February 4, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] All right. Good evening, planning board. I'm going to go ahead and call the February 4th, 2025 planning board meeting to order. And I will pass this to Vice Chair Mark McIntyre, who is online. Hello, good evening to you all. Everybody hear me okay? Hello? Okay, good. Okay. Since… Chair Boone is absent. And I am remote. I am going to make a motion to have Laura Kaplan be our interim chair for this evening. Do I have a second for that motion? Okay. Second. So let's uh take a, I can't see a i can't Everybody, and I can't see the dais, so I'll go by memory and SML online. Can people see ML? I am. I'm right here. Okay. Ml. Yes. Okay. Mason.

[1:01] Yes. Laura. Kurt, we'll call him Kurt. Okay. Okay, Kurt? Yes. Yes. Yes. Laura. And Claudia. Yes. No. Am I missing anyone? Okay. Okay. All right. Oh. Mark, you're missing Mark. Oh, did you vote, Mark? Well, I made the nomine. So yes, I vote yes as well. So we have a unanimous uh vote to have Laura be our chair. And if Laura if you agree Take it away. Thank you, Mark. And yes, I accept. So I'm happy to be the temporary chair just for this evening since Chair Boone and Vice Chair McIntyre couldn't be here. I want to say hello and welcome to everybody who's joining us tonight, both in person and online and anyone who may watch the recording. We have six folks here tonight, a quorum. There are four of us in the Yes, four in the room. Claudia Hansen theme, Mason Roberts, Kurt Nornback, and myself.

[2:05] And the two online, Mark McIntyre and ML Robles. So the agenda tonight is pretty light. We have a continued hearing from January 21st on 1855 South Flatiron Court, and we'll get to that in just a minute. That's our one item tonight. Flatiron Court because the public comment for that item is closed. So I will turn it over to Thomas to run open comment. Thank you, Laura. Just give me a moment to pull up these slides. Thomas, I'm not sure if your mic is picking up. I'm just going to go over some basic rules for our public participation section for the open comment period tonight. These are just some basic rules that apply to all of our public participation opportunities in our boards and commissions.

[3:05] 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 board and commission members. As well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement process. Please visit our website. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscinity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. Participants are required to identify themselves using the name they are commonly known by. And individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online.

[4:01] Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. When we give the call in just a moment to speak for the open comment period, if you would like to speak. Please just click on the raise hand icon. At the bottom of your screen, you can hover over the bottom if you're not seeing it and that should pull up the raised hand icon. If you're calling in tonight, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. And then if you aren't seeing the raise hand icon at the bottom, you might need to look for this reactions And click on it to expand it and then you will see the raise hand button. And that's all for these slides. So now I'm going to give the call open comments. So if you would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand and we'll call on you. I'm seeing no raised hands so far, but we'll give it just a second. And still no, we have one hand raised. Lynn, you'll have three minutes.

[5:04] I'll go ahead and pull up the timer for you and you will have You can go ahead. You're unmuted now, so you should be able to speak. Thank you. So glad to see the timer. Thank you. Um… With Boulder Valley Comp Plan. Things coming up. I'm just feeling like I kind of already know what's going to happen with it because with it because What it really needs is job housing balance. To be performed on every project that happens in Boulder. In very specific regimen. Because… It's like see you.

[6:00] It's nice but it's nice but too nice. It's too big. Too much growth. And the carrying capacity is not there. For the type of growth that you're I see you every night. Planning board approving Hyde amendments and approving Parking reductions. And… I mean, all that you hear all the time, what I hear. I suppose you hear what you want to hear. But I hear people all the time complaining about what boulders become and there's not enough services in the South Boulder Rec Center and Now, CU South is just booming ahead. It's just like full strength the head. Straight into the abyss.

[7:05] And… Why do you do that? Of this town. You know, I can live in Seattle or I can live in the Bay Area. But I live in a smaller town. Boulder for a reason. And… the reason that is supposed to be a smaller town And the sprawl that Jared Polis talks about It's sprawling out in East Boulder. For the family friendly vitality. Issue and the form-based code and getting residential as the excuse that we need all this housing is the excuse to… embedded in the commercial and industrial areas east of town and then east of town those establishments later on need the services. So it just the commercial and industrial just gets

[8:08] Pushed further east. And then we have these sprawl developments like weather vein. So stop already. Sorry, I'm trying to clear that out. Thank you, Lynn. That concludes your three minutes. If there's anybody else that would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand. Otherwise, we'll move on to the continued public hearing. I'm seeing no more raised hands. Okay, thank you, Thomas. And thank you, Lynn, for that comment. So we'll move on on our agenda to item three, discussion of dispositions, planning board call-ups and continuations of which we have none. And so that takes us to our public hearing item. As I mentioned, this is a continuation from January 21st. We have already gone through the staff presentation and Q&A.

[9:03] The applicant presentation and Q&A and the public hearing. And the item that is remaining for us tonight is the board deliberation and decision on this item. And I'll just remind members of the public, anyone who may be watching. That our decision tonight will be based solely upon the criteria in our code. Primarily the site review criteria, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the sub-community plan that is applicable here. Which is the East Boulder sub-community plan. Not our personal opinions. So we will be citing code sections as needed. So with that. Let's talk about how to organize this. Do folks want to do a round of general comments before we get into specifics? How do we want to dive back into this item. I would be okay to go straight to specifics and I think we had four key issues. Yeah, and we'll get those up on the screen here. That were identified for us. And so I would be comfortable going straight to those.

[10:07] Okay, that's one vote for going straight to our key issues. I'm seeing heads nodding here in the room. Mark ML, any thumbs up from you both? Great. Okay, we'll head right to the key issues. Before we do that, let me just ask, are there any remaining questions that popped up? Actually, let me back up. Any disclosures that people want to do, any ex parte communications or anything changed since our public hearing a couple of weeks ago? Anybody need to do a disclosure? Okay? Seeing none, any remaining questions for either staff or the applicant before we go into deliberation. I actually have a couple. Anybody else? Okay, then if folks will indulge me, I would like to ask one question of staff and one question of the applicant, if that would be all right. So for allicin or other staff. Could we please pull up figure nine, the illustrative site plan?

[11:03] From the presentation? Yep, that's the one. Is that good? Cool? Yeah, I don't think it's showing on the main screen though. Hold on. There we go. Okay. So this shows the site plan and the configuration of the three buildings. So as I was going through the criteria, many of the criteria speak to the building elements that are either street facing or that face the public realm. Could you help me identify which of the facades or elevations on these buildings are considered to be facing the street or the public realm. Yeah, definitely. That's a good question. I think this site is unique in that it doesn't have a traditional full street frontage. It has the end of the cul-de-sac. Those facades. I think we're also treating sort of that the central roundabout as sort of acting as the public realm But when it comes to actual street frontage, it has a very limited street frontage.

[12:15] Okay, so you would consider anything facing the cul-de-sac to be street facing? Yeah, and the multi-use path. And the multi-use path. Okay. All right. So, and this is oriented north, south, east, west, yeah? Correct. So things on the north and east side of the two easternmost buildings would be facing the public realm. Correct. Okay, thank you. And then one question for the applicant. Anybody on the team who would like to answer this one. So when I visited the property, it looks like it is at least partially fenced and I'm not sure if it's fully fenced. And then the two entrances appear to have a gate, a gate that you would enter with a key card that can be closed. And I was wondering if you could point out to us The extent of the fencing and the location of the gates on this same figure I also want to remind the planning board that we're looking at the record, what's in front of us.

[13:12] Today, not any things that were not taken outside of the public hearing. Okay, but we can still ask questions about the plan for the site. You can, but you have to keep it within… what you have learned within the public hearing. Okay, thank you. There you go. Can you hear me okay? Yes, thank you. Could you introduce yourself, please? Yes, Salil Pyapali, Biomed Realty. Yes. And if you could speak into the mic. Of course, yeah. The question was, what are the current gates? The semicircle leading to the site. That area. Is currently, that's where you drive into the site right now and it's got a key corded gate. And maybe reading between the lines, but if your question ultimately is what's it eventually going to be, was that where you may have been going? Yes. Yeah. The idea is transparency.

[14:08] You know, we don't like fences. The idea needs to be that Our campus is permeable such that you know cyclists or folks jogging down the multi-use trail can sort of permeate through the site. Make their way through, you know, whether to this cafe or the next one or whatever. So the idea is transparency. We wouldn't have a walled garden. Security, that's not how we do security it's you know at the front door of a tenant premises is the primary means of security. So when these phases are built and stabilized, the idea would be we take whatever fences and gates that we can take down, we would take them down. Okay, and is it currently fully fenced or just partially fenced? I believe that the adjacent So there's parcels adjacent and abutting this. So there's a fence between land that we own.

[15:02] And land that we don't. That's on either side, right? On the top left and the top right. On the north and on the west. Right. And so in steady state, I would imagine you know that the the bare minimum, we would strip away whatever fences we could. And leave just the one that separates our land from, you know, not our land. But the front door would be wide open. And in the cul-de-sac, it's kind of fenced around that curve of the cul-de-sac, right? There's like gates and like a brick wall, I think. Mini brick wall around the cul-de-sac. Do we have a photograph or something of the existing conditions? Yeah. I'm describing steady state intent where it's as transparent and open as possible. And we would just take down as many fences as we could. Okay, thank you. And I think one of your teammates has stepped forward. I was just going to add to that. And if you could introduce yourself, please. My name is Kevin White with Perkins World, the architecture team. Thank you.

[16:03] Currently, the site does have that fence and brick wall around the cul-de-sac area, but that is going to be demolished and there won't be any fencing around the cul-de-sac. Only at the northern and western property lines. There's no fencing proposed around the the eastern and southern areas in the drain easement. Okay, no fencing. But like a tree barrier or something, some kind of shielding from the multi-use path. Yeah, all the bright greenish trees along the east, if you could go back to that Oh, can we go back to the previous slide there? Thank you, Allison. The one that has the trees on it, the illustrative site plan. That one, yeah. Yeah, we're proposing all the trees on the eastern and the southern portion that are kind of the brighter grain to be planted as screening and shielding to our site. From the multi-use path. And the southern. Okay, thank you. That helps me understand better. I appreciate both of you. Thank you.

[17:04] Anybody else have questions? Okay, then we will head right into Oh, sorry, Amel. I didn't see your hand up. Go right ahead, ML. I have questions. No worries. I had both hands up. Thank you so much. I do have one question. That I forgot to ask last time and this is Well, either Allison or the applicant I'm curious as to what the actual Link. Of the west of the west facade No, east. These facades. I'm understanding that the multi-use path is considered a public space. So I'm curious as to what is the length of those east facing ends of those two buildings the drawings show.

[18:04] Kind of a Cartesian grid dimension, not the actual length of the wall itself. Could somebody give me the actual length of the wall? I don't have the exact length. I did measure it. I know it's under 200 feet. But if the architect has the exact length they can share, but… Okay, I'm Kevin White from the architecture team. There's a button on the base. Thank you. The building from north to south is 120 feet, but those angled walls are about 130 feet. Actual length of the angled wall. 130. Okay. The actual actual length of them Awesome. Thank you for that. I did not know and that's what I needed. Thank you. Thank you for your answer. Okay, thanks, ML. Any other questions? I see Kurt has a hand up. Sorry. No, this is prompting one follow-up.

[19:00] The connection from the cul-de-sac to the South Boulder Creek path is also considered a multi-use path is that correct? Correct? Because it's shown in the TMP. Yeah, the connection to the north of the property, that would be the multi-use path connection shown in the East Bullard subcommunity plan. And so that north facade would also be a street considered a street-facing facade. A public realm, yes. Public realm, right. Okay, thank you. Last call for questions. Seeing none, let's start a queue for initial deliberation. Can we pop back up those key questions? So while that's being put up, I'll just, again, for the sake of anybody tuning in. We have a decision in front of us. We have three options. We can approve the project as is.

[20:03] We can approve the project but put on conditions if and only if we think those conditions are necessary to satisfy the criteria that we are working with. Or we can deny the project if we think it does not meet the criteria and that there would be no conditions that we could put on that would help it to meet those criteria. Okay, so with that in mind, who would like to start The deliberation with our four key issues. Don't everybody raise your hand at once. Okay, Kurt is being brave. Kurt can go first. I'm being brave. Okay, wait. Uh-oh. These are different key issues than I had. Yep. I'm sorry. How did I get these wrong? Okay.

[21:05] I'm sorry. Would you like to reorganize? First, I don't know why I screwed this up. I also did not organize by the key issues. So if you have your comments organized a different way that you think will still help us get where we need to go. I don't think that we're wedded to these in particular. Okay, well, I would like to speak first about consistency generally with the site review criteria. Please do. So that… I mean, that obviously is primarily what we're talking about. So I'd like to start with that. And my conclusion is that this is proposal is not consistent. With the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, including the land use map. The land use description for MUI says. And I've quoted this, I quoted this before at concept review MUI areas should integrate diverse housing commercial and retail options into industrial areas.

[22:11] To create vibrant, walkable working neighborhoods. That offer employers, employees, and residents a variety of local services and amenities. Muia will often provide a transition between existing or planned residential or mixed use neighborhoods. Enlight community or general community industrial land use area. Uses consist predominantly of light industrial use on ground floors. Supporting uses include light industrial, attached residential. Retail service office and commercial. Kurt, I'm sorry to interrupt, but it looks like our planning director has stepped forward. Yeah, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I do want to clarify some of the scope of the comprehensive plan and the subcommunity plan relative to the existing property rights on the property.

[23:05] So while the criteria does speak to the proposal being consistent with the plan, that doesn't override the existing right to develop under the zoning that's on the site. And because the plan does not mandate housing, that can't be used as one of their criteria we're making a full determination on that. To give an analogy. If a proposal were… to build a retail on a property Even though the comprehensive plan says that open space is a high value. And that that would be also consistent with the comprehensive plan that doesn't overwrite the right of the property right that exists to exercise a specific land use. So I just wanted to help clarify that. That line between application of a guidance plan and the zoning that underlies it.

[24:08] And Christine, I don't know, could you maybe elaborate on that? I do think you did a great job. All that schooling paid off. So what Brad was saying is comprehensive plans are aspirational documents. The zoning is really the bundle of sticks of rights that someone has. So if they're allowed in their zoning to zoning develop industrial land are in industrial use, we can't prohibit from doing that based on that. An aspirational document or a guiding document like the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The plan is intended to be used as future land use, future goals for an area, but existing zoning is really very important when looking at that as well and making sure that That's in conformance with what they're allowed and permitted to do on their property.

[25:02] Under the current zoning. Well, I am very confused because The site review criteria specifically speak to the Boulder Valley Complan consistency with the Boulder Valley Complan. And the land use map so i'm very confused why that's there then. So it's there as an unbalanced view of what is for the future. So it is a criteria that you all can look at, but You know, requiring Maybe you can explain it a little better. Requiring specific uses just based on that one criteria is very difficult with a aspirational plan like the comprehensive plan. Can I just clarify, Kurt, are you saying that you are making an on-balance finding that the plant that this project is not consistent with the BVCP, or are you specifically talking about you don't think it's consistent with the underlying land use designation in the BBCP?

[26:02] It's actually both. Because I find that there are other bbcp policies that I hadn't gotten to yet. That it's, I feel it's inconsistent with as a result of this also there's also similar argument to be made on the basis of the East Boulder sub-community plan. So looking at all of these things together Which is the argument i was I'm going to try to formulate, but I didn't get there yet. In my reading of all of these documents together, the site review criteria, the Boulder Valley Compan. The land use map, the East Boulder Sub Community Plan. And in this context, looking at this particular site and context and environment and so on. My conclusion based on a bunch of things that I was going to talk about was if that these documents all taken together argue that argue that a project here should have should include a housing component.

[27:14] Yeah, and I think our point is we just want to make sure you're fully advised on the limitations of that. So again to speak excuse me, to the broader construct of comprehensive plans. Implementation of the comprehensive plan And by that, I also mean the extension of any subcommittee plans. Is achieved through the adoption of zoning codes, through the implementation of the annual budget, through the capital improvement plan that the city adopts. Those are the implementations of that. And so because those are implementations of a set of ground rules, so to speak. That's the place where the implementation happens. So to get back to my analogy, if If a statement were made that it's important to have open space in a particular sub-community plan.

[28:04] Having that happen on the backs of a specific property or a specific project undermines the property right. And so that's the line that we're trying to define for you. You certainly should. And can speak to other supporting elements in the plan that this project does or doesn't support. But just know that it needs to be in the context of the property rights that exist with the current zoning and with the well, zoning in this case. Okay, I'm still not, I'm afraid i'm not… clear where that leaves me and I apologize Everyone, this is a fairly basic point, I think that we're getting to So if they're… So are we not then are we not permitted to consider any elements of

[29:04] The comp plan, the land use map East Boulder sub-community plan and so on that speak to use if the use that is being proposed is… permitted use? Is that what you're saying? So I don't want to generalize for all circumstances, but basically speaking, the bundle of sticks, the property rights that Christy alluded to. Are governing and um and supersede the guidance documents of the comprehensive plan. I'm being careful to say that there would never be, I can't say there would never be a circumstance where elements of use wouldn't come into consideration, but the basic principal use is an established right under the zoning. And wouldn't that apply then to pretty much everything in the Boulder Valley Comp Plan?

[30:00] Because there's all sorts of aspects of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan that are spoken to in various ways by the zoning. And yet again, our site review criteria specifically call out consistency with the Boulder Valley Compliment. So maybe what we're saying is that shouldn't be in the site review criteria. But that's a big deal. So for context, everywhere I've looked and or everywhere I've worked and every set of zoning code that I've been familiar with and going back to my statement about school. Is that it is important and significant to have zoning decisions excuse me, made in the context of consistency with the aspirational plan, the guidance map. So, no, I wouldn't say that that is inappropriate criteria. Virtually is found in every jurisdictions, you know, zoning criteria And that's because there is a larger intent and context in which any land use decision needs to be made.

[31:06] True with a building permit. We can go all the way down to administrative land use decisions as well. But that does need to be balanced against the specific rights that are defined in this case by zoning as a property right. And so to give an example of things that maybe do balance that. There may be a site plan that comes before you at some point that speaks to that has a detention pond and it also has a recreation area. And the two are kind of competing for the same space. That's when you're going to use the judgment of the guiding document. A lot of times, just to step back and provide even greater context. Folks will make the observation about the adopted plans, comprehensive plans, sub-community plans that they can be used to argue a variety of things and that's true.

[32:00] Because as a society and as a community we do have shared values, but values that in a specific instance may compete. And the quasi-judicial process is designed to figure out which one has the greatest weight in a particular situation. Recreation versus detention, can they be managed? But that does not extend to a determination of whether a fundamental use is allowed or not on a particular property. I'm going to defer to Charles and others. Yeah, and I just had, you know, one thing to add just based on 9214H1A, the criterion that speaks to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan and how it should be considered but The criterion itself talks about the comp plan not prioritizing individual goals and policies and that no project must satisfy one particular goal, policy, or all of them. So it's kind of broad language in how that's supposed to be considered. I don't know, Christy, if you have anything else you'd add.

[33:02] I guess the only thing I would add here, and I get the frustration with, you know. The comprehensive plan and as a criteria But what we're looking at here, you can really delineate with the comprehensive plan can't deny someone a use that's permitted by right. So if the comprehensive plan is in a residential area and says that A residential zoning but says that it has to be industrial, but someone wants to build a house. We can't say you can't build a house. It's part of their residential zoning. They're permitted by right to do that. So I'm just going to interject here and say… In my read of this, and I'm just one person. Housing is not required on this site either by the Boulder Valley Comp Plan Or the East Boulder sub-community Plan. Or the zoning. I don't think that we can require housing on this site. So for me, that's not an issue in this hearing. But I think there are plenty of other things that we could discuss tonight about this site and its consistency with the site review criteria.

[34:07] So if you'll indulge me, Kurt, I would suggest that maybe we move on from this point right now and we can circle back to it if you're still not satisfied after We've explored some other issues. Well, no, I just want to clarify then that What I'm hearing, getting down to brass tacks, is that the use is not something that we can really address, at least based on the comp plan and land use map. Okay. I've got a follow-up question. So I appreciate the example of the extreme example of if it's residential, but the comp plan says industrial. Say no residential but if it's If the use… if the… the neighborhood plan says must have X, Y, and Z and that z is allowed in the zoning.

[35:04] Then… by this criteria must be we require those things that the neighborhood plan says. Does that make sense? So it depends. Like I said, the purposes of the comprehensive plan is an aspirational document. It does not become a legislative document where like you have to meet something unless that's adopted by the code. So a lot of times you'll see code amendments that come after a comprehensive plan is adopted. That then require residential to be built or then require something to be built in that zone district. But usually… the comprehensive plan itself is not that requirement. So I just want to interject and say, Mason, I think you were talking not so much about the BVCP, but the East Boulder sub-community plan. And there is a criterion 9-2-14H1B. The project is consistent with the adopted subcommunity and area plans or design guidelines. So that is a specific site review criterion. So I think consistency with East Boulder sub-community plan is different than the on-balance finding for the BBCP. Those are two separate criteria in the site review. It is both a comprehensive plan though. So everything we're saying about how a comprehensive plan can't negate a

[36:16] Permitted use in a zone district still applies to the east borders. I guess what I'm using the terms interchangeably. So the comprehensive plan, the sub-community plan is an element, an extension of the comprehensive plan. So when we say one, we mean the other and vice versa. They don't super Sure. And I'm not hung up there. I'm… Where I'm a little hung up where I'm hung up Our code says has to follow code has to What Laura said very nicely. The project is consistent with the adopted sub-community and area plans. And then the sub-community plan says must have X, Y, and Z. Those things are allowed in that zone. Yeah, let's check if it does say must have in the conference or in the sub-community plan or comprehensive plan.

[37:04] But again, that's going to be on the balance of the whole sub-community in this place, or if we're talking about the comp plan in terms of the entire city. The part that Charles cited speaks to that balance of not putting policy on the backs of a specific application. So I'm going to want to talk about the East Boulder Sub Community plan and the destination workplace place type that has a description in the East Boulder sub-community plan that says. This is what we're trying to build in the destination workplace and projects need to be consistent with that. There are certain things that are called out as being very important in that. And so for consistency with the sub-community plan. That is one of our criterion that I think we can talk about, which to me seems quite different from is it on balance consistent with the goals and policies of the general Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Agreed. And again, I just want to qualify that all of the advice we're giving you is just that it's part of our responsibility is to advise you about the the legal context of the criteria.

[38:16] And we definitely appreciate that. Thank you, Brad and Charles and Christy. And thank you, Kurt. Kurt, did you want to keep going? No, let me revise my comments. Appropriately. And I will pass it on to someone else. Okay, we'll pass the bike. Who's ready to go next? I see ML has a hand up. I wonder if we can… have the next sort of subject area be the East Boulder sub-community plan So we can all kind of speak to that. I'd say go right ahead. Since it is… kind of a big piece of the criteria And in listening to the listening to the advice and information that I was hearing from staff I am looking at… East Boulder sub-community plan design quality and placemaking.

[39:28] Identified as policy d5 Redevelopment in East Boulder will preserve Boulder's quintessential views to the west from key corridors and the public realm. So this is… question that I wondered about last week when I talked about Do we have any views through the building that capture, maintain the existing views.

[40:00] Of the Front Range. And i I'm not sure that the project is the project is addressing this because i don't i don't see any Preservation of the quintessential views to the west from the west this public realm of that multi-use path that's on the east side of the project. So that is one concern that I have. Um and sub-community plan doesn't say might or should, it says will. So um just speaking to the discussion about how we take this criteria into play, I believe that that policy is pretty direct So that is one of my concerns Everything else that I had highlighted in the East Boulder Step Community Plan are

[41:15] A little bit more fuzzy there shoulds and and uh Wills the wills main thing that I'm curious about. Is regards to the East Boulder sub-community plan Again and again, the plan talks about creating that we're creating a place that we're creating a place the East Boulder sub-community is wanting to be a place And it wants all the, for example. Under local business policy B1. That the commercial redevelopment should strive to incorporate ground floor spaces suited to small business shared business spaces, mixing of businesses.

[42:05] Et cetera, et cetera. This project has one cafe and it is set deep inside a lobby. And I think I heard the applicant say that the security and all is happening at the entrance to the buildings. So I'm not sure how what the relationship this building is. Is proposing is proposing to the East Boulder sub-community intent of a walkable a walkable hub the destination work goal is propose to be a walkable hub for workers in nearby residents. So that is one of my other concerns is Its role in activating the desired community interactions so I think those are the two concerns I would raise within the East Boulder sub-community plan.

[43:13] Thank you, ML. I'd actually like to colloquy on that if folks don't mind. And I'll start by saying… I have about nine criteria that I think this project doesn't meet. And this is one of them. 9-2-14h1b. The project is consistent with the adopted subcommunity plan. So these Boulderside Community Plan is a big one. And I do not think that this project is consistent with the destination workplace place type. In that sub-community plan. This is one of the key concepts of the East Boulder sub-community plan is that there are areas of change and there are areas that were not expected to change. A lot of the East Boulder was left as just a typical industrial park, a typical industrial area. This is not one of those areas. The Flatiron Business Park was intended to be not an auto-dependent Class A office park, but an active, lively, mixed use, well-connected, multimodal friendly workplace environment.

[44:14] This project basically, in my opinion, has turned its back on the public realm, it is not designed to embrace the public realm. It is not designed to invite people in. It has this pinch point at the front. That is very private. And then people would have to walk onto private property to do anything and it's kind of an island that doesn't go anywhere. There's no connectivity. There is one small cafe that the public could access that I believe was 600 square feet. In a 200,000 square foot development. So if my math is correct, that's less than one third of 1% of this project is mixed use. That the public could reasonably be expected to know that they are invited to access. People don't generally drive up to a private development and walk around on the grounds and sit on the benches.

[45:01] At the end of a cul-de-sac. So this project would need to work to embrace the public realm, to have street activation. And street level character. And these are two of the defining characteristics of the destination workplace, street level activation and street character. This project has a primary use on all of the ground floors of a parking garage, not even light industrial. But a parking garage that is walled off from the public by concrete and parking spaces. This is not embracing an active, lively, pedestrian friendly district. This is not inviting the public to have permeability and connectivity. The multi-use path routes around the perimeter of the project rather than being permeable through it. And then you'd have to actually exit the project and come back in. To go to the cafe. So to me, this is the opposite of street level activation and street character. The project, instead of embracing the amenity of the creek path basically fences it off with trees to hide the buildings from the public view, partly because they have located what they call the unsightly uses of trash collection and loading docks adjacent to the multi-use path, right they're not

[46:16] Trying to embrace the multi-use path, they're trying to hide from it. This beautiful creek path edge, which should be an amenity for the project. In my opinion, this fails to meet the definition of a destination workplace in the East Boulder subcommunity Plan. And I'll quote just a couple of key sections from that description. Quote, transparency along both streets and key pedestrian pathways should create an active ground floor environment. And quote, parking in the destination workplace type should strive for consolidation, not a ring of parking between the public and the private island of the development. So those are my thoughts on why it doesn't meet that particular criterion. Like I said, I think I have about eight more that are not as extensive. But I'll stop there with that one. Just quickly, I agree with all of that. And I wrote… It's all extremely suburban office park feeling.

[47:12] Not pedestrian scale, not activated at the street friendly to cars and only cars. And I called out view two on page. Unfortunately, this was from our last packet Page 146 out of 415. Anyhow, it was a perspective view that was presented in the packet someplace where you looked out and It was just a bunch of pavement basically and then sort of in the distance There were the buildings and there were the buildings Maybe partly that was the perspective but it definitely did not feel as Laura was just saying that it had street level activation and streetscape character. So I agree with that. Following on. So… I see where Kurt was going with the residential. Reading into the decimation workplace, I didn't see anywhere it said it had to or should have residential.

[48:10] However, it does state that, and I'm quoting from page 39, that these places will offer industrial and office space with indoor outdoor workspace, which it does. Excellent connections to a variety of mobility options, which it doesn't really in my mind. And local destinations dining and entertainment, which it definitely doesn't. One third of 1% is not a destination dining entertainment. That seems super clear to me. As far as street level activation. Laura, you talked a lot about this. But it doesn't have a strong pedestrian focus with additional misuses. And engaging streetscape. I also think that the mobility enhancements for the Flatiron Greenway much as You just talked about. These are essential to the EBSP. And while it does provide the pedestrian and bicycle access improvements, it doesn't leverage the area's full potential for enhanced transit and multimodal connectivity.

[49:13] Thank you, Mason. Anyone else want to talk about this particular criterion of the East Boulderside Community Plan? And consistency with that. Okay, I think we can move on to other thoughts of how the project does or doesn't meet the site review criteria. I do also want to mention I really appreciated the applicant mentioning in their presentation at the last hearing that they plan to build an amenity center with a restaurant, recreation and tenant support uses on another site. In the Flatiron Business Park. However, we cannot consider the amenity center as part of the application for this site. A, it hasn't been built yet and b There's nothing in our criteria that allow the applicant to put required site elements on a different site.

[50:02] So… I just want to make sure everybody's on the same page about that. Okay. Ml, your hand is still up. Did you want to continue? Go for it. No, you're up. I was moving on with moving on with The rest of the site criteria or yeah Should I, or is there somebody else i can't For some reason, all I can see is staff. You go right ahead, ML. Thank you. So unless staff has their hand up, I can't tell. Um Okay, moving on with the site review criteria I… And I think this might be something that the staff can either say it's been done or we just added in which is 9214h, one BBC, PCPC. The reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It shall be a condition of approval that the applicant demonstrate compliance with this criterion at time of building permit.

[51:01] Is that… automatically a condition of approval? That's correct. It'll be added as a condition of approval to the site review. Awesome. Thank you so much for that. Looking at This is necessarily a question. 9214h3 building siting and design a building siting and public realm II, I guess it's two. And this is something that Laura brought up. In the East Boulder sub-community plan but here it is as a criteria Wherever practical, consider the scope of the project. Parking areas are located behind buildings or set back further from the streetscape than the building facade. I do find it a bit suburban that the buildings are surrounded by parking.

[52:03] So any permeability from the either of the public realms area is always across a parking lot. So I find that a bit troublesome. Kind of challenging that particular criteria And then the last criteria that I will point out is 9214H3, building siting and design be building design triple i on each floor of the building, windows create visual interest, transparency, and a sense of connection to the public realm. Um i'm I think all the facades are pretty much the same insofar as the fenestration. I know there's that sort of transparent corner that was called the lanterns But I'm not sure that the sense of connection to the public realm

[53:01] Has been established. So I am also concerned about the project meeting. That particular that particular criteria. Let me see. Yeah, the other concerns I have have to do with the height modification criteria, but I'll I'll save that for when we get to talking about height. Thanks. Thank you, ML. And I'll colloquy to say that Two of those that ML mentioned are two that were on my list as well. The idea of setting the parking areas back further from the streetscape than the building facade, whereas in this site design, the parking is always interjected between the streetscape and the buildings. Completely ringed by parking. And then also 9-2-14H3B triple i or roman numeral three that on each floor of the building, windows create visual interest transparency and a sense of connection to the public realm.

[54:01] Whereas in this building design all of the ground floors are almost entirely parking garages that are concrete, not transparent at all. Concrete walls to hide them from public view. So those were two that I had as well. Anyone else want a colloquy on something ML said? Or we can move on if you have other items to discuss. In the context of the design of the vehicular circulation and parking. Which is 9214 H2A5. The site review criteria say the design of vehicular circulation and parking areas make efficient use of the land and minimize the amount of pavement necessary to meet the circulation and parking needs of the project. And consistent with what my colleagues said, I feel that the design, the project before us does not meet that the design of the parking and drive aisle completely encircling the site.

[55:04] Doesn't minimize pavement. And it puts the pavement close to the natural areas, maximizing disturbance. The staff analysis says the perimeter road is necessary for emergency access. But we see many projects that don't have a road encircling them, including one on arapaho that came before us. A month or so. And they seem to meet the requirements. And so I agree that this design of the parking completely around the the developed site is inconsistent with The site review criteria, as well as as Laura cited, I believe the East Boulder sub-community plan. Any colloquies on that one? That was one that I had as well.

[56:04] You know, this is a big change from the concept review. In concept review, the parking was concentrated a little bit of surface parking on the north side. And then a three-level parking garage. And now it has come back to us with this perimeter road has expanded to include parking everywhere. And each of the three-level parking garage has been spread out so that each building's ground floor is parking. And that to me is the opposite of an efficient use of land, minimizing the amount of pavement necessary to meet the circulation and parking needs of the project. I think that was an unfortunate design change since concept review. And I will note that most of the buildings have parking on either two or three sides of the building. Okay. Other criteria that folks want to discuss?

[57:00] Go ahead, Kurt. One other that was called out for us is key issue two here consistency with 9214 H3B1. Which says it requires a variety of forms and heights. And I think that the applicant put some small breaks in the rough line to create these glass sections as an attempt. To break up the form and height. And I appreciate that that effort But it still reads to me as a very consistent height. So while I personally don't find this to be the most important of the aspects of site review criteria. It is a site review criterion And so we need to consider it and so we need to consider I feel that it is not meeting. What is called for in key issue number two. And I'll point out that staff did discuss this at the hearing and also in the packet.

[58:09] With the determination that they felt they could work with the applicant after an approval to fix this one. But it is one that even staff agreed that the project does not currently meet And I agree with Kurt. I don't think this is the most important thing. And personally, it doesn't bother my aesthetic sense, but I yield my personal aesthetic to the code, which does require That large floor plate buildings and projects with multiple buildings have a variety of forms and heights. Okay, I see. Mason, were you trying to pop in? Okay. Go ahead and move on. Unless, ML, were you on this one or did you want to talk about something different? I think Mark had his hand up before I did, but I'm ready to go on to height. But yeah, Mark, I think. Okay, I'm going to go to Mark. And then if you don't mind, ML, I'm going to go to Mason, who hasn't spoken much before we move on to height.

[59:01] Okay, and Mark, I apologize. I could not see your hand. Go ahead, Mark. This is a fascinating conversation and i i I find myself in an odd position here Because, wow. I came with thoughts and comments about the the combination of the combination of not a particularly significant. Reduction in parking. And not a particularly inventive or aggressive PDM plan, I did come with an appreciation of this particular site. And its location. At the end, you know, in a in a suburban industrial park that through no fault of the current applicant you know we have a site that is bordered by railroad tracks so you can't which is not particularly a public realm.

[60:15] A bike path, which is obviously a public realm but is elevated and is elevated it's by its design, that whole berm and everything for that path, which I ride frequently. Is such that access to the path presents an interesting and an interesting a pretty significant challenge. But the site in particular is a large site at the end of a small cul-de-sac. And currently, it's several acres of acres of asphalt. I think the applicant in attempting to create an interior courtyard.

[61:05] Has actually, if in fact. Users are going to enter their buildings from that interior courtyard. They've done it. They have attempted to answer that particular challenge of how do we create a space for people to enter the building that is welcoming is natural And has a feeling of a campus. When I think about the option And this goes back to, okay. I think they could do with less parking. But let's just take parking as a whole. If I say, which do I prefer? Well-designed podium parking on the first level. Or a completely separate parking garage, which if I remember back to our alpine balsam discussion kurt you You said, hey, I think parking garages should be ugly.

[62:13] And I was struck by that comment because I don't think they should be ugly and i think that podium parking, which is that partially You know, first floor can provide views. Elevate the users elevate the users And it's a concept that I don't particularly love but I find in this context. It elevates. The users of these buildings higher up gives them a better view of the western view of the mountains and a better view of their of their campus park. And so… So for me, the design of the site provides particularly prescriptive challenges

[63:11] While the applicant hasn't reduced the parking as much as I'd like I would prefer the podium parking design to a complete separate structure dedicated to car parking. No matter how it's designed I actually… M. I would not deny this particular application. Based on the comments I've heard so far. Thank you, Mark. Other folks? Mason, I think you are next. I feel like I'm stealing from ML because I was moving on to height.

[64:02] Okay, so Mason and ML both want to talk about height. Mason, if you don't mind, I'll go to you just since you have spoken a bit less, and then we'll go back to ML. So in the code, it states that an applicant for any principal accessory principal or accessory billing above the permitted height for principal building set forth in section 9, 7, 1. Schedule a form in bulk standards. Says criteria, no site review applicant shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that the project is consistent with the following criteria. Number one, Bowler Valley Comprehensive Plan BVC criteria. Including sub-community plans at and area plans. So I think I'm not really going to… bing on this drum again. I'm just going to say for that reason. I don't think it meets the criteria for the For the height.

[65:00] Thank you, Mason. And ML? Thank you. I am looking at the 9214H4. The height modification criteria The first one I'll point to is AIMI. So all building facades exceeding 120 feet in length along a public street are designed to appear as at least two distinct buildings So. The question I have, or maybe the question or maybe maybe staff can clarify. The east facing the east facade which is onto the public realm multi-use path. I believe the applicant said it was over 130 feet. Is that considered?

[66:01] As a public street Does that multi-use path in the context of that criterion. Hello. So the question is whether the multi-use path also qualifies as a quote unquote public street street For the purpose of that criterion. Correct. For the purpose of that criterion. For that criteria, the multi-use path would not be considered a public street. In the criteria above it where it's public realm, that would include the multi-use path. Okay, so then my second question or my second I guess maybe it's a question and maybe it's just a a concern 9 to 14 h4 height modification criteria BIB3 views.

[67:01] And… Double I, if the proposed building is located adjacent to a city managed public park plaza, or open space. Buildings are sited or designed in a manner that avoids or minimizing minimizes blocking of prominent public views of the mountains from these spaces. So i M. Concerned that from that multi-use path on the multi-use path East. That the views are blocked and that this criteria is not is not met. So that's one of my concerns regards to The height modification request And then the last concern I have is nine two 14H4 height modification criteria BIB number four.

[68:03] Open space. Number two, the width of the space is no less than the height of the building walls enclosing the space. So I'm thinking about that open space that is I think it might have been called a ramble that runs for that runs Parallel. That runs east-west it seems like it's narrower than the height. I have. I'm… it's a question and it just doesn't seem like it meets that criteria offhand. I can… Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I can clarify. Oh, yes, please answer that question. The criteria that you're referencing is for building heights that are over three stories. Since this is three stories, those criteria would not apply. Oh, all of those criteria that I've talked about, the views included. Correct. Correct.

[69:04] Then I have no more comments about the height modification criteria. Thank you for clarifying that. Sure. Okay, thank you, ML. I'm sorry, remind me what's the height of these buildings? Building one will be 45 feet and buildings two and three will be 50 feet Okay, so even though it's a 50 foot building, since it's only three stories, those criteria don't apply. Correct. Okay. That maybe seems like something inadvertent in the code, but okay thank you. All right. If folks don't mind, I have a few to go through. That we haven't talked about yet. So I do want to say that there's a lot to support in this proposal. You know, the open space very well designed, as Mark said. It would be a great functional amenity for users and visitors to the site. I have no problems with the open space design.

[70:00] Looks very nice. The building design itself meets or exceeds the criteria in many ways. And in particular, I really like the overall aesthetic. I think the lanterns and the sloped soffits, like those cutaways at the entrances are quite beautiful and beautifully done. So I wanted to commend the applicant on that And I do think that the height modification is appropriate for the surrounding context and the vision of this area in the subcommunity plan. So all of that Totally fine. No problems. But I do think, as I said, that the site and building design fails to meet the site review criteria in some important ways. We've talked about the need for a variety of roof forms and heights. We've talked about consistency with the East Boulder sub-community plan. Mark brought up the TDM plan criteria 9-2-14H2A Roman numeral three. That says a transportation demand management plan will be complied with, including methods that result in a significant shift away from single occupant vehicle use to alternate modes. I do think that there's a lot to like in the applicant's TDM plan.

[71:01] I like the secure bike rooms with horizontal spaces and e-bike charging, the showers, the changing rooms. The car share spots, the B cycle or lime station. There's a lot of good stuff in this plan, but it's really hard to see how it will result in a significant shift away from single occupant vehicle use when, as we've talked about extensively, the site is dominated by that ring of parking. And parking garages on all the ground floors. This site is designed for ease of parking and convenience of car drivers, and that's going to undercut the effectiveness of your TDM measures. So for me, I'm not sure that it meets the TDM criterion. The criterion that Kurt mentioned. 9-2-14h2a, Roman numeral 4. Streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways, trails, open space, buildings, and parking areas are designed and located to optimize safety of all modes and provide connectivity and functional permeability through the site. I appreciate the idea that moving the bike path off the site, basically, having it be on the perimeter means it doesn't have to cross any of those parking areas. But that's a problem that's created by the fact that the site is ringed by parking, right?

[72:11] You're not providing connectivity and functional permeability and I don't think that the safety benefit of saying the biking and pedestrians will never cross that ring of parking. Negates the fact that the parking was put there in the first place. So I don't think that it is designed to provide connectivity and functional permeability through the site. We talked about efficient use of the land and minimizing the pavement necessary to meet the circulation and parking needs of the project. I'm going to respectfully disagree with Mark on this one. A parking garage is the single best way to minimize the amount of pavement that you are using for your cars rather than spreading them across the whole ground floor of the site. I don't think we talked about this one yet. 9-2-14h3a. Roman numeral one. New buildings our position towards the street, respecting the existing conditions or the context anticipated by adopted plans or guidelines.

[73:09] In urban context, buildings are positioned close to the property line and sidewalk along a street. None of these buildings are positioned towards the street or towards the creek path. They are all pointed towards the internal private campus space, not the public realm. And the edge connections to the public realm are all given over to asphalt and parkings with the buildings set back inside that. So I think it fails on that criterion. We have not yet talked about 9-2-14H3A, Roman numeral four defined entries connect the building to the public realm. These buildings are not connected to the public realm. They are only connected to the private property on the interior of the site. With all of the entrances. And I do appreciate the challenges posed by that cul-de-sac. And by the elevated multi-use path. But I think there would be better ways to meet those challenges other than just by saying, well, there's not going to be any connection to the public realm except these pinch points in the cul-de-sac.

[74:11] 9-2-14h3a, Roman numeral 6. The building citing and relationship to the public realm is consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines. Again, this is just re-emphasizing in the site review criterion the failure of the project to comply with the East Boulder sub-community plan in the specific matter of building siting and relationship to the public realm. With the street character and street level activation. Yeah, so for me, there's like a whole laundry list of things that, but it basically all comes back to The ring of parking, the ground floor parking garages, the lack of ground floor transparency. The lack of street level activation and street character and the lack of connections to the public realm, which is all pretty fundamental to the way this site is designed. And I think it's really unfortunate because there's a lot to like about this plan.

[75:03] But it is not what is envisioned for a lively, well-connected destination office or destination workplace environment in the sub-community plan. I will stop there. Other thoughts from my fellows? Claudia, you've been very quiet. Can I call upon you or you're not wanting to talk right now? I'm hearing a lot of my concerns addressed and I'm listening to the conversation. Thank you. Other thoughts? Or does anybody potentially feel ready to think about emotion? Mark does have his hand raised online. Oh, okay. Thank you, Thomas. Mark, I'm sorry. Again, I couldn't see you. For some reason, the Zoom is only showing me ML. Mark, please go ahead. Okay. Um I appreciate that. All of the concerns expressed.

[76:03] And i Some had been very convincing. And I have not anticipated some of them. However, what I'm I'll ask the question of my fellow board members have you been able to translate these concerns into conditions Or are they so egregious? Your concerns or what you consider to be failure i don't say egregious failure to meet the code that you simply are you simply planning on denying. I guess I want to get to the point of the conversation where those are interesting and are interested in could be very well valid concerns.

[77:02] How would you how are you planning to address them? Yeah, is it through? Or denial. Kurt. I will say that I share almost 100% of the concerns that Laura has raised. And I have a bunch of the same written down. And to me, they are pretty fundamental to fundamental the site design the general layout of the project and To me, it's too much to try to address, to correct through conditions. I really would need to see a new site review. And I agree with Laura that there's a lot to like in this project. I particularly appreciate the simplicity of the detailing. And the materiality of the buildings the addition of the multi-use path on the north side which is I mean, having the connection, I agree with the concerns about the particular details, but having the connection is really important.

[78:11] And… And I feel that the height modification is largely justified. As I think Laura said, but I feel that it is Yeah, it's too much. I wouldn't be able to confidently be able to capture all this in conditions. Mason? Yeah, I share a lot of the same concerns and I do think that there's a lot to like about this project. I don't have quite as many concerns. I still don't know if I could put them into a condition. For instance, I would Have to see more than just 0.3% of the total space being dining or entertainment because the the community plan says will offer, not might or, you know, so, but I don't know how to condition including 10% space or something like that.

[79:18] You know the the ground floor activation is part of that. Obviously, if they had more of those spaces, the ground floor would be more activated. And that's really my main concern. But again, I don't know how to condition that in this case. Does the applicant, and there may be discussions on this subject ongoing right now. But does the applicant have the opportunity to withdraw at this point still. Ms. City Attorney. We'd have to look at the rules. Give us a second. Yeah. I think our rules state that once our deliberation has begun.

[80:03] We would have to agree by majority to accept their withdrawal, but that they could ask to withdraw. That's what I think I remember from the revised rules, but I could be wrong about that. Brad Mueller planning director, just while the team's looking that up, maybe just in the interest of practicality, what is the thought that I guess I'm just trying to understand why there would be why there would be there Suggestive withdrawal. I mean, it's not clear to me that there are four votes for approval even with conditions. Which would be necessary to move it forward and move forward I think we may be moving towards a denial. Yeah, if they withdrew, that would mean they'd have to resubmit a whole application and all that.

[81:01] Is it functionally different in any way than a denial? Other than a denial being on the record. Yeah, if it's denied by you all. Then there's the opportunity for a call up with council and that type of thing. I don't want to speak for the applicant, but I don't know that they would be likely to withdraw it. And we would counsel against it, right? You've already deliberated. We're going to give you the technical answer here in a minute, but I would counsel against it just because You've already deliberated. You've established a record that record still is going to carry forward to any subsequent Reapplication. You know, if they were to withdraw. But now we're going to get the dramatic answer. The dramatic answer from the 1987 rules. An applicant can only withdraw an application once after the hearing, but before board deliberation. They were past that time. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Brad, also.

[82:03] So I'll answer the question that Mark posed for myself, which is, you know, two weeks ago. I was thinking perhaps we would move to continue and let the applicant think about whether they could address some of these concerns and come back with another design. But I agree with kurt i think Especially after hearing some of the additional things raised by my colleagues. There's just a lot of concerns with this design, right? This might be a perfectly appropriate and lovely design in another part of Boulder that has a different area plan or no sub-community plan, right? Or it's not in a cul-de-sac or something. For this particular site. In the East Boulder sub-community plan in an area of change to me that the problems with it meeting the criteria are are pretty baked in to the design. And so I would be inclined to move towards a denial personally.

[83:00] I have my hand up. May I speak? In response to Mark's. Yes, ML, thank you. Thank you for jumping in. Kind of gathering us up comment. To me, the components of the there are three policies in the East Boulder sub-community plan that um address the concerns that I think are overarching on this project. They are Policy D2, which talks about active public environment Policy D4. Again, public space program to encourage socializing play etc and policy d5 which is preserving views from key corridors. And so I could see a way to condition the project to meet those specific policies of the East Boulder subcommunity Plan.

[84:07] Thank you, ML. Should we take a straw poll? On whether I think I think we're split between two options here, either a denial or potentially trying to craft conditions for an approval and see if that can get a majority vote. Shall we take a straw pole? Seeing some nods okay I would like to propose a straw poll who would like to pursue the option of potentially an approval with conditions. Please raise your hand either online or in the room. And ML, it's got her hand up. Claudius got her hand up. I don't see Mark's hand. I see Mason. So that's three of us, which is not a majority. Shall we pull the other option just for clarity?

[85:00] Who thinks that Mark is not… I was looking at Mark on the, yeah. So just for clarity, who here would prefer to pursue a motion for denial? I want to take a second and just say I, based on what I've heard. I would move to deny rather than condition because the um the degree of conditioning required to satisfy the criteria that that that especially laura and Kurt have laid out i think goes beyond the scope of what I consider to be Healthy conditions. We're really into redesign. So, and my only for denial.

[86:01] Is to allow the applicant to either go to council or redesigned. My vote for denial would be that failure to meet the PDM criteria. And not any of the other criteria, but I could vote for denial and I would vote for denial rather than conditioning Based on the TDM. And parking criteria and not any of the other criteria. So I just want to be clear about what my thought is there. Thank you, Mark. So now, Christy, I have a question for you. We don't have a majority for either of those motions. We don't have a majority right now for approval with conditions and we don't have a majority for denial. So it's a three, three. So what would prevail in that case? Not exactly. Okay. So under your… rules. They have some interesting provisions.

[87:01] So any item requiring a vote of the planning board is denied if they don't get an affirmative vote of four. Right. The rules of the planning board allow if it's a three three tie for the applicant to request a rehearing. That request has to be made within seven days of the hearing. So it would be a rehearing with basically George providing the swing vote. Potentially. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Brad has come forward and let me let Brad answer and then Mason has a question. And just for clarification, because I missed the first part of that. Christy, you weren't speaking to the straw poll, I assume. That was just too… No, that would be any final vote. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Yes. So that would be… there is a final vote that is 3-3. Mason. Sorry, I was under the impression that what we were voting on was mutually exclusive. I was voting on hearing the conditions, not against… denying. Okay.

[88:02] So you'd like to work on conditions. That's what my vote was for but If that vote's done and it failed because it didn't get majority, then… Well, we haven't taken a formal vote. We just did a straw poll. Sorry. Yeah, okay. Well, I guess at this point it comes down to somebody making a motion. So Kurt? I would move to deny the application And I don't have… Hold the stuff up, I'm afraid. I have a question real quick here. As we craft. I'm sorry, Kurt. While you're looking up the number, Mark has a question. In our one experience. With denial. Staff in my one experience with that staff requested a continuation so that they could formally draw a… an extensive set of criteria based on which we denied.

[89:08] The project. And I'm curious if board members feel ready and prepared to list the criteria and cite the criteria for their denial or if staff would advise against this and have them draft a denial motion. That we would then subsequently adopt. So that's a great question, Mark. Thanks very much for that. Staff's preference is to continue to February 18th and come back with denial findings for the border review. And if I can piggyback on that, because it seems like the board's narrowing towards a vote and decision. I would just encourage, you know, for logistical reasons to ask the applicant if they have any other information to share about the mechanics of that. Obviously, it's your

[90:04] Purview to do so but uh that Probably is useful just for everybody's… managing of the case. Suggestion accepted. Thank you, Brad. Does the applicant have any additional information they wish to share with us before we think about continuing to a second Another hearing at which there may be denial findings presented. Sure. Mark Painter from Holland & Heart on behalf of the applicant. I think… One thing, listening to what Mark was saying. Mark with a K, His concern was about the TDM, and I think we would be willing to address the issues he has with respect to the TDM to make concessions into the TDM. To meet whatever needs he's seeing. And I'm not sure we understand exactly what his concern is under the TDM. But we're certainly willing to do that too. If that helps get you to the point of providing conditions.

[91:06] Thank you. So I hear that. Suggestion. Did you have more to say? Obviously a little disappointing. You know, we… The format doesn't lend itself to a dialogue at this point, partly given the split sessions from last week and now. For a lot of the dialogue that I was hearing you know we we We've already got some ideas on how we would resolve it. The ring rolled around the campus, as an example, came up, you know. Very often we're caught between a rock and a hard place. You know, the fire trucks need to make a loop. And so that's part of what drove the loop road, et cetera, et cetera. So for every one of them, there's a good reason. But if we could find another way to get to, you know, where you want to take the project. There's probably ways to get there. In general, we always roll up our sleeves and try and figure out how to get there.

[92:00] But at a very fundamental level. If the board's vision you know, of the project is a very different one. We know it's not a mall. We know it's not a shopping center. We know it's not a mixed use development. And there are, you know, like the laws of gravity, there are some sort of fundamental elements to a research facility. And so… if it's very basic sort of existential question about what the site, you know. Should be. That's a tough one. But if it's about facade and breaking down the massing or roofline vision. Those are all sort of within the realm of things we could accomplish, you know, through You know, additional tweaks to the design You know, the comment about the cafe is a very good one, you know, and we maybe In hindsight mistakenly took a holistic sort of campus-wide view, even though we don't own the whole campus. And we said, you know, rather than sprinkling a bunch of little many things. Why don't we consolidate you know the the this economies of small scale versus if we bring it all together at scale Maybe it's a better service to the community.

[93:12] In hindsight, maybe that was a wrong move. We'd take our It's literally one door down. You know, we might have thought about taking the 15,000 square feet, which is a much more substantial percentage. And sprinkled it through all the developments we might ever do over the next decade. So my point there is this format doesn't lend itself to dialogue. It is what it is. For a lot of the items that I heard, many of them. There are ways to resolve and, you know. Get to a happy place. Thank you. And our planning director, Brad. Just one more. So the applicants are requesting if they could just have a five or 10 minute break to talk among themselves about just any final logistical things they'd want to share with you if you'd consider that request.

[94:08] I think that's very reasonable, folks. 10-minute break. Okay. We're going to take a 10 minute break. So we'll come back at 7.45.

[107:28] Mark, while we're waiting for the applicant, I want to know where you are. I am at a hot springs cabin between Buena Vista and Salida. Oh, I was just there. Wow. That's not Juanita. Are you at Mount Princeton? Because I was just there. Done. No, I'm actually about a quarter mile to the west There's a couple little cabins just up the road And they're just private little cabins and each cabin has its own little hot spring. Yeah. Yeah, the Chuck Hill or Chuck Cliffs.

[108:09] Delightful. Chalk cliffs, yeah. It's called intero hot springs Yeah. Thank you. I'm really enjoying my time here. Okay, next planning board meeting is going to be held there. Each person gets their own hot spring. So it's like a couple. I'm in. That is a great place, Mark. Lucky you. Hey, while we're waiting. I have a request. Logged onto YouTube and I watched a little bit of our last meeting, which we all went home, right? We all went home and we did a virtual meeting. Please, next time My microphone is buzzing. Stop me from talking and have me correct it. I found my comments and testimony to be so annoying because my microphone was buzzing.

[109:01] So don't let me do that again. I didn't hear it. Did anybody else hear it? I didn't hear it either. Oh, it must have been something in the Zoom. Oh, okay. I guess in the recording on youtube I was like, why did not, why did someone not tell me Okay. All right. Okay. Oh, I totally would have stopped you, Mark. We would have had your back. I mean, I found your comments annoying, but it had nothing to do with the buzzing. Okay. Can we go get the applicant? Okay, thank you.

[110:34] Okay, we're going to reconvene here. We have Mark online? Do we have ML? We have ML, I see ML. Great. Okay. And the applicant is back. So thank you. There we go. Mark Painter again with Holland and Heart on behalf of Biomed, the applicant. Yeah, this is a tough one. So what we were going to propose and And we've talked to staff and the city attorney about At this point, we'd ask for a 90-day continuance.

[111:13] So that we can look at what we can bring back in that time there's a thought that maybe we can address these things faster and we would let you know. But 90 days will go quickly. If it appears that based on the back and forth with staff. We might need more time than that in order to make an adjusted presentation to you we would we would ask. We would just come through staff to see if we could get an additional continuance. And you would prefer that to a denial. Yes. Okay. What does staff think? Thank you very much, Mr. Painter. I think it would be nearly impossible to turn around the changes plus write another memo and prep for another public hearing in 90 days. But as long as they know that, and I said that on record, we can always ask for another continuance.

[112:04] But I do think it's impossible for us to return in 90 days. And Steph, you're okay with the idea of just um continuing to continue the project as needed for them to come back with a new design instead of having a denial and a new application. Well, it's a process option. So yeah. It's an option that you're okay with. So, you know, I mean, basically it's Technically, it's considered all one meeting, right? Mm-hmm. And so they can present a new design in as part of the same meeting. So, yeah, so we would ask at the time that they come back if it is a new design that we have the ability to have Staff presentation, applicant presentation, as well as public comment on any new design. So it would essentially be a redesign and a new hearing, but done as a continuation rather than having a denial on the record. Correct. Yes. And under your code, a denial would prevent them from reapplying for the next year.

[113:02] Oh, interesting. Okay. I did not know that. Okay. I think that's why sometimes there's a withdrawal or I In certain cases, there's been a withdrawal, but it sounds like this. And to be clear, 90 days out would be May 6th. So that's the date certain and if certain we're not able to resolve the issues in that time, then we'd have to come back and probably ask for another 90 days. Okay, and then I have a question. Actually, Claudia. I just wanted to clarify if we do this 90-day continuance and they come back with something new, we can do that despite having closed our public hearing. We can reopen that in some way. We would reopen the book. Thank you. Would that be in the meeting notes so that the applicant gets a very clear list of here are all the code sections where you would need to fix and meet the code?

[114:01] We record all these hearings. So I think probably the best way for the applicant to do is go back and listen to the tape. But we will be preparing minutes of your meeting as well. Okay. And I'm not sure they'll be as detailed as your comments, so… Okay. So let me ask the applicant. Will that give you enough information? You're the ones who are potentially going to go away and try to redesign to meet the criteria that we have outlined. Do you feel that you have enough information about what we are saying or the ways in which the project does not meet the criteria? In all of this discussion, did the door to conditions close because we i think we could also work through a lot of conditions. Based on like the things we were hearing. Yeah, we did not take a vote on that. And my general sense is, so I asked when we were away on break and Mark and ML, you were not part of this, but let's get this on the record.

[115:00] Are there any board members who are prepared to offer a motion with conditions for the applicant at this time. I don't see anybody in the room. Mark has his hand up. Ml shaking her head no. Mark's shaking his head no. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I don't think any of us are prepared to offer you a motion of acceptance with conditions. There's just a lot. Got it. Got it. Okay, so it sounds to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, so I'm looking to my fellow board members here. It sounds to me like we are moving towards accepting the applicant's request for a continuance for 90 days With the understanding that it will very likely result in an additional continuance if they're not able to turn around a new design in that time and that At the time, if a significantly new design is brought back to us. There would be basically an additional hearing with a staff presentation and applicant presentation and a new public comment period. I think that's where we're heading. I think the applicant has requested to say another couple words.

[116:02] Mark Painter again. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think based on Charles's point that it would be impossible to do it in 90 days. I think we'll just… And since you're not willing to do the conditions at this point. We would just let you vote for the denial if that's what you want to do. Okay, with the understanding that you could not reapply for a year if we do a denial. That's… Yes, if it stops here, that would be the case. Right. Okay. Is that your preference then? Is that we just go ahead? Yes, that's the preference. Okay. Okay, well, I'm going to look to my fellow board members again. And I just want to double check and make sure The applicant is saying that they would prefer us just to move to a denial unless we are prepared to offer a motion with conditions that can get majority support. Does anyone want to keep trying for emotion with conditions? Mark, you have your hand up.

[117:03] Yes. I would caution against extensive conditioning. And I would… request. Would that would… I would make a motion to approve with a condition focused on reduction in parking and um not fundamentally changing the design, but a reduction in parking an enlargement. Of green space, especially towards the west, et cetera. I don't think that would go anywhere with the board at this moment and maybe a straw poll on that. Would be appropriate. Well, as a board member, it's your right to go ahead and make the motion if you'd like, or if people want to do a straw poll, we can do that too.

[118:02] Yeah, no, actually, I think I i with the extent of the concerns, I would say we should not we should not try to spend the next three or four hours writing and approving conditions. Based on the depth of the concerns other board members have. Kurt. So I just have one more question for staff. I think that when we were moving towards the denial before. I think you were indicating that you would still want to continue the hearing in order to draw up findings. Correct. Yeah. And we would come back on February 18th with those findings. Would with the Okay. So we don't… we don't actually vote then on the denial. No, we would vote on continuing the hearing to February 18th for staff to drop denial conditions. That would be the motion, I think.

[119:09] Yeah. Mark has a hand up again. Wood tonight. Let's just play out this scenario. We vote to continue the hearing. Staff drafts the denial conditions. At the next at the continuation of this hearing. If the applicant decided that they wanted a continuance rather than a denial. Would that still be allowed at the next opportunity of the February meeting. I think that's a question for legal. Hello. So… You all may continue a hearing.

[120:01] If emotion is made and passed before the passage or denial of an agenda item. So anytime before it's passed or denied. Okay. You can continue the hearing. So that seems to me like a very reasonable thing to do is to go ahead and This is my opinion. I'm not trying to overrule the rest of the board. To continue the meeting until February 18th while staff have a chance to draw up the conditions of denial. And then the applicant can actually look at that list of the conditions of denial And then on February 18th, if they decide that they would like to ask us to keep continuing the project rather than doing a denial, we can consider that on February 18th. So it's not a done deal that we will do a denial on February 18th. If we continue until February 18th. Does that make sense to everybody? Mark's giving the thumbs up. Mls considering? Now she's smiling. Okay. Oh, ML, you're on mute. Oh, I thought I unmuted. Am I not unmuted?

[121:02] There you are. We hear you. Yep, we got you. Go ahead. So, um. Will we have an opportunity to just, I've just got three um I just got three criteria that I want to make sure are referenced. Will there be an opportunity for us to say something about We're continuing while the staff assembles the assembly The denial criteria? I think if you want to make any last comments before we make that motion, I personally, I know that I read into the record all of the site review criteria code sections that I wanted to reference. And ML, I feel like you did a good job of that too. But if there are other code sections you want to make sure that we get in the record, now's a good time. Why don't you go ahead? Okay, well, I just wanted to, I guess, be abundantly clear that you know i i really have no problem with the basic building is probably one of the best pieces of architecture that has come in front of us. However, it does belong in a sub community and that

[122:11] That is the problem. And the criteria that are outstanding in my mind have to do with the East Boulder sub-community plan The parking, it should be consolidated. The D2 about the public environment and the connections and streetscape And D5, preserving the views. So those are the three main criteria. That in my mind come to bear on the project. And they all have to do with how the building fits It's context. Like I say, I have no problems at all with the building itself. It's a good building. But anyway. Just for clarity, that's where I'm standing.

[123:03] Thank you, ML. Brad, yes. Yeah, actually just a question for the team here to make sure I understand correctly. It sounds like what's being talked about is a vote of continuance tonight And then the actual vote for denial plus the findings would be at the continued date. And I guess the reason for my question is I just was a little unclear on whether they would first deny if that's their inclination. And then the findings are simply to reinforce that decision. Okay. So we're double checking on that. Okay, thank you. We want to make sure we do it the right way. Preference just for everybody's. Recognition. Or if we have discretion, then I certainly defer to Hal. The team wants to go.

[124:01] Yeah, so what you all would be doing today is a vote to deny pending staff's findings of fact that we will bring to you on the 18th. Oh, so the motion today would actually be a denial pending the findings of fact. That's been practiced in the past, yes. Invest in the practice in the past okay And then what we would be doing on the 18th is just formalizing the reasons why. Correct. So tonight would be the actual denial vote. Yeah, and agreeing with what staff brings up as far as the findings. So I just want to triple check with the applicant that that is your preference, that we go ahead and do a denial tonight. This tough one. We don't do this very often. No. And I'm being the lawyer here and I'm sorry I'm, you know, it's quasi-judicial and we've got all those things we've got to deal with. If I might just ask a question. Are we saying that because that's the practice or are we saying that because that's specifically required under the code? I haven't looked at the code for that purpose either.

[125:04] So the board does have to make written findings, so I believe that's usually why we come back. To confirm those findings, but Give me a second. Because we would not have a problem with you saying we intend to deny, but we're not going to have the vote until we see the findings that you've presented, which is when you really do finalize because it's not a final denial. I think that's a great question because I think the So I've been on the board for almost three years. The one other denial that we did, I think. The attorney who was Hella Panawig asked us to not make the denial on that night. And then come back at a subsequent meeting. To the actual denial. That's usually what I prefer, but I don't want to like go off total process here. What I would prefer is that you all make the denial with the findings in front of you I think that makes for a cleaner record.

[126:01] But… we can do it either way. From the applicant standpoint, we don't have a problem with that. Okay, thank you. Mason. Mark, how's hand up first. Oh, I'm sorry. I'll go to Mark and then Mason. I would propose that I make a motion That's very simple to continue this meeting till the 18th. And allow staff time to draft a denial a set of denial motions. Yeah. I am not, I would definitely not vote to deny something without being able to read a set of fully referenced denial conditions i would I would not vote for that at all. So I would motion. And I'm ready to make it to continue this hearing till 18th yeah I think… But let's let Mason comment and then… Let's let Macy make a comment. Mark, I'm with you. Spot on. My other question was, if that's the case.

[127:06] With the continuance, does the applicant have the opportunity to come to that meeting and say they would like a continuation. That is a possibility in our in our Procedures, yes. Okay. Anytime before a vote on an approval or a denial allows them the chance to continue. I'll speak for myself and say that's my preference as well. A, to have the findings in front of me before making a decision. And I also want to recognize the good faith that the applicant and the hard work of the applicant and the property rights of the applicant This is hard. Like I said, I think in the three years that I've been on the board, we've only denied one other project and only when it seems very clear to us that it doesn't meet the criteria. Which is not to say that we don't like the project in other ways or it's, you know, as you know, it is completely a criteria-based decision. That's it. So I think… respecting the applicant's ability to say whether they would prefer a denial or if they would prefer to be able to work on the project and bring it back under the same site review.

[128:09] I personally am completely open to that. I think I'm hearing an openness to that on the board as well. I think a lot of us have a lot of mixed feelings about this project, but also some clear opinions about the site review criteria. So with that in mind, one last word from the applicants. I've been waiting to say this. And this is me being the lawyer, but because it's quasi-judicial. I want to make sure it's on the record that the decision that we made not to seek a continuance. Is not an agreement by us. That the project doesn't currently meet the criteria. We still believe we are in agreement with staff's memo that the project does meet the criteria. And the only reason we're saying We're not going to ask for a continuance to go out and redesign the project is because of the timing As expressed by staff. Would make it so long anyway.

[129:02] We might as well look at the other option and let you deny and then look at what our options are based on the denial at that point. So I just want to make sure that's on the record, that we're not saying the project should be essentially withdrawn through denial. Very lawyerly of you. Noted. Thank you. Okay. With that in mind, Mark, you were prepared to make a motion. Please go ahead. Yes. I'm moved. Oh shoot, do I need to state the agenda item? In full. Can I fill in the number for him as he's speaking? Yes, Laura can fill that in for you as you're speaking, Mark. Okay, I move to move. Uh this Case number LUR 2024-00036. Thank you. To… February 18th. For the purpose of…

[130:00] For the purpose of allowing staff to draft Deny a denial motion. Denial findings. Denial findings. Thank you for that correction. And I second the motion. Thank you. Any further discussion? Then let's go ahead and take a vote. We'll start with ML. Claudia. Yes, Mason. Yes. Kurt? Yes. Mark? And I'm a yes. So six, zero, motion passes. Yes. Thank you, everyone. I think that concludes this item. Thank you to staff. Thank you to the applicant. Thank you to the public comment. Thank you to board members. This was a tough one and I appreciate everybody working through the complexities here. And we look forward to seeing you on the 18th. Thank you.

[131:00] Okay, moving on on our agenda. Next item is matters from the Planning Board, Planning Director, and City Attorney. Brad. Well, good evening again, planning board members. I'm going to defer to Charles and Christy for any items they've got first. Nothing from staff this evening? Nothing from the attorney's office. Well, there you go. I do have a few things. First of all, again, thank you for your time and energy. We're off and starting into the new year, of course. Recognize the time it takes to prepare and be present for the hearing. So thank you again for that. We are also looking forward to seeing you all tomorrow night. I believe all of you have indicated you'll be attending. We anticipate it being a great opportunity for you to meet your colleagues at the county as well as spend time with city council. And the county commissioners as well, because you will be working together as the comprehensive plan kind of marches its way through this next year.

[132:07] Your actual interactions towards a combined plan or a plan that you all review will be about a year from now, actually a year and a couple months. But we're hopeful that this is a good opportunity to share ideas. Get to know your colleagues in similar roles. And also to provide you the baseline information. Hopefully you've had an opportunity to look at the story maps that have been created as part of the existing conditions. Work that precedes any comprehensive plan, but is phase one as we defined it for you earlier. We are well into, we're starting into phase two now, and this is really our opportunity to share that. But also start to get to the questions of what areas of focus will be uh… focus areas, I guess, of the comprehensive plan as well as kind of the key themes.

[133:04] Looking forward to that and happy to answer any questions you might have about tomorrow. And a reminder that it's at CU. Thanks, Brad. Any questions about the BBCP? It's at the UMC, right? Correct. 240 or 238. That sounds close, yeah. We'll make sure you get there. What is it? 240, yes. Well, I'm glad to hear that most or all of us can be there. Mark, I think maybe, are you going to be out of town or are you going to be able to make it tomorrow night? No, I actually gave up a night, one more night here so that I could attend tomorrow night. Wow, that's dedication. Thank you. Well, we will have the next four body meeting at a spa resort. I mean, we're going to keep that. We're going to hold you to that, Brad. Okay. Yeah, it's going to be an amazing opportunity. Our first four body meeting about the BVCP.

[134:02] Looking forward to seeing you all there. Any other questions about that one? Oh, I have a question for staff on another topic. Kurt, maybe it looks like you have something too. Okay, I wanted to ask about the East Boulder Sud Community Plan. I've never heard of that. I'm sorry. What's that? So that's going back to council February 20th. So that's like into Thursdays or something, a couple of Thursdays from now. Correct. And that was a continuance from the December 10th, I want to say hearing. Okay, because they have not yet adopted the form-based code and the updates to the East Boulder sub-community. Correct, yeah. Okay, so I just wanted to remind my colleagues about that. February 20th, if that is something that you're interested in following or potentially participating in the public comment section. Anything else for staff? Kurt? Well, I just wanted to come back to my point of deep confusion earlier in the night. I know That doesn't narrow it down very much. I have a lot of points of deep confusion.

[135:08] But I was specifically talking about specifically the citation of consistency with the Boulder Valley Comp Plan And the land use map in the site review criterias, you know, and the fact that as I understand it. Now that I think about it, I think maybe you, Brad. Made some reference to this when I was talking about this during concept review and it didn't get through my skull, but I think it has now But the fact that that is limited It excludes, the scope excludes issues of use when the use isn't allowed Is allowed within the zoning is not something that to me is clear in the code. And it would just be something good to note for future updates to the site review criteria Or could clean up or something to try to clarify that I mean, that certainly was a very fundamental misunderstanding on my part.

[136:14] And so just a point of concern. Sure. We'll have some discussion as staff about that. I think we would point to the code citation that Charles read as being that effort at defining that. I think we'll have to put our heads together about whether there is a scenario of We're finding code to make that clear really a lot of that falls back on case law and things like that. So we'll put our heads together to see if there's ways we can help convey that. Either in some training or in some training I don't want to commit the attorney's office, but we could maybe do some analysis or something. We'll put, you know, point… point appreciated for sure. And it is a nuance. And we definitely want to give the board clarity in what your role is and what your scope is.

[137:08] And yet some things are in a margin that we'll never be able to define for you because they only get proven up when… they get litigated, right? You know, our goal is to just advise you of where we think those lines are in any particular instance. But I appreciate the point. And maybe we can commit. Kind of putting our heads together. Thank you, and I appreciate the response. True. Any other matters from staff? Nope. Thank you. Matters from board members. Nope. Okay. Do we need to do any kind of debrief for calendar check? We are off next week. All right, everybody, enjoy the break. Any objection to, oh, Mark? Are you saying goodbye?

[138:02] That was an early goodbye. I'm anxious to go as I was waving goodbye. Okay. I thought you were raising your hand, but you were waving. Okay. Seeing no objection. No. To adjourning, we will go ahead and adjourn this meeting. Thank you all. All right.Good night.