Sure we'll we'll hold it for a couple of seconds. Thanks. Okay, go ahead. Okay. Yeah. Well, first, 2 things. one local and one international. And both of them affect how the planning board functions and operates and serves the community one. On the fourteenth of September my

[4:04] computer bag was stolen at the municipal building in the lobby not 30 s after I removed my computer from the bag by an employee. I didn't even know this for 2 months, but the surveillance cameras that you and I have paid for caught the thief who is in the children's department of the library. His story was that he thought it was his boss's, and he took it for her, and then, when it was given to her, she left it outside the building. when there was a fire alarm intentionally after she accepted it. This is just not acceptable. I was sure it was a homeless person. but it was our own city employee, and I'm paying. They're they're paying me the for $500 that I lost. But that's the risk and security fund, and that's my money that I'm paying myself back for. And this employee had no repercussions, was not prosecuted. Doesn't have to answer to me, doesn't doesn't I? Wanna see him? But he doesn't wanna see me. There's no me mediation. There's no restorative justice. There's no community policing in this town, and that really affects

[5:24] the planning board, because when we don't have a strong community here. We don't. We don't have law and justice. We don't have a a community with any backbone. Now, the other thing I wanted to talk to you about is the situation in Gaza. because there's no use in having a planning board at all. If we're going to have a 9 11 worse, much worse than a 9, 11, many 9 elevens all over the United States, in random cities like Boulder, Colorado. Because we have got people. The Hamas people are humans, too. They were just babies when they were affected the same way that the babies and the pregnant people and the little kids are affected. Now in Gaza. They were affected that same way, and that's what they became, Hamas.

[6:15] They were angry. They lost their parents, they lost, I mean, I heard one kid had its hands shut off, and it said, I want to shake my hand. I want to use my hand. I mean, this is just appalling. What's going on. The proportions are inappropriate, you know, huge disproportion of force. So do something because it's all about the planning board and the survival of this city. Alright. Thank you very much. Lynn. Is there anyone else online? No, nobody else? Alright, thanks very much. Alright. We're now going to move to discussion of dispositions call ups and continue. First, is floodplain development. Permit Fld twenty-twenty-three 0 0 33,

[7:03] 33, 60. Broadway is a fence located within a conveyance zone. Does anyone here want to call it up, have any questions, or want to call it up alright? That's a no. We will move on to Item BA flood. Plain development permit fld 202-30-0028. Goose Creek Junction. Place to foothills, Parkway, Goose Creek channel improvements phase 2 junction to foothills. Does anyone have any questions or want to call it up? Ml. speak? Thank you, Sarah. I have a a couple of questions. Who do I direct my questions? Do I direct? Who do I direct my questions to? Oh, hi, Edward Edwards! So it wasn't clear. From the information. Are we losing any trees in the process of this work?

[8:03] No, not in this particular one. This is actually some rework of some previous failure from flood damage. Oh, okay. And so habitat wouldn't be at risk either. Correct habitat's not at risk. And this is actually done under an already issued while, and permit for general maintenance in our floodways. Perfect. Thank you so much. Not not going to call it up. Go ahead. and my quick question is also about trees. When we did the phase one changes, they added, maybe 8 or so small cottonwoods that are starting to grow up. I didn't see any tree planting shown on the plans. Is there any? Don't know that they have tree planning they've got? I believe there's some willow staking, and they're ultimately working on. Or this plan. This project is to restabilize that bank slope. Now. Okay, thank you. Alright. So yes, go ahead, please.

[9:03] I don't know if this is, for I don't know if this is for Edward or Charles, or someone else but at a previous meeting I think it was Curt who asked, what are the criteria by which we're supposed to be evaluating these flood plain development projects. And I don't know if Staff have have any thoughts about that for us, you know, when we do a concept review or a site review or an annexation, the criteria and the code are pretty clear, and I think if there's any guidance for us in terms of how we should be reviewing these floodplain development projects. That would be good. certainly, and I can speak to that at a high level tonight, I think we're planning at some point next year that come in and do a more detailed presentation. But there is very specific code in terms of the flood and wetland permits which can be found in title 9, chapter 3. Floodplain. There are permit criteria in 9, 3, 6, wetland permits, and 9, 3, 9. As I said, we will come in and do a more detailed 101 session next year to help better explain the criteria and what you're looking at.

[10:05] Thank you, Edward. Anything else? Alright. So nobody wants to call that item up, either. We're going to move on to our public hearing items, our first public hearing. Item, just to start with, we've scheduled 90 min for this public hearing item. It's the concept plan, review and comment for redevelopment. Proposal of 1855 South Flat Iron Court. The proposal includes demolition of the existing commercial industrial buildings and redevelopment of the site with research and development uses. The new development is proposed to include to approximately 1,000 square foot buildings and a parking garage. And it's reviewed under case number LUR. 20230045 will start with a. I think, 15 min presentation from staff, and then a up to 15 min presentation from the applicant, and then we'll take public comments.

[11:05] Good evening. Planning board and members of the public. The item before you tonight is a concept plan for new development at 1,855 South Flat Iron Court. There we go. Okay. In this presentation I will briefly cover the the information that was provided in Staff's Memo, including the purpose and process of concept plan, the project, proposal and background and some key issues for discussion. There we go. The purpose of concept plan is to review a general development plan for a specific site and help identify key issues in advance of any Site Review Submittal. The applicant will receive comments from the Board staff and the public, and as a reminder no formal action will be taken tonight. The applicant completed the necessary public notice requirements per the code. The written notice was sent to the property owners within 600 feet, and a signed posting was placed on site as well.

[12:01] Staff received one comment from a neighbor, and that comment has been included in the staff. Memo. I'm sorry to interrupt, but, Alison, I think on Zoom, we're seeing your slideshow and your next slide. Oh, okay, I think we're seeing the notes and the next slide, and all of that on zoom. Thank you. And Alison did you introduce yourself? Oh, no, I didn't. Hi! I'm Alison Boyn, senior planner. Thank you. Thank you so much. hold on. Is it still showing the notes? Is it? Good? Okay. Hold on. Hang tight, everyone that's cool. That's where I was. Okay. Okay. The subject site is located at the end of South Flat Iron Port, just south of Central Ab. And north of the railroad, and the proposed application will include the property address at 1855 South Flat Iron, as well as 2 outlets that are to the west, and covered by flood and drainage easements, and the entire site is indicated here in yellow with the the 2 outlets kind of that little tail to the left.

[13:15] The majority of the site is designated as mixed use. Industrial, which includes light industrial uses as well as retail office and commercial uses. Mixed use industrial zones, encourage vibrant walkable and working neighborhoods as well as amenities and services to nearby residents and employees, and then a small portion of the site just to the east and the southeast corner is designated as Oso, and those areas are protected by easements. The site is zoned industrial general, and is surrounded by other IG. Zones as well as the South Boulder Creek, which is zoned public there on the east, intensity standards for the Zone are based on a combination of the following, an far limitation of point 5 to one, the provision of a minimum of 20% of usable open space for the site due to the the proposed height and the application of height and setback standards per table. 7. One of the land use code. Industrial buildings are limited to 3 stories and a maximum height of 40 feet by right.

[14:12] The site is located within the Flat Iron Industrial Business Park in East Boulder, and is surrounded by a hub of industrial and commercial uses, including technical offices, biosciences, manufacturing uses, and local boulder businesses like upslope brewing and chocolate love. and just to the east is on Smp property containing the South Boulder Creek and the adjacent multi use path Due to its location. The site is also subject to the East Boulder Subcommittee plan. and just hear another view. The railway runs adjacent to the site and separates it from Arapaho, and other commercial and industrial uses along Arapaho, as well as well as the Arapahoe and 50 Fifth Street Station And the broader context of the surrounding uses includes the flat irons, golf course.

[15:01] the Valve Lake and Hillcrest reservoir as well as mixed density residential. The site is currently occupied by the offices for Lumen, which was previously Centriolink, and the existing site consists of a larger brick structure, covered parking and some accessory structures. Currently, the site is mostly surface parking with some asphalt lacks vegetation and mature trees due to the proximity to the South Boulder Creek and Dry Creek Ditch number 2, which is further west. The site contains high functioning wetlands along the Southern and Eastern property line, and the site is also impacted by the 100 year 500 year high hazard and conveyance flood zones. So the proposal being discussed tonight is for 2, 3 story buildings that will function as research and development uses. The 2 main buildings, buildings A and B are situated closer to the public realm along the northern and western edges

[16:02] with a detached parking structure proposed for the southeast corner. And then there's some additional surface parking throughout the site. Primarily by building A and building B primary access site. Access is from South Flat Iron Court, with access points from the multi-use path just crossing the eastern portion. And then there's a fire and service access road that surrounds the perimeter. There's it's kinda hard to see in the picture. But there is no proposed development within the outlots or the functioning wetlands. and then, last, a 9% parking reduction is being requested as part of this application or proposal. The architecture of the project is contemporary. In building materials include steel, concrete and profiled metal. There is a significant amount of glazing and transparency in the building design, and the spaces between the buildings contain pedestrian walkways and greenery to create a courtyard that encloses on site amenity spaces and counts towards the site's open space requirements.

[17:03] The proposal is largely 3 story flat roof buildings, with some mechanical screening on the on the roof. and those buildings exceed the buy right height for industrial zones. The project appears to meet far requirements, and proposes about 207,000 square feet which is less than the maximum of 215,000 square feet but detailed floor plans will be provided as part of the Site Review application, so that staff can confirm far calculations. The proposal includes 2 modifications to the land use code. One is a 9% parking reduction to allow for 468 spaces where 517 are required. This would typically be an administrative review and approval, but can be reviewed as part of the Site Review application. and the second is a height modification to allow development over the buy right? Height. So building A is proposed to be 45 feet and meets the conditional height criteria for an additional 5 feet of height. and then building B is located within the flood plain. And is proposing a height of 50 feet to meet the required flood protection, elevation.

[18:07] and the the proposal will be subject to additional criteria for building form and massing for buildings that are over that conditional height as well as site design. At time of site review a staff has identified 3 key issues for discussion, and I'll go through those one by one in the following slides like key issue. One is the proposal consistent with policies of the Bvcp. And the vision for the area, as shown in the East Boulder Subcommittee plan and staff finds that overall the proposed use and design for the site aligns with key Bbcp policies and the mui designation. Some of the policies I included in the on the slide, but are also included in the memo. and, as stated earlier. The site is also subject to the East Boulder subcommunity plan, which envisions mixed use development with residential while also encouraging the preservation of industrial uses. This area is also specifically called out as an area of change to be designed as a walkable hub for workers and nearby residents.

[19:05] And further, this the area is designated as a destination workplace, place type which calls for ground floor activation and improved access and mobility to encourage walkability and access for all users. Staff recognizes that residential may not be suitable for this area. Given the surrounding industrial uses. Railroad and power plant, however, Staff has identified 2 aspects of the proposal that could better align with the vision for the area and create consistency with the Site review criteria and that first one is the connections. The site acts as a gateway to the flat Irons industrial business park from that multi-use path. and the subcommittee plan proposes options for first and last mile connections. The proposal does include a small connection from the path to the site. however, Staff recommends a well planned and extended connection from the path all the way to south a flat iron court as proposed, bikes and pedestrian traffic spill out into the road for vehicular egress, and can result in some unsafe conditions.

[20:07] And then, second there is a greater opportunity to include some sort of ground floor use like a cafe or a small store that would activate the space and further align with the vision of the destination workplace, place type. key issue, too. Does planning board have feedback for the applicant on the conceptual site plan and building design. Staff finds that the general layout of buildings and amenities is appropriate for the site. Specifically, the parking is screened behind the building A and B from the public realm. staff also finds that the proposed materials are a good starting point, and that the buildings are scaled appropriately to the area. and further, the architecture conveys a modern office and lab space. Generally, more information will be necessary to review open space design and operating characteristics, building, massing, and circulation at time of site review.

[21:02] like, I said in the previous slide, some further consideration should be given to the circulation patterns throughout the site for pedestrians, vehicles, and users of the multi-use path. And then the final key issue is just the opportunity for a planning board to highlight or raise any key issues that they would like to discuss and share with the applicant for next steps after the hearing tonight. City Council has 30 days to call up the item for a council hearing to provide additional feedback. After that the applicant can either proceed with submitting a site, review, application or submit a second concept, review application. and last, because the Site Review application would include a height modification. The approval will be made by planning board and subject to call up by city council. and that's it. Leave it open for questions on the presentation. Great. Thank you very much. Let's start down here. Do you have any questions?

[22:05] Sorry. I'm just pulling up my notes here. I just have a couple of questions for staff one was about the materials. By the way, thank you. That was an excellent presentation. Very thorough. Gave us everything we needed. I thought. If I can find my notes. The materials that were the applicant is proposing to use some of them from the renderings, and I know this is not a site review, and this is very preliminary. Some of them have that sort of rusty metal look. Is that a type of material that staff considers to be consistent with high quality, durable looking materials. I think we'd probably look at that more closely at site review with our like urban designer, as far as like the rusty rustiness. I'm not quite sure I don't know, Charles, you have any thoughts on the durable materials. But I think we'd review that more closely. I think that is an intentional like choice of a design.

[23:05] and I'm I'm not trying to impose my personal preferences. But I was just wondering how Staff considers is that in line with our guidelines around durable high quality materials. So just a question. and my other question was around that connection, the connections to the the multi-use path there. It said there were 2 connections proposed in North and a South, and I think it was parks and open space was not okay with the Southern connection. Can you go into that in a little more detail about why Staff would not consider that Southern connection to be potentially acceptable. Yeah, it's my understanding that it would disrupt a an existing flood levy. And so trying to limit the access crossing that flood levy so they'd have one or the other, but the one on the north is more aligned with the what is shown in the connections plan in the East Boulder Subcommittee Plan.

[24:00] Mark. Great. Thank you. Allison. I'm looking at page 15 of my packet, which does not include the second call up. Item. So I'm looking at figure one. which is the aerial view of the of the subject property with a purple border around it. So okay, so we're looking at the same thing. the property boundary as drawn looks like the multi-use path dips in and comes inside the property boundary and then dips out. So is that the case? Is that does a multiuse path dip in to private property. as I understand it? Yes. what is our current? easement. access, allowance, etc., for the current. Mu p. And anyway, let's answer that one. And then.

[25:08] is there any? Is there anything that is documented that would transfer that would or has transferred with the property. has the property transfer. Is is it stolen by century link, or is it under? No, I think it's the current. Our applicant team here. Okay, anyway. So okay, so what what easement rights has the city obtained to ensure access for that multi-use path. So I'm just taking a look at the the map right now. Right now I'm just seeing the the flood and drainage easement, but I off the top of my head, I can definitely look more into that for you. So my

[26:05] request would be that when we did the millennium. we created a condition that clarified and certified or formalized the access for a city-owned multi-use path crossing on a private property. So my suggestion is is that by the time this comes back for Site Review, that public access 24, 7 be documented and formalized. So we don't go through a kind of a Site Review thing, but that that's a concern of mine. And and especially if if we are counting on. we're planning on a site review approval based on connections, then that then that

[27:01] access from the multi-use path to the Flat Iron Court would would also be part of that documentation would be my suggestion. Okay. I think that's it for Staff. Right now I'll have applicant questions. Thank you and thank you, Ellison, for a great presentation. I appreciated the here's what what it is, and here's what we might be needing. I like that part. So I have a couple of questions. Just to make sure I'm looking at this correctly. Will this be subject to the current site? Review criteria? Yes, okay, and in your presentation you talked about the railroad kind of providing the tracks, providing like a barrier. Is there any

[28:01] idea or thought of providing crossing or something? Because in the East Boulder sub community plan. This is kind of an important part of that. Yeah, I don't. I don't know from the 1,855 Flat Iron property. But there is the for the multi-use path there is that it does cross over or under. That's pretty close. Yeah. And if the with the connection, it would be right along the proposed or the subject site. Right? So my last clarifying question is on the height, modification. what condition did this project meet in order to ask for a height. Modification? It would be. I can't remember the number, but for the to elevate above the flood protection elevation.

[29:01] So that's the one building and the other building. The other building is right? Yeah, it's a conditional height, and it's just a criteria that we can review And do we have a maximum height for mechanical? We do. I think it's 16. Yeah. And as far as you could tell. Are these buildings showing sort of that maximum on that mechanical? I we didn't have the scaled elevations to show the screening but we can ask the applicant, too. Thank you. Those are my questions. Very quick. Thanks, yeah, and thank you for this presentation. My first question is, you said that step in Steph's judgment. This may not be an appropriate place for residential, and you said. because of the surrounding industrial

[30:02] railroad and the power plant, Belmont power plant. My question is, construction is just finishing up on a large project the weather vein, formerly known as Water View. Thank you. Project, which also is adjoining. Industrial also is next to the railroad, also is close to the power plant. So what do you see as the distinguishing feature there? I think the subject site is located within the flat irons. Industrial business park. And so would the compatibility with those surrounding uses as well would be taken into account. Okay. okay, absolutely. I would like to colloquy. So I was part of the development of the East Boulder Subcommittee plan, and the applicant may be aware that

[31:02] that entire row of industrial businesses on Central Avenue that's to the north of your property is slated to become mainstream live work as the place type. It has not yet been manifested in zoning. But it is absolutely. This area is absolutely envisioned as mixed use with a potential for residential above. And you know it's not required. But it's this one little corner at the bottom of that row of Main Street live work that is still destination office place type in the East Folder subcommittee plan. So it's all gonna be rezoned and allow residential. So if that is something that the applicant is interested in, I know I don't know if that's your business model. It doesn't sound like it is. But I think if something were to change in your estimation of what this site might be good for. I think I, for one, would welcome a concept that had residential here. So I don't think that this site needs to be limited by the current zoning. Even with mixed use. Industrial residential is allowed, and the way this is envisioned to develop into the future. There will be higher concentrations of residential all around you at this site, and with Upslow brewery. And well, I'll save this for my comments. I'm going on too much. But I agree with you, Kurt. I think that

[32:17] residential here could absolutely be appropriate. If I'm reading into your comment. Correct? It was just a question. Okay? Yes, ma, my second question. Briefly, we got a draft Tdm plan. And I realized that wasn't really. That's not something that is ordinarily reviewed as part of concept plan. But the T. The graph Tdm plan is, I saw it identified under parking the parking management strategy. Really, it was just as I understood it, it was just the 9% parking reduction. Is that something that Staff would consider to qualify as parking management? I mean, that, would that be sufficient to just to to claim parking management?

[33:11] We would review the specific criteria in the code for parking reductions. I think it's 9, 9 6 f. and review. I think some of the other criteria is, you know, proximity to like bus lines, or if there's on street parking so we would review that as well as the code criteria for parking reductions. Okay, but you don't have guidance about. So it's in reference to this draft Tdm toolkit, which I can see Mark wanting to jump in already. I'm just gonna yeah. I'm just gonna say I have comments prepared for the applicant after their presentation about okay, this particular subject comments when we actually get to the. But my question is, you don't. As far as you know.

[34:08] there isn't guidance about specifically what these terms in this draft tdm, toolkit mean and what is necessary in order to actually satisfy them. that's a good question. I don't know. I have an answer for that one. Do you have about the Tdm. Plans and the parking management? It's about the you sent on in response to a question from Mark. There they're very draft. Pdm plan, which was written up in reference to our draft Tdm. Toolkit, which has never been adopted but in the context of the the set of pl,

[35:01] of of Tdm measures that they were choosing, one is manage parking and under manage parking. It just referred to the 9% parking reduction. And so my question is. do we have guidance for what would qualify as managed parking Charles Ferrero planning and development services. It's it's a great question. I don't think that a 9% parking reduction on its own would qualify as managed parking when we think of managed parking again, we think of kind of some principles where the property owners actively. I don't want to use the definition manage to define, manage, but where they're actively managing their parking in some way, shape or form, and or incentivizing alternatives to the you know individual single occupant vehicle so on its own. I don't think that we would consider that as as managed parking again, the Tdm. Is a kit of a number of things. It's not just any one thing, and certainly recognize that there are alternatives other than those that are outlined in

[36:09] the toolkit, which I think Mark will probably get to as part of his comments. So to answer your question, I don't think that we would consider a 9% parking reduction on its own as managed parking. Yeah. but okay, thank you very much. Anything else. I'll hold my questions until or comments until we get to the comment. Period. All right. Well, now is the time and wait any last questions. No, okay. Now is opportunity for the applicant to speak. Whoever the applicant is, please come forward. and you'll please introduce yourselves and your who you're associated with, and you'll have 15 min. Okay, great, thank you so much. Good evening planning board. So I'm Kelsey. I'm from Baumed Realty, the applicant. Can you give your whole name, please, Kelsey Hunter? I'm also joined by Salma realty. And then with me sitting here is Ryan from our partners at first, please. We won't know who Ryan is a year from now, so whole namesard and and

[37:12] solo pie. Billy. Thank you. So just wanted to thank you for your time and the engagement tonight. We certainly appreciate the 15 min to allow ourselves to introduce ourselves, and then, as well as get into our concept. Review plan for 1855 also appreciative to Allison and staff for their constant engagement in this process. And the review of our concept plan yeah hold on yeah, i'm trying to yeah, sorry no worries.

[38:14] so you folks in the room may know this, but we've only just started meeting in person again after Covid. And so sometimes we have technical glitches. So thank you for bearing with us no problem perfect. If you want to move to page 2, we'll start there. So just a quick overview of the agenda today we've set up this evening to be efficient and a compact presentation that touches on the 3 main topics as shown. So first, we'll start with a little bit of an introduction. This is biomed first time standing in front of planning board as part of this concept review process. Just wanted you to learn a little bit more about who we are. Secondly, we'll move into context for 1855.

[39:06] We'd like to go over boulder plans and policies and the site Ca Site location within Flat Arm park building on what Alison mentioned earlier that ultimately provided the framework for our design on this project and then, lastly, we'll get further in depth on the concept plan. And we'll provide additional commentary on our intent, our on our intent for the future of this site. Next slide, please. So a little bit on biomed biomed realty develops, owns and operates class a life science and technology real estate. We're working hard to meet the growing demand of this industry and provide real estate solutions that allow our tenants to perform innovative research. We're excited about the depths and strength of the talent here in boulder, and we're looking forward to supporting the continued growing ecosystem here. Next slide, please. Biomodelty exists to support the advancing frontiers of human health. Our tenants are doing remarkable work every single day to advance the next generations of therapies, drugs, technologies, and vaccines. This includes treatments for infectious diseases, antiviral drugs for COVID-19, and oncology to name a few

[40:12] next slide, please. This slide showcases a selection of biomedes, amazing campuses to give you a flavor of our world, a few points to preview here, as it relates to what we do in our vision here in Boulder, and for 1855, one. We're successful in providing lab and research facilities in our markets with beautiful real estate. Each project varies in terms of scale, size, look and feel, but ultimately are crafted to respond to local contacts, local site conditions, local needs of our customers. Secondly, we pride ourselves on high sustainability standards and our goals. Our goals, to be energy efficient and green lead is a focus for us that we commit to very early in the design stages of these projects, and we meet, or oftentimes exceed, code requirements. You'll hear more on these themes later in the presentation. That Ryan will will give, as it relates to 1,855 more specifically.

[41:06] Next slide, please. So, moving into speaking on Flat Arm Park more directly, we have an aerial shot. Here flatter and parks is special holding for us. Given the scale and the close proximity of the 23 buildings that we own in this overall campus we're bringing forward a range of product types, including labs, amenities and campus activations with our goal of stitching together a cohesive campus that serves our tenants and the community as a whole. Over the past. One and a half years following our purchase of flat Iron Park biomed realty has had the opportunity to listen to Boulder's policymakers and understand the city's aspirations. We were active. We were an active participant last year in the East Boulder subcommittee plan, and the industrial zoning changes and really appreciated the opportunity there to provide thoughtful feedback and understand the city's goals. More moving forward biomed has a strong focus on Flat Iron Park, and we're committed to the long term investment

[42:01] on the local ecosystem and the community. We look forward to continuing to work with the city of Boulder. Here. We're now eager to share our vision for 1855 South Flutterin Court, and hear your feedback to allow our vision to meet your vision as well. With that context, we'll we'll move more into the heart of this presentation on 1855, and I'll bring up Ryan to start those slides. Thank you. Okay, good evening. Thanks. Kelsey. So what we want to do is start to talk about the context for the project in the beginning of our design. As mentioned earlier, we really looked at the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan to make sure we're aligned with that, and really used as the starting point for the design. The project all the way from the way we started to think about open space preservation through the energy efficiency, sustainable goal in the actual building and site planning slide. We also looked at how you are thinking, as mentioned earlier, about the evolution of this district in this neighborhood, and making sure that we were thinking about the types of amenities and planning within this to really transform this site next slide

[43:07] that included, as we heard, the destination workplace, which has a lot to do with the ground plane activity as well as connectivity to the larger neighborhood into transit next slide. So in that in vain. What we do is we always start by looking at the overall neighborhood. And what is there? So here you can see the 5 and 10 min kind of walking radius is, and we were really pleased with the amount of amenities where people could have lunch, gather, recreate, that are really close by, approximate to our site slide as well as the connection to transit. So the ability, as you can see on 50 Fifth Street, as well as a wrap, a ho! A wide variety of bus stops as well as connections to the multi use path, which is directly, as you can see here on our site, directly on the east side of our site, which, as we know, connects the larger range of trails and paths that connect across the city. Also, as we should have mentioned earlier. Not only is there the local amenities which are very close to us, but just within 2 buildings of us is a new kind of hub for the district neighborhood, which is being proposed by biomet for recreation kind of entertainment as well as dining options

[44:13] next slide. So, in looking more closely at the concept plan for this, you can see next slide. Sorry our plan for this. For that plan. It's composed, as mentioned earlier of 2 structures building A and building B building A, anchoring the west side of the site and building B on the northeast corner. We're very intentional about the placement of these buildings to create kind of a new kind of urban place. This kind of neighborhood park, or entry way to the site you can see here, where we feature a mixture of kind of drop off plantings, outdoor rooms, and different amenities that really are at the end and entry to the site but the ending of South Flat facing the neighborhood. In the community. You can also see the kind of ramble or the strip that's between the garage which is located on the southeast. So we've really condensed all the parking to place it either under the buildings or within the structure of parking, and that opens up all these kind of green areas we've delineated here with our kind of initial concept site design.

[45:09] And lastly, you can see the kind of idea of this kind of perimeter drive that links the buildings which is at the back of the site, removing that from the public way. So really pushing the buildings of public Space Forward. Also, you can see here there's discussion about the connectivity to the multi-use path. This is showing previously the 2 connection points. One is right off the ramble which is heading directly west off of that we were in agreement and alignment, and we'll be up for the next round of drawings, submitting just the option for the connection to the north side, which, as you noticed, only crosses the levy one time, as well as providing a protected pathway not only to our site but to South Flat iron port next slide. This aerial shows. Now the buildings and context, so showing that the scale and size of the buildings is consistent with the neighborhood. You can also see the way we start to think about open space trying to pull the kind of local landscape ecology through the site through the buildings. To really think about this is kind of this kind of green terminus to South glad iron port.

[46:09] So we also want to think about the concepts that really drive the architecture and site planning for this 3 ideas that we pulled from the kind of planning that you've done already as well as working with our clients. One about collaboration, innovation embedding that in the architecture and site design wellness and a connection to nature next slide. So there was many different ways. Those can start to evolve it conceptually. The way we've thought about this is thinking about the actual programs that will inhabit this, particularly at the ground plane of this. So thinking on the kind of upper left hand corner of really pushing collaboration and meeting spaces. Outdoors having those be covered sometimes have a variety of different choices for people on the bottom right, having those outdoor spaces have flexibility. So having the program for recreation meetings, but also for exercise and different types of uses, maybe uses we don't even foresee in today's kind of working climate.

[47:01] We think about the ground plane as being really actually pushing co-working spaces, rethinking how lobbies are used, bike lounges and other active uses at the ground plane. and that we're gonna connect all those through. Not just the multi use paths that exist on the edge of the site, but push the kind of pathways as kind of tendrils through the landscape and to connect those spaces. And lastly, we want to think about the science innovation. These buildings can work well. They need to work well in terms of their infrastructure and the way they're planned next slide sustainability is important to us and to our client. Our client started at 500, Kendall Street. back in 2,006, with a lead platinum project. We ourselves started to work with them in 2,011 for lead, platinum, commercial design for alumina in San Diego. So we have a history of working together, deliver high performance buildings. Some of the themes you can see, here are ideas that we're starting to bed into the planning here, the kind of 2 concentric rings outline kind of building kind of base building blocks and the inner ring. And then where we started, really think about those active features being amenetized throughout the campus.

[48:00] what we'd like to do, and there'll be a lot of evolution of this, as we continue to pursue sustainable aspects of the project is, look at the strategies holistically, that they work together, work with the design. We don't like to look at the scorecard and do just point by point. We like to think of total systems when we design the project next slide. as mentioned earlier for building sections, you can see that we are consistent with the use, the stories in terms of the uses. You can see the 2 stories of research. and then a story of parking below at the ground level that's also be shared with different kind of amenities and uses in the ground plane. We are seeking the 40 feet with the 5 feet of conditional height. And that for the building B, which is in the floodplain below, you can see that we're additionally looking at 5 feet of height in that location. Part of that is also, when you look at it's very hard to see here. There's a dash line at the very bottom. Our lowest grade point, which is where you measure height, is anywhere from 2 almost 2 feet 3 inches for building A and over 6 feet from building B,

[49:02] so the height has already shifted down. So that's part of the reason why we're looking at that. And I think there was also a question about the mechanical screen, so we would be consistent with the heights of looking at the 16 foot as the maximum limit of the mechanical screen next slide the architectural character. For this we are looking at it once again, reflecting the programmatic goals of the project. So on the upper elevations, those are kind of conceptual elevations of the 2 buildings we're looking at, expressing the kind of research functions of that over the kind of podium piece. But, as you can see, we're draping the kind of form of the building down where we have the more public uses those kind of active ground plane areas at the lower level, at the entry points, lobbies, fitness centers. And we're also looking at a mixture of different materials. Kind of conceptually early on use of ceramic frit. Kind of warm tones, looking at kind of the local context of buildings, as well as the kind of beautiful landscape these buildings will inhabit. The use of kind of metal panels or the core 10 panels, typically and answer one of the questions, we look at those those are

[50:02] the core. 10 is kind of a veneer that rusts, that preserves the core, so it stops the aging of the metal, but we usually use those only for landscape trimming elements. We use painted aluminum panels, high performance panels on the building proper. as well as use of crafted materials, like the architectural concrete, may be board formed. It really show the character and crafting here with which the building's constructed slide. And then we just have a series of overall conceptual views of the project to give you an idea of the kind of flavor of where we're developing the project to date. This is at that kind of entry courtyard. So we're hovering above South Flat Iron Cord at this point, looking back at the project, you can see how we're really thinking of a mix of different uses, different types of spaces within this, from the kind of brain gardens by swell to the kind of amphitheatre spaces. Really creating places for people to be outside in this environment, as well as great visibility and connectivity both to the amenities on site as well as the flat irons in the neighborhood beyond next slide. We've started to think about the building really kind of draping the building or lifting the kind of skin of the building to expose those kind of ground floor pieces. Here, seeing the entry to building B, as well as really at this point, shielding and hiding the parking, the parking structures with plantings as well as architectural screening.

[51:13] Next slide. One of the advantages I mentioned earlier is by putting all the parking recessed under the building or the structure, we really are able to open the site. So here are the parking structures to the left we have the architectural building, the facade for building B. Here, as you can see. we've thought about articulation of these buildings at a variety of scales, the draping of the kind of skin at those locations, looking at the kind of micro serations and micro modulations to create a lot of scale and texture. Once again, at a very conceptual level slide. and lastly, wanted to kind of bring it back to those those 3 ideas that we really are thinking about these buildings, whether you're working at a lab bench, sitting in a meeting inside or outside. That's about connectivity to nature. It's about the health and wellness of the community, and the people who work here, so allowing them to engage and enjoy kind of areas kind of

[52:04] within the sun or under the cover of the buildings, in the kind of autumn and spring, or even as you start to diverse the stairs which are expressed, and within the building to actively engage with them. That's our last slide. Great. Thank you very much. I'm actually going to ask the first question. If you all don't mind. It's a little unclear to me. How cars get to the parking garage, and I kind of have the sense they go through. What's meant to be all this pedestrian space. So could you just walk us through that. Yeah, we've intentionally actually separated out. If you go to the Site plan. this is a real challenge, because I like to point at things, and I can't point. It's just a little delayed off. Yeah, no worries. That's okay. So the way cars, there's a point of ingress and egress off of South Florida Port.

[53:00] The cars will come in and we've have them circulating around the perimeter of the site. So to get to the garage, no one drives through the quarter, with the exception of the drop off. so the drop off allows them to come in and come back to that drive. and then all the kind of tendrils of space, and those connections are completely outside of the circulation zone for cars. We're separating those. Alright. Thanks very much. Alright. I'll start down here with Curt. and these should be questions, and then we can have conversation amongst ourselves when it comes to our time to give comments. So just following up on Sarah's question. So, for example, if you're parking underneath building B, you come in where it says ingress there. and go all the way around. And then there's a big. There's a garage door on the East Side. Correct? Okay? And then another about vehicular circulation.

[54:02] You show sort of in in the middle. You show sort of a traffic circle with, and you showed cars on it. What is that then? Because I think that's maybe partly what Sarah was referring to. I thought that that was supposed to be the pedestrian space. But then there's some we're mixing both, and we've done that on a number of campuses. but what we're doing is You mind if I go up and point at the board? Oh, that okay. I'm fine with it. But people. So you're talking about this space right? Yes. So so what will happen with if you come in is you'll come in off of here. This is 2 ways. You can come in and circulate in and then back out. You'll see there's a white light here that's restricting where the cars can actually go. So all of the area, these aprons, these spaces, this zone, the car sinker that we followers, or other kind of detection at that point.

[55:01] So so that's sort of a drop off that gives us access to the front door. Uber dropped off and then circulate around out of the site. Okay. and then one more about the motor vehicle access. Because I think this is I don't know it. It seems kind of problematic. The the elevation, the east elevation that I saw of building B seem to show a really big, wide. like garage entrance. Is that correct? I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think that for recording purposes and for posterity. If we ever go back and watch the video, we need you to talk into the microphone. No problem. Thank you. On the East side, or both buildings. We're providing loading, but it's all recessed under the building. So the garage or you might have seen in an elevation, is for loading surface. We're separating those out from the separate particular entry.

[56:14] because we once again once again want to keep it clear and separate where those are so. On the southeast corner of Building B. There is a garage door at that location which is for the loading dock on the northeast corner, almost where it says access. That's where the vehicles would actually enter the building for that first floor apart. It's thank you. I think that's my only question. Alright, Emel, do you have any questions? Okay, go for it. Just stop me when I've asked too many, and I'll come back to me. You're right. Correct. thank you for your presentation. I have a number of clarifying questions. I will start with a couple that are programmatic. How many people are you expecting to work here?

[57:07] What are you designing population of employee employees? Or, yeah. So we're expecting about 400 between the 2 buildings. Currently, there's a 40,000 square foot building on the site that was previously sentry. Link that was about 40,000 square feet, so increment add, is 170,000 square feet with 400 employees. looking at this plan, what percent of the non-building area is paved? I see a lot of concrete, and I see a lot of asphalt. Do you know what percent of the site is paved? II don't have that figure off the top of my head, but we can get that to you. Okay, are you proposing for you? Said there was surface parking.

[58:05] Are you proposing it to be purvious any of the. Are you proposing any of the paid areas to be purvious? Surely? Yes, when we start to look at that, particularly with the pathways, even in some of the parking areas, we would be looking at that to create the Purve area cause, as you know, what's right out there right now, primarily paved create or kind of gravel lay down. But yes, that is, that is the concept. And to clarify one thing, the only right now, surface parking we have on the proposal is you could see a strip on building a up to the north and a small strip on building you've been talking about things that are under the building. So we've got 100 year, 500 year high hazard, conveyance, flood, zones, etc., etc. How is the use of a below grade space compatible with

[59:07] being respectful to the fact that we've got high ground water and ground water issues? Yeah, sure. So. On the building B, which is in the flood plain, we've actually elevated that first forest lab. and we have that above the flip side. At this point. We also know by the code and for the other uses there, we're not putting any uses down there that would be not allowed by code. That would be within the flood area. Those certain types of mechanical rooms, certain types of electoral rooms aren't allowed to be at. And so the only areas that we have down there are loud by the code itself. So I'm asking these questions in the spirit of kind of like this total system, holistic approach to everything, and there's water on the site, and you're putting a lot of dense, purbeous things on it. So that is something that I'm I'm wondering about this isn't the question. It's just that's the framework that I'm that I'm trying to.

[60:06] I'll ask some building questions. in the elevations. Your 16 foot. Tall mechanical area. That's pretty significant height to. I mean, it's it's if you look at the elevations. It's like you got a 4 story building. Is that? Do? Do your clients need that kind of mechanical hype? Yeah. So typically for these type for research buildings, the mechanical systems, including exhaust flumes and other things are quite tall. So we find that usually that's a fairly standard mechanic, right? For this type of building. The other thing is, I do note by the code and regulations we're not allowed to project above that, so that sometimes in other jurisdictions you may see mechanical screens shorter, but a lot of equipment projecting above it, whether it's flus or other components. So the idea with that absolute limit, if we're able to keep all the equipment, including any flus vents other things below that. So it's not visible.

[61:13] That might be. That might be all of my questions. Thank you so much. mechanical screening is A is a really interesting and challenging topic. So I'm gonna follow on with ml, so did you consider something a building design we have. We've recently a done a site review and approved a building where the mechanical screening was essentially incorporated into the roof form, and the University of Colorado has more than one building doing that sort of thing. Did you consider that? And if you didn't, if you why did you not sort of more integrated approach?

[62:04] Sure. The interesting thing about doing that. And we saw the other proposal. Kind of gabled forms or roof forms is the the for either scenario. What we're trying to do is either conceal it or diminish it right visually. So the approach we took so what that's one option is integrated into the form. The second option is to actually push it back from the edges as possible, far as possible. So having that, you know the majority of the building edges. So we have that either lower roof area. So from a pedestrian experience, neighborhood perspective. those viewpoints, it's harder to see the screen. I do know we've done schemes where we've actually made the building scheme, or the skin or the form conceal it. It's some instances they can actually make the form. And here, taller or bigger, have more mass depending on that piece. The other piece that we were really trying to do here is we're trying to preserve a lot of roof area for photovoltaics, for energy production. So the ability to do a minimal screen preserve flat areas. You can see here in our kind of diagram, the gray, grayish kind of blue bars are photovoltaics. We have great orientation, great exposure. We don't have any tall South of us any natural features, so we can really preserve a lot of this area. We're getting really good solar gain on those photovoltaics. So

[63:18] okay, nice nice response on that. Thank you. II would then ask, yeah, I know this is concept review. And so materials and designs and so forth are not formalized or or finalized But have you, given your your screening material and design close to the same level of design, effort and creativity that you that you give to the rest of the surfaces of the building, because. in my view, many times screening is it's perfunctory. It's ugly. And yet it is

[64:04] one third of the building designer mass. So anyway, does, this is what you've pro, what you're showing us, representative of screening materials. Or do you think you'll have different other keep evolving it. We've looked at a lot of variations. Whether it was shaped in some way the materiality itself to whether it's perforated at certain areas to help reduce it visually, so you can see through portions of it once again. We wanna we're at a very early stage. You can see we have the cleanest mechanical plan ever on this building. So no units. So we wanna be careful about that. But shaping of it, the the height and aspect of it, as well as use of materiality. Perforations or things help to help it. Want to go away and be kind of quiet in that regard. And look careful here for okay, we'll have more on the in the Comments section. So continue with another question in regard to the multi use path. So the I got a little confused. Is there one or 2 connections to the multi-use path? We showed 2 with the application. The staff comment was to do one, which is the northern piece, and we are at agreement to that. So the northern one is, and it's actually kind of

[65:13] right. Now, if you go out to the site, there's kind of a dirt path that connects to. So obviously, people have been using that access. That's probably sad iron court. So the idea is to actually formalize it. Make that our primary connection. the piece that we're not showing this is rather than going into our neighbors. Parking lot. which is what's happening now, we're gonna divert it along the property line within a landscape buffer which allows it to be protected from cars. Okay, thank you. The the between building B in the parking garage. this may just be, you know, someone getting creative with their rendering. There's a very curvy sidewalk slash thing. Is that just? Is that something that's actually being proposed, or

[66:01] with that sort of snaky sort of look that that'll be evolving, particularly as we were talking about bikes trying to move through that. So one advantage is moving. The bikes to the north allows them to have a much clearer access to the building without having to go through pedestrian spaces and navigate a very exciting series of hair. Pen turns. The other thing is, it'll change a little bit now that we won't have that east piece outletting on the multi-use path. So we'll want to terminate that in a space. Okay. I don't think I have any more questions. Thank you. Thank you. Just a couple around this idea of residential, and I know there was no residential proposed in here. Did you think about that at all. Did you consider residential at all for this property? So thank you. We have not. We have not considered residential. We were part of that, you know, East Boulder Subcommittee plan is exciting and offers some good opportunities. So it's definitely something we can go back and think about. This was the the primary use that we were working towards over the last few months.

[67:06] Thank you. And does biomed have experience developing mixed use, including residential. I see one of your colleagues wants to step up potentially great questions on what we do. We've over the past, we personally, but also as a company over 20 plus years. And we've developed specialty in one particular area which is to support the research ecosystem. you know. Ultimately, I know that's not quite the answer you wanna hear? But I'm just being honest about what we've gotten really good at. You know. We've also got our ecosystem customers and clients supporting over the years. And it's all around the area research and technology. So the short answer is, you know, we haven't developed, you know, sort of housing in any of our across the whole field at 16 million square feet, plus you know, across all these markets. That's that's the reality. What we do. No, I appreciate the honesty it's good to. It's good to know what you specialize in and what you have experience in. And did I hear in the presentation you own 23 properties in the Flat Iron Business Park.

[68:09] Yes, correct. So we own we own 23 buildings right now, we own this land, this 1,855 in the existing building. And this development will be our 20 fourth development. Thank you so much. Just as a reminder. They bought the entire park. Actually, I would I would disagree with that. See to Summit. You guys don't know the C to Summit building, do you? No, we don't. So we own we own this is, we own, 23 buildings. This will be our 20. Fourth, we own just over half of the park, so not the full thing. So they thank you. Yeah, go ahead. Maybe this is because I take this, the South Creek, that's all often. But I sort of feel like the east facade, is really the front of this. And so I'm wondering about the design of the parking garage, and how that will read

[69:06] from the bath in the the East Side. Do you? Have have you given any thought to how that will be treated? Particularly from that elevation? right now, at a very conceptual level. Yes, you know, the idea for these buildings. in the elevation we developed is there's no back to the buildings, because we know you're either gonna be seen from the Jason neighborhood or the multi-use path. or from the north. So we've thought a lot about the east side of building be having the same materials, the same expression, continue around that same use of the concrete at the base. The crafted concrete in the curtain wall units up above. I think one thing that we'll look at very carefully is the apertures for the garage as well as you know. we had at 1 point move the vehicular access to the northern side to to. So you didn't have a series of different portals on that edge. So once again, we're at an early stage, but the intent is that it's treated with the same care, realizing it is a front door for for this building and for the community.

[70:06] So I appreciate that. But I think you were talking about building B. Is that right? Correct? And I was asking about the parking garage. Yeah. So the garage is going to be interesting. So we are looking at the screening material that exists on the north side adjacent to ours, extending on the west and the East to go on the east because of that issue. One thing also that we're starting to look at is also, if we can have landscapes greening some beautiful trees extend onto that Eastern size. We really wanna keep the height of the garage low. We want to screen it architecture, but most importantly screen it with native vegetation as much as possible. and will be it will parking be allowed on the upper, the top level. It will. But we're not placing any kind of canopy or roof structure on that. So we're trying to keep that very low for that piece. But the cars, if their cars parked up there, then they will be visible. They'll project above the guard rail, but we're not extending

[71:04] any kind of canopy or cover above that to keep it low. Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much. Now it's time for public comment. Is there anyone here who has public comment? But this project. seeing no one, Amanda. Is there anyone online? Yes, Vivian, I'll help us with one person so far online. Yeah, so far, Lynn Siegel has her hand raised. So we'll start with Lin Lynn. You have 3 min. Please go ahead. You were too fast for me. I was just gonna take notes. number one groundloop peat pumps. I don't. I didn't hear that for the heating and cooling of this space.

[72:00] And I say it shouldn't. Nothing should be built in boulder further, without ground loop ketones. but II mean, you might have a lot of solar, but I don't know if you're using that solar for electric forms of heat and like air to air heat pumps, or I don't know how larger buildings are. M are designed. But I didn't hear anything. If someone wants to mention that they did then. Great! But that's my number one criteria for any large buildings is brown loopy pumps. I don't think there should be any high limitations if you're in the you know, like variations given subsidies given for height. You're on a flood plain. You bought the land that way. That's what you get.

[73:02] I also don't see that the building appearance seems rather looming to me also. The the height seems to be just more than it needs to be. in spite of the fact that it's life sciences. And you need various processes going on in there that use up space? I mean, I'm in the field of life sciences. So I appreciate this. But I think the first thing that needs to be considered with any planning or building for things like this, and maybe it should go into how, how we're designing our zoning to include housing should incorporate the jobs, housing, imbalance and improving the balance, you know, creating towards a balance of jobs housing that should be number one criteria. If Boulder Valley Comp plan doesn't have that incorporated. Then we need to have a revamp of the Boulder Valley Comp plan and include that, because that's what's driving up the cost of everything. It's what's driving up the the, you know.

[74:18] the homelessness, the property values. the costs for everyone, the the angst in the whole community. along with inflation and everything else. So if jobs housing can be balanced, I think we would grow much more reasonably, and we wouldn't have so many inflationary systems going on in our in our building format. Thanks. Thank you, Lynn, thanks for your contribution tonight. There are no other hands raised from the online participants. Okay, thanks very much. Vivian. Alright, we'll now go to our comments and we'll organize it by the 3 primary questions that were asked.

[75:10] So the first question is the proposal consistent with Boulder Valley comp plan. Excuse me, boulder, valley comp plan, policies and vision, for the area is shown in the East Boulder subcommunity plan, and we'll start with the expert on the East Boulder subcommunity plan, Laura. Thank you for that, Sarah. II don't know that I'm an expert, but II was involved with the East Boulder Subcommittee plan as a member of that community working group before I was on planning board. so My comments about compatibility are yes, I think that it is generally compatible. and I would encourage the applicant to think about whether residential can be incorporated. And of course we cannot require that you are perfectly within your rights not to do that. But I do wanna pull up if either Amanda or Vivian could pull place types, map from the East Boulder subcommittee Plan.

[76:07] Can you see it? That's the land use plan. And then the place types should be on page 20 of that document. I believe I just looked this up. It's got the I think it's going the other direction. So that's page 20. Let's see, I'll continue here. Is it also a match? It is a map, and there we go. That's it. So with the the cartoon buildings at the bottom. Yeah. So I I'm assuming the applicant is familiar with with this. I'm seeing nods. So so thank you. But I don't know if all my colleagues are familiar with this. so you could if we could zoom in a little bit on that map, and the part that is the flat irons business park. You can see in the sort of the deep blue that is destination workplace, and in the purple. That is a place type called Main Street. Live work and place types were kind of an innovation for this plan. We haven't used them in the city before. They've never been implemented into zoning. And I think Staff are working on implementing these place types into zoning right now.

[77:17] But all of these place types like the vision for this office park is that it would develop into something more residential than an office park, that it would not stay just industrial or just office buildings, but that it would become a neighborhood with residential, with personal services, with restaurants and cafes. And be more of a kind of place where people not just work, but also also live. And you know the property that you're looking at right now is in that lower southeast corner. And it is destination workplace. So it's definitely appropriate to have workplaces here. And I think Staff had some comments about integrating a little bit more mixed. Use, like some cafes or some retail on the bottom floor. I think that's totally appropriate. But if you the reason why that Main Street live work piece was put where it is because it backs up to the the creek path right to the amenity there.

[78:08] And so I think the south east corner could also be appropriate for that, if that's what you wanted, or if you have other buildings, that are that are nearby. But you know you, you've got, as you pointed out some beautiful amenities. Here. You've got 2 breweries within walking distance, wild provisions and upslope. You've got Ozo. You've got a Deli right there. You got a chocolate factory like this is a place that you know. A certain type of boulder resident would love to live. And so again, we can't require you to do residential here. But if at some point your concept changes, I think I, for one, I don't know if my fellow board members would like to comment on this, but that is the vision for this area. So it would be more mixed use, including residential. So I think that'd be very welcome. So those are my comments on compatibility. I find that the concept plan is for the most part consistent with BBC policies, and and consistent with the

[79:06] vision for the area shown in the East Boulder Subcommittee plan. I don't have a lot of input on our first key issue call on myself. And I would agree with Laura. I had a much stronger language regarding residential, and Laura, who was quite kind, but I would like to point out both to the applicant and to the city. This is one of the challenges of creating multiple options. Rather than really encouraging housing in the area. We really need housing. I want to so I won't read what I wrote. but, I will support what Laura said about the encouraging you all to perhaps step away from your business model and perhaps work with some residential developers. I appreciate staffs pointing out the need for street level activation, which is also key to the East Boulder subcommunity plan.

[80:04] at again. I'll I won't read what I've written here, and I appreciate Allison's long list of Boulder Valley compland policies that are relevant to this proposal and want to highlight the ones that I'm most concerned about presuming. This comes back while I'm still on board. The first is building height, the second is enhanced design, the third is wetland and riparian protection, and the third is energy efficiency building. Design. Ml. Transcript. Thank you. And Laura, thank you for getting right into the core of the East Boulder subcommunity plan. I think that that is. we make these the subcommunity plans as a vision for how we want the future to form itself.

[81:04] and what we want it to be informed by so when asking about. So you're you're providing 400 jobs. And you know there's no housing. Boulder doesn't have housing for for all of the people that want to live and work here and want to work here to live here. So I think that there is. I appreciate the language that you're using, that you're looking at total systems you're looking at, maybe big picture. But I think that part of that should include the plan that is proposed for this area and at the very I love what Allison put out there that create a public opportunity with some retail coffee shop, etc., etc., on the ground floor. Your employees, I'm sure, will

[82:05] appreciate having that ability. but the idea that it's part of a that it is intended to be part of a community that is going to be pretty interactive. So I think that that can't be driven home enough, and that is in Are you consistent with the East Boulder subcommunity plan. I'm not convinced that what is being proposed is headed in that direction, and I would encourage you to to look deeply at the plan and see what it proposes for what's going to happen to the North? What's going to happen to the South. and what that destination workplace type is intended to be, because that that's what we're looking at for that area. So that those are my, those are my comments. And I really appreciate. That there on us that Laura went through to kind of pull up the map and and talk about things in a very specific way.

[83:10] Thank you. Well, I'll follow on along that same theme that Laura and Sarah and Ml. Were going. II think that it is very important that housing be considered here, and II think that as it stands, this is not consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp plan, or with the East Boulder subcommittee plan that mui mixed use industrial land use, says Mui. Areas should integrate diverse housing. commercial and retail options into industrial areas to create vibrant walkable working neighborhoods. the in the Boulder Valley Comp plan. We have a large number of policies. I won't list them all. For Lynn Siegel's benefit policy. 111 is jobs housing balance.

[84:02] which talks about converting commercial and industrial uses to residential uses, inappropriate locations. There's 2, 16 mixed use and higher density. Development. 2, 21 light industrial areas. This talks about guiding appropriate places for housing in fill within areas zoned Ig, which is what we have here, including along open space and or Greenway, or trail connections. So it's like exactly describing this particular location. So and then there's 7, 11 balancing housing supply with employment, base and so on. So I feel like there's a lot of reason here to believe that. taken all together, all these sets of policies are really arguing for not an entirely residential project, but a project with a significant residential component.

[85:04] One thing that I'll add to that is, I think you know, you've got a lot of parking here, and if there were significant amount of housing along with the some some office or industrial uses, you could have significant amount of parking, sharing because the the demand peaks, you know, don't overlap as well as potentially a small amount of internal capture trip capture, or at least internal trip capture within Flat Iron Park. And so I think you could end up with a significantly lower parking count than you currently have which would save you lots of money, maybe. The last thing I really appreciate your emphasis on, on sustainability, green building lead. I think that that's all great. But if this building results in 400 more people driving into boulder every day, then that's not green. The building is green, but as a holistic thing is in this in terms of its systemic effects. It's not green. So I have concerns about that.

[86:22] Last thing I'll just follow up on the street activation. I think that that is really important, and I was really concerned one of the views along the interior. I think it was along that that very curvy sidewalk. It showed at this, at the lower level, which was really the parking level. It seemed like it was completely blank there, like it was just a solid wall, with no no penetrations, no really no interest until you got to the Second Level. And I that is the kind of thing that I would not like to see

[87:04] going forward. I think that as Laura was pointing out the the east boulder subcommunity plan, place types really emphasize the ground floor level for good reason, as you guys can certainly appreciate. And so I would hope that you would pay particular attention to those anything else. Thank you. Alright. Question number 2. Does planning board have feedback on the conceptual site plans and architecture? And let's start with Ml, who's our architect? I will happily step forward. Thank you very much. So I will start with some comments about the Site plan. I think that there, as I pointed out or asked the question. There is a lot of paved area, whether it's asphalt or

[88:04] pedestrian paving. and you know that has the heat island impact. So I would encourage looking at knowing the numbers first off. How much paved area is there, and how can you work to mitigate the consequences of that we talked about the surface parking, and hopefully it will be purvious. And I still am not sure how these buildings, with massive footprints and use of below grade are reducing the impacts of the 100 500 year flood high hazard and conveyance flood zones. That is not that does not apparent in the Site plan on how

[89:00] water is being managed on the site. Building-wise. there is a major criteria in the New Site review. criteria update to that, and that is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And so I would ask you to take a close look at your architecture materials, concrete steel, metal. Those all have high carbon footprints. and I think that there are alternatives. There are beautiful alternatives that actually are addressing carbon face on these materials are not There's a significant amount of glazing on the building. and I would wonder how that

[90:00] is intended to be managed relative to the energy modeling the H back loads heat gain solar glare. reflective glass, and how it might exacerbate. The reflectivity on the site. the the way that the building is finestrated at this point. It is is not looking like a human scale building. You've got these big panels that go up, you know. 2 and 3 stories. So I think that the human scale that is in our criteria needs to be considered pretty specifically, I understand that this is a concept, and maybe I I'm not sure I shouldn't put thoughts out there. But right now. The scale of the building

[91:03] is not human scale. And I think if, if in looking at or in hearing what you're talking about, that you want, you know people to spill out into the land. You want to create opportunities for people to do indoor outdoor whether they're meetings or whether they're classes, or however. I think consideration for what the scale of the actual buildings themselves. needs to be to accommodate. This is a pedestrian area that you're trying to create. How does that work? And again, just referring back to it's gonna be part of a bigger community. And there is gonna be you know, hopefully, people that are interacting at that grade and be concerned about the human scale. I think that is an important. And again with that. So you've proposed the maximum, almost the maximum size building that you can get on the site.

[92:11] The numbers are like, right pretty close to the maximum you can get. You've proposed the maximum heights you can get. so I will take the next step in looking at bring these environmental factors, bring these societal factors into play, and begin eroding. Some of these sort of maximum use of the site, and think about how does the site? How? How are you? How are what you are proposing? Is it resilient? Is it. In fact, going to give back to the community? Is it going to do some of the things that have to do with the bigger values in the Boulder Valley in the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan. I think that those are

[93:01] all of my thoughts about the Site Plan and the architecture. If, in fact, you're looking at this as a total system. I would suggest that the the the program you want to look at is the living building challenge that is, gonna get you. you know, to the languages that you're using that that program will help sort of frame some of the holistic understandings on how you're going to relate to the site. yep, that's everything I have to say about input so I look forward to what you come back with, and I really hope that The evolution happens over the course between now and the other thing I would suggest, and it's not. You don't have to. But

[94:00] we have a design advisory Board. and you know they are pretty tuned into what you know our criteria are, and that sort of thing. You might want to get some input from them, especially in the human scale and the material development of the building. Thanks, Emily Mark. I'm gonna ask, I have a lot of comments on Tdm, would you say that is better dealt with in key question number 2 or number 3? Oh, probably. Number 2. Go ahead. Okay for it. Okay? And and before I begin my Tdm commentary, I just want to say that not to be seen as a developer, Patsy, when I said that, hey? Okay, this II feel like this fulfills the requirements of the Bbcp in these folder subcommittee plan. But I also acknowledge that we, after adoption of the BBC. P. And

[95:01] the East Boulder Subcommittee plan. Not every project has to fulfill all of the goals of the BBC. P. And East Boulder subcommunity plan, and that on a project by project basis our goals may be fulfilled, but not on each individual project. I was spent some time in the park visiting the site on Sunday night. and I was stunned at the activity level in the park on Sunday night between the 2 brew pubs were really quite busy, the one especially the one right next to the site. But I went to the 4 noses as well. So I was on a group up tour, I guess. But anyway, so you weren't really doing a site business, you know. Let's just be honest. But

[96:00] anyway, III just speaking for myself, and with all respect to my fellow board members, that that not every project can completely fulfill our our goals, which is not to say that we should not hold every project to our aspirational goals and standards. So having said that, I wanna talk about your transportation demand management. and I got hints of something that I could be more positive about in the applicant's presentation this evening. What I struggled with is what was submitted late in writing, and it was not your I'm not blaming you for submitting it late. It it didn't get put into your packet. But what was submitted later today was your Lsc engineering trip calculation and your Lsc engineering travel demand management document.

[97:00] And those that that Tdm plan that was submitted in writing is underwhelming. It's uncreative. it is disappointing in its parking reduction request. It points to you, fulfilling only the minimum of the bike parking it makes. Again, you. You made mention in briefly in your presentation. but your actual documented Tdm. Plans make no mention of charging facilities for bikes or cars. No secure bike, storage or maintenance facilities. no incentives for parking cash outs or other things that other large employers have, like Google have worked on here in in Boulder no real promise or discussion of first, last mile kilometer connections to Arapaho

[98:06] Or other 50 Fifth street, and again you you made brief mention of those. But again looking at the the written material as submitted, is disappointing. no! And there's and speaking to everyone else's point, there are no trip capture strategies such as cafeterias, other on site amenities that could reduce trips in and out of the site and in the park during during the day, and it it is known that flat that you know, there is a large exodus of people in and out of the park in their cars to go over to Wendy's, or whatever you know, people don't walk out of out of Flat Iron Court and walk over to Wendy's. They get in their car and they drive. So there's there's a it's disappointing in that regard. And and I

[99:03] I want to partly blame this on. Maybe it's your selection of consultants. Lse. C. Engineering, and I. I'm calling them out by name because I've tried to do this subtly in the past. They use a template that focuses on a 2,011 document. a draft of a Tdm. Toolkit that was never adopted. It is it is meaning. It's like it's like any other proposal that comes before. This Board city council didn't get adopted. It's not adopted, and it is treated by LS. Engineering as code, and it is quoted as code. and it is annoying, as all hell to have them do that application after application after application. So I've been on here almost 2 years, and it is persistent and it is troubling.

[100:04] So the city has a Tdm code that Tdm. Code is kind of vague. It's not particularly robust, but it provides an opportunity for flexibility and creativity, which is, if you talk to developers. Oh, gee! Cut us loose, you know, we'll be innovative. We'll be creative. We'll do the right thing. you know what? Yes, do the right thing. And that involves being creative, forward thinking and really looking at ways to to cut parking, to encourage different modes, you know, beyond Rtd Eco. Passes, which you know, we can talk about Rtd problems all night, so I'm encouraging. You do not come back here for a site review with a weak. uncreative boilerplate to the implant

[101:03] it it won't work with me. But I'm only speaking for me. So that's my input on your Tdm plans. Alright. Thank you. I'm gonna try to be brief and not repeat what my colleagues have said. I wanna point out in in the packet staff had some comments on. I think it was page 70, and I particularly agreed with their comments about the multi-use path and site circulation. And it's good to hear that the applicant is already thinking about how to incorporate some of those changes that Staff requested. And then also, again, this idea of the ground floor should include some commercial uses for the benefit of on-site employees and those in the surrounding areas, such as cafes or small stores. So I wanna uplift those comments by staff which I totally agree with. And I will leave it there. I'm not an expert on on site design. I will say that it does have a very industrial feel which is completely consistent with the use that you have proposed, which is a very industrial research, forward thinking kind of use. And so I thought Ml's comments about human scaled. If we are intending this to be evolving into more of a neighborhood, that the flat Irons business park will not be just a business park.

[102:19] but will be a place that people live and play, that maybe the feel of the buildings might look a little bit different. But but again, I'm not a designer, and I don't think I can dictate design, but it's just a thought. Thank you. Thanks. Kurt. Okay, thank you. I'll call out a couple of things that I would that I would like to cheer in this. First of all, I really I like to the simplicity of the materiality and the consistency. I, the the particular material of court in. Maybe we can have discussion about, although it's fine by me. Maybe not. All the board is would be that happy with it, but we get a lot of proposals that are just really busy

[103:12] and use. You know. I was. I was walking down the street the other day, and looking at a relatively new project in Boulder, and I counted 8, I think, different materials on the fac the facade that was visible to me. and it was just way too much in my particular view. So II really appreciate that the simplicity of the materiality in particular. I also appreciate your consideration of the connection to the South Boulder Creek path that obviously is super important. I used to work. I spent many years working in Flattern Park at 5, 7, 7, 7, 5, Flatten Park, which may be one that you own. And I would use this

[104:03] muddy. rocky connection to South Polter Creek. They have all the time every time I was going South and so I will be very appreciative as well. Lots of other people in the Flattery Park. When that is a year round. Safe, you know. Nice connection. So I really appreciate your attention to that in terms of the site design. I don't find that this drive completely encircling the the site is very successful. It and I think Ml alluded to this. It seems like it results in an awful lot of extra pavement that isn't really getting us a lot and more impervious sur surface and it sort of makes it feel a little bit like I don't know target or something where there's just pavement on all the sides.

[105:13] And so I would encourage you to think about if there are alternative act vehicular access designs that can get motor vehicles in and out more quickly without messing up the the pedestrian environment too much. But get em get them on the site, get them out of the way, and then and then let the the rest be pedestrian and very much. You know, focused on the first floor as Ml. Was talking about, and with good bicycle connections, and so on. And the human scale, I think, is great. Just follow up on on Mark's points about the Tdm. I totally agree, and I would certainly urge you to think about a greater parking reduction if you can. And certainly using what we call the sum principal, shared, unbundled, managed, and priced, and I think that

[106:19] all of that probably will be required when you come back at Site Review. It's something that that is pretty important to us. The last thing I'll say is, I was out there trespassing and walking around the existing. not drinking and getting lots of beers at the same time. and you know, probably this doesn't work, but that existing, especially the larger existing building. That is one solid building. and you know, which is typical of, you know, the the mobile era. They built some damn good buildings, and so I don't know if there's any chance of possibly being able to reuse that in some particular way. Obviously that would be a completely different site

[107:09] plan, but just something to think about, because there's a lot of embodied carbon in there. And and it's kind of a cool building in. In a very, you know, industrial kind of way. and that is it. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. And the third question is, are there other issues that planning board members would like to bring up. And I'm gonna call on myself first, I have 3 items. One is, I really urge the city to push applicants to bring us more comprehensive concept plans. It's kinda hard to respond to things that are pretty vague, and I think there's a I think the comments that have been made today are really interesting. and would have been even more so and and more thought, even more thoughtful if we'd had a somewhat more specific plan to respond to. And I realize there's a fine balance there, I understand.

[108:04] Secondly, the I think we need. This is, I think, again pointed toward city staff. The fact that one type of developer owns a large number of buildings in this one area and that developer only does one thing preempts our may preempt our ability to produce the thing we say we want out of the East Boulder subcommunity plan. and I know it is our process that we have to respond to what is submitted, and the landowner gets to submit what they want to submit. But II think the point of an area plan is to try to get ahead of that, and we may have given a little too much leeway in this particular area plan by offering suggestions rather than trying to limit

[109:07] or or require certain kinds of development in certain areas. So you could, you would have to provide housing. and I. So the the the applicant is doing what the applicant's going to do. But and I'm looking at the city staff about this. I really feel like we've semi shot ourselves in the foot here, and I think that's a very UN. We might have lost a real opportunity. And thirdly, this is about the an essential that the wetlands be protected in this area, and I think, as I read the proposal, it seems like it is, but I just wanted to put a little flag in the ground there about this mark. So so what you said is really about how we honor and implement an area plan.

[110:03] When we have someone that owns half of the park. That does one thing, and that does present a challenge. And I think that, on the other hand, it presents an opportunity to have the applicant. Come to the city. Us. Council, everyone with it. Rather than this building's concept review, this building site review to share with us their plans for or partnering with other developers, to create housing. to create other restaurant and amenities, and so forth. Then maybe it's not in the ground floor of this one building. But if if if the applicant raises their hand and says, Yeah, but we're doing it across the street. We're doing it

[111:02] 500 feet away at this other site. We're working with the owner of this other building to do do the things to fulfill these bowlers, subcommittee plan and their goals. So anyway, I would encourage you to think. I understand. As you said, applicants do what applicants do. And we have a code. And you know we try to get everyone to meet the code, and life goes on. But I think a broad view by both the city and applicants. To encourage fulfilment of the plan would be great. And that's all I have to say on item 3. So I really agree with everything that Sarah and Mark just said, you know, when we were doing the East Boulder Subcommittee plan. The fear was, if we allowed residential in this area. developers would snap it up and build it all out as pure, residential, because that was seen as the highest and best and most profitable use of this land.

[112:02] And what we're finding is that well, there are some developers who would like to use it for something else, because they have a portfolio and a model and clients who want something else which I totally get. So II wanna just echo what? What Mark said, which is, I do think this is an opportunity, and if the applicant is interested in considering it. you know 1 one of the issues with trying to convert industrial land into a mixed use. Neighborhood is well, who goes first? And if you're just one little piece of property owner, there's a fear that you could hang yourself out there, build some residential, and then nobody follows suit, and then you don't have a neighborhood. You have an isolated housing development in an industrial Park, and that doesn't sell very well, but because you own so much land here you have the opportunity to roll these projects one after the other, and make your own neighborhood, and I appreciated your comments earlier from the applicant that you really wanna work with the city to try to have your vision and also help fulfill the city's vision and the city's vision. Here really is a mixed use

[113:05] area. It's it's not to keep it purely industrial, even though we love life sciences, and we understand the value of that. And that is a wonderful thing. And we have approved many beautiful life sciences, buildings. We like that use. But this particular area of town, we're hoping will evolve into something that that maybe includes that and becomes more than that. So I do think you have a real opportunity here to help build something that fulfills your vision and your needs, and also helps fulfill the city's needs because you do own so much property, you can really make this happen. So again, I just want to encourage that kind of thinking. If that's something you're open to. Thank you. I think all that was very well said, and I have nothing yet. you know. Yes, it was all very well said, but I am gonna add one thing.

[114:01] II love that. Sarah started by turning it back. Sort of on staff is like we go through all of this to create this amazing sub community plan. And we we have not. And we know this right. We have not yet put in place all the implementation of it, whatever the zoning, and whatever things will follow that will kind of persuade the the development in particular direction. But I think that this is a really important conversation, and that we shouldn't lose sight of as we go through the reviews. And as we maybe engage as Mark was suggesting, you know, with the bigger landowners as to what we really want and how we want this to go. And let's. I guess let's find our way toward being able to manifest what older sub subcommittee plan sooner rather than later.

[115:05] You know, we we've done all that work. And II would like to see that it can start having an impact, and it looks like we may not have tools for that yet. All right. Thank you all very much. Thanks to the applicant for spending a couple of hours with us. I'm going to suggest we take a 5 min break, and when we come back we will pick up the next item public hearing. Item.

[123:20] we're we're supposed to fly home. Christmas. Laura, you have to go around to the front door or back. We can open this door, for you got my, okay? Okay, teams. Are we all ready to go? Excellent. Alright, we're now gonna come to the second public hearing item, agenda, title.

[124:00] public hearing and Recommendations to City Council regarding proposed ordinance. 8,600, cementing title, 9, land use, code BRC. 1981, by repealing chapter 9, 14, residential growth management system, and deleting all references thereto, and setting forth related details. We set aside maximum of 45 min for this 10 or so minutes, 15 min Carl's gonna give us a presentation, and then we can ask questions, and then we can vote. And I will say that all I brought with me was my one pager. So at some point I'm gonna ask you to put the recommended language up on the screen. Take it away. Good evening, board members. Carl Geiler, with planning and development services before you to night is ordinance. 8,600. Sarah read the title of the Ordinance, which relates to repealing the city's residential growth management system in light of State leis legislation on the matter. We had brought this up to city council earlier this year, and they had advised us to move forward with an ordinance to repeal this section of our land use code.

[125:10] So the purpose of tonight is for planning board to hold a public hearing on this ordinance, deliberate on the ordinance, and then make a recommendation to city council. So it is set for City Council public hearing on January eighteenth. in 2024. So the question for planning board tonight is, does planning board agree that the city's residential growth management system should be repealed in response to the Colorado House Bill 2312, 55. So just going into a little bit of history on the residential growth manage yup growth management system. It kind of grew out of the Danish plan, which was something that was from the Boulder Valley Conference of Plan when it was enacted in the late 70 s, so that's 1976. The the Danish plan was really a merit-based

[126:06] way of managing how much the city can grow and then it ended up being codified within the city's land use code in 1,982 so there's there's been several iterations of that since the 1,900 eighty's HDMI. Oh, yeah, there's a vote on far white. I am. Yeah. alright. Well, I'll share on zoom here, and you might have to tell me just when this swap slides. Was it showing and then not showing. Oh, okay.

[127:02] feel like we should put up one of those after midnight signs where it's just a like a nuclear war sign. There we go. There we go. Okay, well, those are mine. Alright. Can you see it? Or, yeah, we can see it with your notes. There we go. Okay. I see you're advancing them now. Oh, yes, I am okay. Sorry. I'll be next sorry, girl. Next slide, please. So I was just giving a little bit of history of the residential growth management system. So you might have heard of the Danish plan. So that's what I was talking about. That was enacted in 1,976. It was a merit-based

[128:09] program, and then that was changed in the early eighties. When we added chapter 9, 14 to the land use code. So there's actually been a a number of different iterations of our Gms. Over time. The latest one was adopted in 2,000. So basically, the essence of the program is that it limits residential growth by 1% of existing housing stock per year. So the purpose is to control growth in a way that assures the preservation of boulders unique environment, high quality of life and availability of public facilities and urban services. So you'll see the Bvcp policy that relates to growth management. The city uses a number of different ways to to manage growth through the urban growth boundary annexation policies area one area 2, but also our Gms

[129:00] so before any applicant can get a building permit for any residential unit, they do have to submit for an a growth allocation so that has to be approved before that permit will get issued. And that's still in process. So there's typically about 400 allocations per year that are allotted and that equates to roughly the one of the current housing stock which is over 40,000 dwelling units today. This program was originally enacted to largely react to Greenfield development that was occurring in the late seventies. A lot of single family homes. I think it was a bit of a shock to see some of the large developments, you know, after Martin Acres and Park East, and that kind of development that led to the system. So obviously today, we're seeing more infill and different types of housing types and single family homes. Next slide, please. So bringing us us to current day. The the Colorado Legislature is obviously focused on increasing housing inventory in the State in response to the housing crisis that we're seeing nationwide, especially here in Boulder they've brought through a number of different bills. Some were unsuccessful, but one that was related to growth management systems. They called them

[130:21] they're defined in their bill as anti growth laws. But it does point at residential growth management systems so obviously that impacts boulder it also impacts Golden and Lakewood that have similar systems that cap the growth at one per year. So they're actually we've corresponded with them. They're in the process of doing the same, of repealing their residential growth management systems. So the law is intended basically to remove zoning barriers to housing. That's the key part of it. It was adopted in May, and went into effect on August sixth of this year.

[131:01] Next slide, please. So one thing to understand is that over the years in Boulder since 2,000 obviously desired housing types in the city, the city wanted to remove barriers to the desired housing types, such as permanently affordable housing mixed uses. Cu housing any projects I have more than 35% of their housing units as permanently affordable. These were all desirable uses. So when the 2,000 Rgms ordinance was adopted, there were a number of exemptions that were put into the code that where these do not count against the 1% limit, it's only those uses that don't contribute to these goals. So like, you know, single family homes or not mixed use projects. Anything again associated with more like Greenfield development would count against that 1%. So this is a summary table that we have in the memo, this is a bus kind of a simplified version that also includes some new data from 2,023, which we didn't have the memo on. But you'll see that the totem total number of housing units has been growing from 46,000 up to 40 over 47,000.

[132:19] You can see the housing growth rate per year. Floats around one. You can see 2023, it goes over one which is not uncommon. That's happened in the past again. That's including all the non exempt and exempt. That's all housing units. When we look at what counts against Rgmx. We call that excess or non-exempt so those are the numbers of ones that would count against that one. So you can see that percentage is is much lower than the one that's what's not allowed to go over one. Just a clarifying question, are these housing units approved or completed. And given Residency

[133:03] certificates, they're they're approved. Okay? Just approved. Not necessarily. Okay. We had some data in the memo that had, like housing constructed and and everything. That's what counts into the total growth rate. But I didn't have that on this summary table. It's a lot of numbers but just basically showing that we're well under the one when we we look at how Rgms is being implemented. But even with, if we didn't have the program. The market is floating around one, anyway. So that's the point wanted to make. So next slide, please. So based on that, we're recommending that Planning board recommends City Council, repealing chapter 9, 14. The reasons we have listed up on the slide, so the ordinance would make Boulder consistent with the new State law. Limiting housing growth is contrary to the city's housing goals and policies especially amid the the housing crisis that we're in. Obviously, it's it's hitting boulder particularly hard. Rgms, requires significant staff and applicant time while having little actual impact on limiting growth. At this point.

[134:15] Rgms. Is largely outdated since most development has shifted to infill development and away from single family housing. That kind of prompted the the creation of the program. So we're recommending that planning board. Make a recommendation to council to repeal it. So next slide shows the motion language for planning board, and that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Kurt, do you have any questions? Ml, do you have any questions? Mark has questions. Yeah. As I read at one of the the only Well, one of the great things in 9 14, I forget. II wrote it down somewhere.

[135:05] hang on just 1 s 9, 14 one little C. it states that this allows us to assure that such growth proceeds in an orderly manner, and does not exceed the availability of public facilities and urban services that seems imminently reasonable and and not anti growth. But just simply that. So my question is, if that seems reasonable by eliminating all of 9, 14, including our ability to assure that growth is orderly and does not exceed the availability of public services. Are we proposing any way somewhere else in the code, or do we already have somewhere else in the code that allows us to control for availability of public services and controlling

[136:10] and and directing growth in an orderly manner. Yeah, I think our sense of it is that we implement zoning that's based on the Boulder Valley Conference of Plan. The Conference of Plan gets updated, you know, every 5 years. That's when we really take a look at, you know, having orderly development and what? Where the growth areas and then setting the policy for those areas. And that trickles down into the zoning. So we feel that it is addressed. Yeah. And at the same time it's measured against our utilities, planning to ensure that we have concurrency between water, sewer storm water, against our growth projections. Okay, given water availability. And I and II don't succumb to the idea that oh, my God, we're on boulders on the precipice of running out of water. We could. We could do water a lot less grass and

[137:04] shower a lot more people. But do we have the ability in some time in the future where we have either. We can't treat the water, but Tasso is limited by some measure, or you know, Northern water. There's a there's a many scenarios that I can't quite envision, but I can think that gee! There, there could be some scenario under which we we have to limit services. And so by eliminating this entirely have, do we have some mechanism? Should we need to limit, based on so based on real limitations in service to be able to do that again. II think that's something that would shake out as part of the the Bvcp update and and coordination with utilities. If they did find something that was concerning, you know, it would either have to like

[138:08] factor into the capital improvements updates of having to upgrade certain lines to, to, you know, facilitate that, or or potentially put in limitations that that would avoid it. I think our argument is that. you know, at this point in time our Gms. Has become somewhat inconsequential cause. It's floating around that one. And also, you know, with the number of. You know, we we expect that the housing will continue, you know, with market rate conditions providing housing, and that a lot of those are gonna be in mixed use developments, anyway, that would be exempt from Rgms. So we're not seeing a major impact of repealing it. And I think we're of the mind that the Comp plan land use planning that we do is a much better control mechanism for controlling growth and the type of growth and ensuring that concurrency with services that we provide, particularly with our you know the concepts around annexation that you know we won't provide services unless you annex into the city. And

[139:18] so I think that tool still remains far superior than what it is that Carl described tonight, and kind of limiting growth that has a lot of exceptions that have been written into it over the years to help encourage the type of units that we've wanted to see. All right. Thank you. So I have a question. It's not the question I asked you yesterday. It's a different question. Could we go back to the language of the State. Let the State legislation sure, can you? Oh, could we go back in state this one? Yeah. So I don't know what the language exactly was. But

[140:04] if the law is intended to remove zoning and land, use barriers to new housing units. what door does that open to boulders. Zoning and land use code. I mean, I realize what we, what we're doing is eliminating. We're voting on eliminating the this one particular residential residential growth management system. But does the law that was passed by the State open a door to pressure, to change, to eliminate zoning to? I don't think we've interpreted that way. I think it's pretty explicit what needs to be stripped out of zoning But obviously there are things happening at the State level now, where they're looking at targeted areas of local law related to land use that might have to be changed. But we, we think, in our interpretation of the of the bill. It was very specific to this type of zoning. And does this in any way

[141:07] undermine our arguments for Home Rule. There we go? So the arguments for home role? this is something that we have been talking about previously to this, and just in the adoption process for the legislation. Does it undermine our Home Rule argument? And the answer is, no, we can still make a Home Rule argument. If City Council were to decide. That they want to keep our residential growth management system, for example, and they could argue a home role argument saying, that Home Rule is a matter of local control. And this is one of those areas that since we are not using it as much as we saw by the percentages. That we may not want to challenge, or we may or may not want to challenge at some point in the future, or there may be some other bills that are out there that we would want to challenge, or horrible argument, saying.

[142:06] th, that this is something that we don't agree with. So what we're not, we're not undermining our ability to use those arguments in the future by passing this particular very limited piece of language. Okay, okay? With some any more questions. we still have the public. Oh, yeah. Public comment. Sorry. Do we have public comment? Is, Linda. I'm online. Well, double-check zoom, let's see if anyone is participating online, please. Thank you. I mean, I'm gonna stop sharing so that I can share the timer.

[143:04] Lynn, you should be able to unmute and speak the the State government limiting our ability to resist growth in any way. So whatever you need to do about this situation to improve our home real opportunities. That's what I would want you to do. I don't want growth imposed on boulder from other communities or us to impose growth from our community to others in any way. I think it's our business how we grow. And and I think that would

[144:01] doing a lot of counterintuitive things in boulder like we just increased our population by 30,000 with CU. South, and another 30,000 with our occupancy laws. And we're in a in a inelastic market where the there it it doesn't matter what we do to constrain growth. It's going to come anyway. So all we do is increase our population and make it more unlivable here, and drive up the cost of everything. So those are my feelings on the subject of growth. And that I mean, you know you always hear from me that what we need to do is stop subsidizing these developers like tonight

[145:04] there should have been no parking you know. not giving them any. They should have to have the full amount of parking that we require. The 500 spaces. They shouldn't have a height limit reduction. They shouldn't get any of these perks to grow in our community and cause more greater imbalance in our jobs, housing balance and that impairs our economic. you know. thriving. that's our thriving economy. It pairs it so. We need to do something that makes this place is. if it's at all possible, more affordable. And we're doing exactly the opposite in most of our policies, in my view.

[146:01] And that's just me. But it's an inelastic market. I mean, these things are are so obvious. And yet there's still all these subsidies. All right. Thank you, Lynde, very much. Thank you. Alright could someone put the language for the wait? It's been a while since I've done this. I have to read the motion. I have to read the motion first, and then someone makes the motion maker would make the motion read the motion. Mark would like to make the motion. I move. not remembering how to do any of this stuff.

[147:02] Cold! Yes, I called. I struggled under this call. So I sympathize completely. Okay, I move that planning board recommends that City Council adopt ordinance, 8,600 amending title, 9, land use code BRC. 1981, by repealing chapter 9, dash, 14, residential growth management system and deleting all references thereto and setting forth related details. And I'll second any comments I fully support. I think Staff made a very compelling case that the State may have suggested this to us, and we agree with it, and by going ahead and repealing this, we are not giving up any of our ability to argue in court for any reason about our Home Rule powers. So I have no problem supporting this fully.

[148:04] And yeah, I'll agree. And I'll just point out that, looking at the actual code of the ordin. the State law it does have a little bit of an escape clause, if of allowing, in the event of a disaster emergency, or I don't understand this part, so Laura would have to explain it. But something about extending or acquiring public infrastructure, public services or water resources. It allows for a growth cap in in extend under extenuating ser circumstances, for up to 24 months in a 5 year period. So there, there is actually a little bit of flexibility built in. So II fully support changing this for the reasons that that staff described in, Laura reiterated. But it does have a little bit of flexibility written into the law. So I just wanted to point that out

[149:08] right. I'll just simply say, the only thing I'll miss from this is many times talking to my fellow boulder rights. I'm confronted with the Oh, my God! Boulder is exploding. Things are out of control. It's chaos. And we're building building everywhere. We're building hundreds of units every year. Thousands. And it's like. do you know, Boulder, you know we have this plan, and it is, you know, controls growth to one. And we haven't hit that in the last. You know X number of years. I'll I'll miss the ability to just say that to make your case alright, you wanna reiterate the motion. Okay? Reread. You want me to reread the motion. Okay.

[150:02] okay. Planning board recommends that city Council adopt organis 8,600 amending title, 9, land use. Code. Brc. 1981. By repealing, chapter 9, 14. Residential growth management system, and deleting all references thereto, and setting forth related details. Laura. Yes. Mark, yes, Sarah, IML. Yes. and Kurt. Yes. alright. The motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you very much, Carl. Really appreciate it. One of the one of the few times you get out of here. You don't have to sit here for 3 h. Nicely done. Bro. Hi! Alright now we have matters, or II see. Are we missing our planning director? I mean our director of planning? Start view right here. Charles, do you have anything? No, there's no matters from Staff tonight. Okay. Is there anything from our attorney?

[151:03] Is there anything from Board members? Yes, go ahead, Kurt. I have something, but it might be more of a Brad question, and I'm sorry I had it written down. And then I didn't bring that scrap paper. It related to the schedule, for the both Valley Comp plan update. and the very final stage is in the spring of 2020, 6, 6, 6, right after a new counsel comes in. So I just had a little concern about that cause. It kind of feels like we're people are gonna be spending basically almost 2 years working on the the all of 2025, basically and sometime before, and a little time afterwards

[152:01] working on this. And then the new council is going to be seated, and it sort of feels like they're gonna be told. Hey, we've been working on this thing. Please approve it. and which it just seems like it puts it in a weird situation. So I was just wondering if so. Well. I guess the question is, what was the rationale for that? And if consideration had been given to try to push up the the, the final approval, so that it was done by the council that had been working on it all that time. That's very thoughtful, feedback. I'll pass that along to Brad and Christopher Johnson. I'm sure they'll be happy to to follow up. Thank you very much. I have a a question given the conversation we had earlier. so the first is. when is the zoning and code update to reflect the East Boulder subcommunity plan? What is the timing on that.

[153:08] So we have just retained a consultant who is starting to scratch the surface on drafting form. Based code. So it'll be sometime in I think, late 2024. it is. That. Would that be the mechanism that would have put in place the requirement for housing or mixed use onto the project, like. for example, as we saw tonight. Possibly I think it depends on how it's drafted. I think the form based code is really, I think it's less about uses and more just about the physical manifestation of how the the properties redevelop and the plan does talk about striking a balance in the light industrial areas of housing and preserving existing light industrial

[154:00] while encouraging the right types of you know, R. And D life science, late industrial uses. So there is still a balance that I think we need to strike. I don't know that there'll be a zoning code that comes back and says everything. An industrial has to be housing. But as we start advancing, the implementation mechanisms for East boulder through the form based code process that that feedback will be helpful. I think this is one of the first projects we're seeing come in in one of those area typologies. So can I. Just how would how would language? Codify the balance like how would it? How? What kind of language would codify a balance between light industrial usage. Well, that's what the area plan says. Is that right? I know, I know, I know, but what we're but we implement that through the either the Site review process or the form form based code process where we're balancing all of those interests.

[155:04] And again, reasonable people can disagree on that. If the board doesn't feel like we're striking that balance, then right? But to Mark's point, you know, we're seeing it. And this is a challenge of the way we do business, which is, we see it project by project. And so we could get through 24 projects before we're able to effectively argue that the balance has not been met, and then the last guy through the door on Project 25 is told. Sorry it's gotta be residential. I mean? It's I'm just so. So my question is really. what kind of language can can take that next step from? Here's our big vision to. Here is what we want to see. I think you would need to draft that into the the zoning code then, and the form based code so that it's reflected in the use tables that

[156:01] you want a certain percentage of, you know, industrial. And you know, or X percentage of industrial across, you know, X zone districts. So there's there's ways to do it. It's just making sure has on the radar. It it will be after today. Noting that we've got one developer that owns 24 properties, and they specialize only in one type of building. You know that kind of, I think, raises the the concern of W. Well, why do we have a nice boulder subcommunity plan? If we can't do if we can't implement it. can I make a suggestion or an observation? So when we were doing the East Builder subcommunity plan. Like, I said, we expected that people were gonna try to buy up all this land and build 100% residential. And because of that in the place types, we put requirements that on the ground floor you had to have mixed use, that residential would not be allowed on the ground floor in some areas.

[157:08] and perhaps we can invert that logic and say, for some of these upper floors, it has to be residential in some of these areas that could be done just as easily as saying, the ground floor cannot be residential, I would think so. That's one idea. It also wouldn't be uncommon. After on the heels of adopting an area plan. And as you start figuring out your implementation mechanisms that there may be changes to the plan that you have to make. As you figure out how to implement it. So there may be changes that go along with the East boulder subcommunity plan. That help effectuate some more practical implementation, as we learn more. You know about writing zoning for the area. Well, I feel like we have had a very productive meeting. You know this kind of little flag onto the future of the evolution of that area, and you know it's always both

[158:05] shocking and interesting when we come upon this sort of debacle that, hey? We've got a plan, but we don't have means to to implement it. So let's let's hurry up and get our next step. Thank you, Charles point II think the the natural fear was that we're residential was gonna take over everything. So I think that's the policy direction that made its way into the plan right cool. Well, thank you. I'm glad it's I'm glad it's forefront on our mind. Anything else. Alright, then this meeting is concluded at 8 40. Congratulations! Everyone nice to see you again, Sarah. I hope you feel better.