May 6, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Okay, I'm going to… call the May 6th, 2025 meeting of the City of Boulder's planning board. To order. We have all seven planning board members present either here or online virtually. And… We have… The second order of business after calling the meeting to order is public participation. And this is a chance for a chance anyone to speak on any subject other than our two public hearing items which are on the agenda. So if you're here to speak on something other than our two public Hearing items, we're going to have Vivian, walk us through our… rules of procedure and decorum for public comment. And then we'll proceed with public comment. Vivian, take it away. Perfect. Yeah. Good evening, everybody. Thanks, Thomas, for pulling up the slides. So I'll just read through the rules of decorum for the meeting.

[1:02] And just share that the city has engaged with community members in the past to co-create this vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff. And board members as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. And we have a lot more information about this vision on our website. Next slide, please. And I'll read some examples of rules of decorum that are in the Boulder Revised Code. And other guidelines that support this vision. And these will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited And we ask that participants in the open comment or later public hearing identify themselves using first and last name.

[2:06] Next slide, please. And if you're joining us through your telephone, doesn't look like we do, but you can dial star nine to raise your virtual hand. If you're online, you can look for the hand icon at the bottom of the screen. When we call for public participation and we'll know that you would like to speak. And you can also find the hand by going, next slide to the reactions button and you'll get some of these icons that pop up and you can just choose the hand So those are the rules and those are the rules If it's okay, Chair, we can move to the actual open comment, Thomas said there was somebody signed up in the room. We could start with that. Thank you, Vivian. Yes, we do have one person registered to speak in the room. Kim, you can go ahead and approach the podium and you'll have three minutes to speak.

[3:00] There is a small rectangular button on the microphone near the base of it. Yeah, yeah, that'll… turn it red and then it'll be live. Yeah, there you go. I'll try not to be too loud. I have a tendency to have a little bit of a loud voice. I'm Kim Lord. I'm from the law firm of Packard Deerking here in town. And I represent Tom and Holly Bender, who are the applicants on a matter that is on planning boards call-up consideration agenda tonight. So it's not a public hearing matter. I just wanted to let you know that I'm here, the vendors are here. They're neighbors from the HOA. A number of them are also here. And we're here to ask you not to call this matter up. We just want to get our plot signed and recorded. It's been approved by staff. Meets all the city criteria. And so we would like to get this final step done and It's a lot line elimination.

[4:02] This planning board already approved unanimously a site review amendment to combine two existing lots. Over a year ago and this current matter that's before or on the call up agenda is simply the plat that is going to get rid of the lot line between those two lots. So it's the final process. In a matter that had previously been approved. There are some materials in your packet in addition to the staff recommendation or staff approval memo. There is one neighbor who has complained about this, complained about the HOA. I did send in a letter in response to that. You have that in your packet. All I would say on this is that he's incorrect. The criteria are met. The city has a title commitment establishing ownership And effectively what he's complained about has nothing to do with the criteria that staff reviewed and what has already been approved and is ready to be recorded as a final plat.

[5:10] I just wanted to let you know that we're here. If there are any questions during your call up consideration, I'm here. Again, my clients are here and then some of the other neighbors. This is a very small six property subdivision. Here in Boulder. So thank you so much for your time and hopefully we'll be recording our final plat shortly. Thank you. Do I hit the thumbnail? Great. Thank you. Thank you for sticking under the three minutes. Is there anybody else in the room, Thomas? We don't have anybody else registered in the room, so we can go ahead and move to online participants. Thank you. Okay, great. I ask that everybody online who would like to speak for open comment raise their virtual hand. We have one person up. And that you You can right click on your name to include your first and last name. And if you're not sure how to do that, you can also send me your full name through the Q&A function and I can change it for you.

[6:07] We'll start with Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead, Lynn. You have three minutes. Call up 1576 Hawthorne. If it's not a problem. Then you'll approve it. So great. This reminds me of something else I should have talked about tonight, which is misinformation campaigns, which this lawyer, she's watching out for her client. But the other side has their side too. Just like CU South has. On this issue of The price for the stormwater and flood from the CU South Development And the lawsuit that's going for that as a Tabor item that has to come before the voters rather than fees automatically stuck into our bill for $66 million, which I sure can't afford with my $91 water bill every month.

[7:09] And… The issue here is the issue is good, fair process and good information. And… The two ballot measures that passed were misinformation campaigns. And I sure support this randy Weiner is is the lawyer for that lawsuit. And I sure support. We need to know what is actually going on there. And it's pretty clear that this water below the detention is not subject to fees it's subject to a vote of the people.

[8:00] And see you south. Is the ultimate disaster of Boulder. Add to that Sundance. Add to that the East Boulder sub-community Development, which you just approved I know that you were opposed to it. The city didn't listen to you this time, did they? 1855 or 44, whatever it was, Flatirons Court for the 207 000 foot square foot building that does not fit into this East Boulder plan. With, you know. Clearly, you know, have a health sciences center or whatever it is, I guess it's quantum computing. But all we need is more development after the other health sciences. Outfit that's going in. And this is just a disaster between propellios between Boulder Junction, you know, and everywhere i go How come I don't see any vitality in these areas at the corner at Boulder Junction?

[9:04] There's no there's no businesses in this lower floor. At Google across the street from Google, it's empty. It's been empty for years. It'll be decades. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you for being here tonight. Anybody else from the public who would like to speak? During open comment, again, this is not related to the public hearings where you would have an opportunity later on in the meeting. Okay, looks like nobody else has raised their hand. Back over to you, Chair. Okay, thank you, Vivian. Thank you, members of the public for Your participation. We move on to item three, approval of minutes. We have no minutes to approve at the moment. And so we're on to agenda item four. Discussion of dispositions and planning board call-ups we have a possible call-up item.

[10:03] It is a minor subdivision review to combine two lots and dedicate a ditch easement on the 9,427 square foot property at 1576 Hawthorne Avenue. The approval is subject to call up on or before May 6, 2025. Does any board member have questions, comments? Want desire to call this up, want to discuss it. Okay, ML, George, nope. Okay. All right, this item is not called up and we are moving on to our public hearing items. Our first public hearing item. Public hearing item 5A. A concept plan review and comment request for proposed multifamily project consisting of approximately 203 units and 4,000 square feet of amenity space across seven three and four story buildings reviewed under case number LUR 2025 00011.

[11:21] So the way this is… going to go is staff will give us a presentation We will ask clarifying questions of staff. The applicant will follow with their presentation, clarifying questions of the applicant. And then… onto our public hearing. And finally, on to comments from the board directed to the applicant. So with that, we're going to turn it over to staff and Shannon, you're up. All right. Good evening, planning board. Can everyone hear me okay?

[12:01] Awesome. Okay, so good evening. My name is Shannon Moeller and I'm with the City of Boulder Planning Department and I'll be taking you through the staff presentation for the 5600 airport concept plan tonight. So I'll touch briefly on the purpose of a concept plan, the public notification. I'm sorry. I just wanted to, we're trying to be a little more formal at the beginning of these public hearings. And I need to ask, does any board member have any conflict of interest they would like to report or discuss any ex parte communications they would like to report or discuss. I meant to do that just a second ago, but anyway, thank you. Sorry to interrupt you. That's great. So I'll touch briefly on the purpose of the concept plan, the public notification, the context, background of the project. And some key issues for discussion. So the purpose of a concept plan review and comment is to look at the general development plan for the site and identify some key issues in advance of a more detailed site review submittal

[13:12] So the applicant will receive comments from the board, staff, and the public And no formal action in terms of an approval or a denial will take place tonight. In terms of the public notification, the site was posted and notice provided to property owners within 600 feet. No public comments were received on this item. So moving to the specific location, the property consists of three parcels. It's an 8.35 acre site. The northern parcel at 5600 airport is developed with two existing buildings. This area was annexed back in 1990. The southern two parcels addressed at Zero Airport and Zero Belmont were annexed recently in 2020.

[14:07] And these parcels are currently vacant. Here you can see some of the surrounding properties to the north and west, properties in the Lake Center Business Park have been developed in a suburban business park style. Including some other industrial buildings to the north, the AirCare Colorado facility to the northwest, and the AGC Biologics facility to the west. And the boulder left hand and North Boulder farmers ditches and the paved multi-use path run along the south and east sides of this property. Here you can see there are some substantial grade changes on this property from the high point in the northwest corner down to the low points at the southeast edge. And there are some expansive views, including to the foothills and Balmont Butte from the developable portion of the site.

[15:01] In terms of transportation connections, this property does have direct access to the existing multi-use path along the ditches. This map does show that there are some proposed connections that have not yet been constructed. Including in the green dashed lines, this includes a multi-use path connection down to the San Lizarro Mobile Home Park to the south. In terms of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, this property is designated light industrial. So light industrial areas are described as concentrated in industrial parks and consisting of primarily research and development, light manufacturing, assembly, and other employment uses. And were residential and other complementary uses will be encouraged in appropriate locations. And that's to be consistent with BVCP policy 2.21. Here you can see that the northern parcel at 5600 Airport is located within the East Boulder sub-community plan.

[16:04] That was adopted in October 2022. It's also a designated light industrial in that sub-community plan and it was not designated as an area of change where new walkable neighborhoods were specifically identified. Similarly, as part of the use table and use standards project, Module 2 that focused on uses in industrial areas, the code was recently updated in 2023. In regards to regulations for residential uses in the industrial zones. So residential uses have been permitted in the IG and IM zones since 2004 through approval of a use review. As part of the use tables and use standards project, Council supported maintaining existing and expanding the number of industrial zone properties in the city that would be eligible to provide residential uses via a use review. This property is eligible via the last criteria there where it does have one six contiguity.

[17:07] To open space. So it is eligible to request a use review to provide residential uses. Here you can see the zoning on the property. It is split zoned with the northern parcel at 5600 airport zoned industrial manufacturing. And the southern parcels zoned industrial general On this map, you can also see the area identified as public that was dedicated to the city as open space as part of the 2020 annexation of the southern parcels. So again, a use review is required for residential uses in both the IM and the IG zones. And it's reviewed to see if the proposed location and the use meets the specific use standards in the code. So before moving to tonight's proposal, I'll touch briefly on what was approved in the past.

[18:01] So here you can see the prior site review that was approved in 2020 along with the annexation of the southern parcels. The overall proposal again included the annexation of those parcels as well as a site review that cover the whole property. It improved construction of an 111,000 square foot research office and laboratory building. It was proposed to be three stories and 45 feet in height. And the two existing buildings at 5600 Airport were proposed to remain. Since the site review approval has not been constructed, the approval has since expired. As part of that annexation to address the affordable housing needs that would be generated by the new building. The annexation agreement specified payment of additional affordable housing capital facility impact fees. So per that existing agreement for the southern parcels, that annexation agreement would need to be amended.

[19:03] Because the agreement is specific to the non-residential use that was proposed and the current proposal is for a residential use. And that agreement also included the dedication of the open space areas that I mentioned earlier on the previous slide. So moving to tonight's proposal for this concept plan This plan involves the removal of those two northern buildings and would consist of 203 attached dwelling units And 4,000 square feet of amenity space. This would be across seven three and four story buildings. The unit mix includes a mix of studios, one, two, and three bedroom units. And the proposal includes a central open space with a plaza and outdoor pool. And connections down to the multi-use path. Here you can see a couple of the renderings that were in the submittal package.

[20:00] Buildings up to three stories in height and 45 feet are permitted in this location. Buildings exceeding these requirements would need to go through a height modification request. And they would be subject to the community benefit requirements and additional site review criteria for buildings exceeding the permitted height. In terms of the required processes, again, the existing annexation agreement signed in 2020 for the southern parcels would need to be amended to update the terms of the agreement for the change from a non-residential use to a residential use. A site review would be required and it may include a height modification request for some buildings. And an approximate 15% parking reduction request. Any proposal with a height modification request would be decided by the planning board at a public hearing. And a use review would concurrently be reviewed for the proposed residential uses in industrial.

[21:00] And following those items, a preliminary and final plat and technical documents would be reviewed. So moving to key issues for discussion, staff identified two key issues for the board's discussion tonight. The first is if the proposed concept plan is compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. So the proposal is a proposal wholly residential proposal located within the light industrial land use designation where residential and other complementary uses will be encouraged in appropriate locations and where the land use designation refers to BVCP policy 2.21. Policy 2.21 here on this slide describes five guiding principles for industrial areas that reinforce the primary role of these locations. For research in light manufacturing with housing infill as a subordinate use that doesn't displace the opportunity for industrial.

[22:01] Housing is encouraged in appropriate locations such as near transit, along open space and trail connections. And your other residential uses and retail services, and the principles describe the importance of offering a mix of uses to serve the daily needs of employees and residents. Staff found that the proposal for the full redevelopment of the existing light industrial property and the adjacent vacant area in the project Comprised solely of residential uses is incompatible with this BBCB land use designation intent to maintain light industrial air is primarily for industry and innovation. And that the specific proposal and location didn't meet several of the guiding principles listed here. That are to preserve established businesses, offer a mix of uses and to locate housing adjacent to compatible land uses and near rich transportation amenities. So staff identified the policies at the top of this slide. That the proposal could better address, including primarily policy 2.21 that we just talked about.

[23:04] Policy 2.15. Compatibility of adjacent land uses in relation to the nearby airport overlay to the north. 2.36 physical design for people to ensure that design of the proposal provides a high quality pedestrian realm And 2.41, enhanced design for all projects, which I'll get into a little bit more here in the design In key issue two. So staff did find that the proposal provided for many new housing units, which supports policy 7.11, And it does provide infill development on that vacant southern property, which supports a compact development pattern in policy 2.03. So for key issue two, staff provided a preliminary assessment of the site review criteria In terms of the site plan and architecture. So generally, staff found that this site design could enhance the pedestrian realm and streetscape.

[24:05] The site is uniquely located with very little public street frontage, but it could be designed to provide a more comfortable experience for pedestrians and cyclists. And staff was generally supportive of the parking reduction. But because this site isn't located near transit or near a mix of uses or easy connectivity. A creative transportation demand management plan would be needed. In terms of open space, staff recommended that the open space more clearly address the needs of anticipated residents. Such as families with children and provide circulation routes throughout the property to compensate for a lack of walking opportunities that you'd find in a typical neighborhood. Because the site contains steep slopes, the site review proposal should identify any changes to the natural contours and ensure that accessible connections are provided. And lastly, in terms of the building design, staff would like to see how those building designs respond to the surrounding context, such as the unique topography and the surrounding business park uses.

[25:10] And how they can provide that comfortable pedestrian realm along important building frontages. And because this proposal is anticipated to include a height modification. The specific criteria for buildings over the permitted height limit would need to be met. So in terms of next steps after this concept plan review. It'll go to city council for their call-up consideration And the applicant can then decide to submit development review applications. And then the items that would be submitted would be an annexation agreement amendment, as well as a site review and use review applications. And so that concludes the staff's presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Shannon, for that. Okay, we'll open it up to… questions from the board.

[26:07] Claudia? Thanks, Mark. Thanks for the presentation, Shannon. I have a few technical questions about site design, but I'd actually like to start with a few about zoning and area plans. And maybe come back to the others in a second round if we can do that. So I've been looking at the zoning on this parcel and in particular that When we did that annexation a few years ago, those southern two parcels came in as ig Rather than I am, which seems to be the other zoning all around Airport Boulevard. And I'm wondering why that happened. Yeah, that could be a good question for the applicant. I believe that was the zoning that was proposed at the time. And that staff felt it was consistent with the comp plan. So we supported the proposal.

[27:00] Okay. I may ask that. What I'm interested in here is given that we have split zoning on this site right now. It seems to me like staff's analysis chose to kind of prioritize the I am description and requirements over the IG description and requirements. If I read that correctly. And I'm wondering if you can explain that decision and maybe summarize the key differences between those two zoning districts for what we're doing here. Yeah, I think the the comp plan policy, particularly in 2.21, makes a distinction there to try to preserve the IM industrial manufacturing zoning a bit more for a bit more for those manufacturing type uses. So I think that was one distinction that is specific to the comp plan policies. And so for this particular site, another distinction between the two is also just the fact that that I am zoned property is developed and has existing businesses on the site currently.

[28:08] Okay, thank you. I'm also curious if and when we see this project at site review which portions of the East Boulder sub-community plan will apply to it, especially considering that this is not in one of those areas of change. That are in the East Boulder plan. And then also, does it matter that only one half of the subject site is actually within the boundaries of the East Boulder plan? Well, yeah, so it would apply to the part of the property that is in the plan The plan is primarily, I mean the the land use in the East Boulder sub-community plan And in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan are consistent with each other. They're both light industrial. So they kind of reinforce each other. So I don't know if that specifically answers the question you had.

[29:05] Okay, I'll sit with that for a minute and see if it comes up further. I have one more question about zoning and plans, if I can. So we recently did a concept review of a residential project a bit further West on Airport Boulevard. And I recall that we did have some discussion during that review about whether housing was an appropriate use in this area. But I also recall that the staff analysis at that time was not nearly as critical of the concept of housing as I'm seeing in the analysis that we have in our packet here. At this particular parcel here at 5600 airport you're calling residential development, quote, inconsistent with the BVCP and the area plans. And that was not the case in this other review that we did. Despite similar zoning. And I'm wondering if you can explain the difference in the analysis that we've received here and what makes this site potentially less appropriate for housing than other sites on airport.

[30:05] Yeah, I think that kind of goes back to the policy 2.21 where we're really looking for the proposal and the location to fit with these guiding principles. So in this case, the proposal The first guiding principle is preserving established businesses. In this case, it would be removing two of those existing businesses. The other site location we looked at a few months ago had been vacant for many years and has never been successful in being established for industrial uses. For the second one. And the third criteria. Well, I'll jump to the third one. The third criteria speaks to a mix of uses. And so this particular proposal is solely residential, whereas the other proposal we looked at had a mix of uses. They were trying to provide.

[31:00] The second and third criteria speak more to the specific location of the property. So in this, I think in both cases, there was a concern about connectivity and transportation opportunities. And providing a location for housing that was compatible with the surroundings. So I think this particular location we found that it was less compatible with the adjacent uses being closer to the airport. Closer to that overlay zone where we are hearing concerns about noise and that sort of compatibility question. And then this particular property is even further down at the very end of Airport Boulevard. So in terms of transportation connections. Suffers from some of the same issues as the other property, but sort of even more so because of the distance. I appreciate that. And I will let someone else ask some questions.

[32:00] Ml, you were quick on the draw, so you're up next. Yes, great. Thank you. And thank you for the presentation there, Shannon. I appreciated seeing as was already raised, you know, we just looked at one proposal our concept review a few a few feet over to the west from this. So it was great to see the different perspective from staff this project versus the other. So I have two questions On the… Ordinance 8556 and the third This site meeting the third requirement, having at least one sixth contiguity in this case to an open space Does that contiguity have to be accessible?

[33:03] I mean, what's what what's the purpose of the contiguity we've got the big Great change here. Yeah, that's a good question. I don't believe the code specifies It just talks about having one sixth contiguity residential use zoning or parks and open space so Okay, so it's it's it's not a it's not a point that's made in the option. No, I mean, it just it's just there to determine if it's eligible to request a use review or not. Yeah. Right. Okay, and secondly, secondly In the amendment that would need to happen to the annexation agreement.

[34:01] Is the only thing that would be subject in the proposed in the future amendment changing the use to residential and thus impacting the impacting the impact fee agreement that was made. Is that correct? I mean, the open space conveyance wouldn't change that would still remain Yeah, the open space was already conveyed to the city. I think the primary reason we know the agreement would need to be amended is it specifically says in the agreement that if the use changes. It just needs to be amended. So there could be other tweaks to the agreement if both parties agree to those changes. But like you said, the open space has already been conveyed so that wouldn't change. Okay, great. Those are my questions. Thank you so much. Okay, Laura. Thank you, Shannon, for a very informative presentation as always.

[35:05] Just a few questions. So regarding ML's question about the accessibility of the open space. That bike path already connects to the site, right? Can you point out where it does meet On the existing multi-use path, like how it connects. Yeah, I believe it does go up here And you can access it from this You can't see on my screen, sorry. I see if you can see here. It's like the northeast corner. Yeah. Yep. Right. And… the grades, excuse me. The grades meet there, right? There's no terracing or anything. The bike path does come onto the property. Okay. Second question, again, in reference to a question that was already asked. With the regard to the analysis that said incompatibility, I read that as a 100% residential project could be considered to be incompatible or at least that that is what staff is putting forward.

[36:01] But not that no residential is compatible is that Is that correct reading? Yeah, I think… somewhere amongst all of the words, I think it discussed that there could be a different proposal potentially with more of a transition and a mix of uses that could potentially meet. Meet these policies and criteria. So it's not staff's opinion that residential anywhere on the site is incompatible. You're just saying a 100% residential project you don't see as compatible. Okay, thank you. Then with regard to preserving existing businesses, my understanding in past site reviews that we have done is that We can't require a property owner to maintain specific existing businesses, but we can require them to maintain space for businesses. And we can request, hey, please work with these businesses and see if they can Stay or come back, but we can't this particular business shot over, you must accommodate them.

[37:03] That's my understanding. Okay, okay, thank you. And I did want to inquire about the proximity to the airport. And you pointed out that in the East Boulder sub-community plan, it talks about things like abigration easements and notification to property owners. It doesn't say you can't build residential near the airport. It just says if you do, you need to make sure that people are notified. And that there are the proper aviation easements. Am I understanding that correctly? Yes, that's correct. One of the… recommendations in the East Boulder sub-community plan was to go through a process to update some of those things. So that means that the overlay could expand. There could be additional things put in place related to the airport overlay zone. So there could be, but it wouldn't prohibit residential on this location. Is that? Correct? I believe that's correct. I don't believe there was any proposal to to eliminate the ability to provide residential.

[38:07] Okay, I see Charles also nodding and Laurel, I think. Okay, great. Thank you. Can I interrupt? I just want to clarify something. You were using a word Navigation? Navigation. What does that mean? Does Laurel want to explain that? Yeah, that was new to me too during the airport community process aviation easement. Yeah, it has to do, sorry, apologies. Laurel wit for the records of the city attorney's office It has to do with the direction, and please correct me where I'm wrong if you guys know better, but it has to do with the direction of the planes and kind of what is allowed underneath the direction of those planes. So as you get closer to the airport, there tends to be less residential allowed, for example, and that's because of the planes, how they fly, has to do with noise, it has to do with jet fuel and some other things Is that right? Yeah. As I understand it. Thank you. My word of the day. Yeah, like aviation, aviation. Correct. And my understanding is that it's basically telling a property owner You live near or under a flight path, you cannot sue based on the fact that you live under a flight path.

[39:11] So it's basically acknowledging the legal limitations of legal right to the airspace over your home. Yeah. Yeah. Great. That's my layperson understanding. I could have that wrong But you could Google avocation Easement. I did notice in our code 9-2-14HC Roman numeral 5, it says. There's a standard for noise standards for construction that's near noisy roads and train tracks to, quote, achieve an interior day-night average noise level of no more than 45 decibels. But airport runways are not listed in the same list with highways and train tracks. But I was wondering, is there some standard like that or a similar standard that would apply Because of airport noise.

[40:02] No, there's not. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then last question to staff, and maybe this is not the appropriate venue, but I would be curious to know what is the city considering to reduce the noise and lead pollution from the airport, which affects not just this property. But properties for miles around and it is a heavily residential, both north and south of the airport. And going to be more so with East Boulder. Yeah, I'm not aware of anything off the top of my head that isn't already included in the airport master plan. But Brad, I'm not sure if you have anything to contribute. I don't. Brad Mueller, Planning and Development Services. You know, that has not been identified as a concern at this point so if that raises to that level in a general sense. I guess we would need to know that. Probably get direction from council and others. That's the case. I mean, it's an evolving situation, of course, out there. The airport's been there a while.

[41:05] For certain. But my understanding with the lawsuit that we currently have to clarify our ability to potentially close the airport should we choose to do so. Is that that would be probably 15 years off 2040. So we're going to be living with the airport For probably the next 15 years. And I do think that the noise and pollution generated by the airport are unique. And going to get worse. And I think the city would be well advised to pay attention to what we can do to reduce some of that noise and lead pollution Not just for this development should it be approved, but also Everybody who lives through that airport. Yeah, we'll certainly take that under advisement. This is a classic land use conundrum where the differing neighboring uses kind of come in after an established land use and airports are kind of front and center of those but As Charles alluded to the abigration and easement and some of those are designed for basic life safety and those types of things. I don't think that there's anything in the aviation easement. I'm sorry to… press this point here but press this point it's a good place to do it. I don't think there's anything in the aviation easement that would protect people from the lead pollution that is uniquely coming from the airport because they're still using leaded aviation fuel and we are not able to ban it and we are not able to stop selling it. But there are things that we can do.

[42:19] That we perhaps can discuss another time. But I think from a planning perspective. This entire area is impacted in a uniquely toxic way by that airport. Yeah, and others have brought that up. That hasn't been formalized, as you know, in any mitigation or code, but we recognize that's an ongoing discussion. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. I said we recognize that's an ongoing discussion and it's been raised in the community. Okay, thank you. And while there was talk through the East Boulder sub-community plan of potentially expanding those airport influence zones, I just want to be clear that the property as it stands today is outside of the airport influence zone, so wouldn't require a navigation easement, any of those types of things. Okay. I do think that there are places that are outside the airport influence zone. I don't think the aviation easements are tied to that, but I could be misunderstanding.

[43:09] I had a clarifying question about noise, if I could, Laura. Because the answer that I just heard to noise mitigation standards said that they would not apply to things like airport noise. I was actually looking at the the criteria for the criteria youth review for doing residential and industrial zones and that also discusses noise mitigation. And that passage, I'm looking at 9-3, 9-6-3 capital F. Which does talk about getting that day-night average noise level of no more than 45 decibels in relation to industrial noise. I think it's the standard that Laura was referencing, if I'm not mistaken. Because I thought Laura asked about one in the site review criteria, and I'm finding this in in use review for residential and industrial zones. I was citing a section of the site review criteria that specifically yeah 9214HC Roman numeral

[44:09] And I'm sorry. Claudia, what standard are you referencing? I am looking at 9-6-3. Okay, yeah, that's the use standards. Yeah. And Laura, I don't know if that's relevant to your concern, but I had been looking at noise mitigation as well in this review. Yeah, I was just wondering maybe a better question would have been, is there a standard that this project would have to meet for residential construction related to being located near a noisy use like an airport. Yeah, the standard you were referring to, Claudia, that would apply nine six three yep Those were all of my questions. Thank you.

[45:00] Okay. George Mason. Kurt? Anybody? Kurt's ready to go? I have one more when you get a chance. Okay, we're going to go full round and then we'll come back. Great. Thank you, Shannon, for the presentation. Thanks to my colleagues for I have a couple of follow-ups. One is regards the Boulder Villa comp plan policy 221 that you put up there. That talks about the mix of uses. Staff's interpretation regarding that statement about mixed of uses is that it applies to each individual parcel or each individual project Or does it, can it be interpreted more broadly? It doesn't specifically say that it applies to one particular parcel. So you could, I think you could interpret it more broadly into a general area.

[46:06] Okay, great. Thank you. Next question, you mentioned the possible, well, the multi-use path that is shown as a proposed connection down to the san lazaro mobile home park is it… possible should this project come up for site review, is it possible to require that the portion That is on this property be on this property constructed as part of the site review. As you know as part of the project. Yes, that's what our transportation engineers stated in their comments. That's correct. Okay. And that does cross a ditch. I believe. Mm-hmm. Yes, I believe so. It's something that we could require. Yeah, it's shown on the transportation master plan. So my understanding is then we can require those types of connections.

[47:05] Okay, well, sticking to that connection for just a second and clarifying So… Are we able to, Kurt's question was, can we require them to construct the path extension that's on their property. The ditch is not on their property. So it would not be or the ditch is maybe within the confines, but the ditch has its own set of property rights, I believe. So I guess clarifying that. Would we be able to require the applicant to construct and would they be able to construct over the ditch and actually make the connection into San Lizarro. I'm sorry, I thought this was already required by the annexation agreement that they would construct that whole connection.

[48:04] Did I misread that? The annexation agreement required a connection. I believe it was up here at the north edge of the site. Let me see if I can get my mouse to work. I believe this was the location of the multi-use path connection required in the annexation agreement. It was up. Here. I thought it was both. Maybe I misread that. Maybe I didn't. Maybe I didn't read it all the way. Yeah, I don't know the answer to the question regarding the ditch. My understanding is that our transportation engineer indicated that since it is shown on this plan that then we would require it to be constructed. I actually found the citation in the memo. And I know there's a lot of details here, but on page 28 of our packet. It says pursuant to a certain subparagraph in the BRC and as outlined in the 2019 low stress bike lane network.

[49:05] The applicant will be required to construct a multi-use path connecting the existing multi-use path east of the property to the San Lazaro Mobile Home Park. To provide a low stress connection from the site to Valmont Road. That's at the bottom of page 28 of our memo. It also talks about that the existing annexation agreement requires the construction of the connection to the multi-use path on the east edge of the property. So I think it's both It's the last two paragraphs of that page 28. Oh, sorry, sorry, page 27 in our memo. 27. Okay, thank you for finding that, Laura. I missed that. That's great. And then I have one… Well, no, I'll stick with that. Thanks. Okay, Mason, are you ready? Oh, yeah. Are you ready? Yeah, no, go ahead.

[50:05] Yeah, has SEP received any indication from the applicant about their intentions to meet the affordable housing requirements is it? Primarily just the fees or there's been discussion about actually building on-site. The applicant could probably address that tonight, what they're thinking. Great, I'll save that for them. And then I know there are reducing greenhouse gas emissions requirements for developments of this size, I believe if I understand correctly. Can you just talk about that a little bit so I understand what the actual requirements are and how they plan to meet that? Yeah. The site review criteria I'm thinking you're referring to is the one that talks about buildings greater than 30,000 square feet. Have to meet an increased energy code level So yeah, we would include that as a condition of approval if there are buildings greater than that size and then that would be reviewed as part of the building permit to ensure

[51:11] That that happens. Great. All my other questions have been asked. Okay. George, do you have any questions? Okay. I'm going to call on myself. For a second, and then I'll come back to ML. For everyone That particular drawing. Their image that we have on the screen now. Shows the green shows the green multi-use path that extends if you were at the north end of the site you would ride down south and west. On that multi-use path. Just off the image. That multi-use path ends in private property and a little dirt path.

[52:02] So I'm… My question is my question is And it's not on the property, but was there any discussion In the annexation agreement about creating a true connection of that multi-use path where it's off the screen to the southwest. Two Belmont Bike Park because there's a social trail and existing uses connecting Valmont bike park to the multi-use path. It's also signed as private property no trespassing in that area along the ditch. And the ditch itself extends, goes right through to Valmont Bike Park. To me, that's a a pretty critical connection And it's… it's not apparent that that will ever be connected.

[53:00] But again, it's a question about this property annexation agreement. Is there any plan to make that connection. Yeah, I don't believe that was something that was discussed with the prior annexation and there hasn't been any discussion as part of this review as to attempting to include that in an amendment. Okay. When we amend an annexation agreement. Does that essentially open the annexation agreement up to renegotiation. Yeah, I mean, well, sorry. With the annexation, if you're doing an amendment process. It is still a negotiation right between the applicant and council or with you guys, right? So if you're opening up and doing an amendment We would propose an amendment, but Council could change other things as well. So you are technically opening it up.

[54:01] Yeah. Which is different. Than just operating strictly under the site review criteria. Right. Right, and you can change some of the site review criteria through annexation agreements too, right? Okay. I think that's it for me. And we'll go back to ML. I'm turning on my hand rather than my volume. Sorry. So the question that I'm, and this might be more for the applicant that I'm looking at is the topography Do you happen to know what the, if we go to the Proposed. Project site what the grade is at the lower left hand corner Between that lower left-hand corner and the the top of the site where it hits the top Airport Boulevard. Do we know what the grade changes across the proposed development area?

[55:19] I don't know that this plan identifies all the way from that lower left corner all the way up. To airport? Was that the the distance you were looking at. Yeah, there's a lot of implications in the drawings and perspectives and all that it's a flat side, but clearly it isn't a flat site. So I'm just curious as to what is the actual gray change from those lower buildings, they all look like they're at the same grade as this has been regraded. And so I'm just curious, what is that grade there versus the um grade at the north of the site. Do we happen to know or is that an applicant question? Yeah. Yeah, the applicant may be able to clarify that.

[56:03] Yeah. Okay, yeah, that's what I'm concerned about. So I will hold that question. Thank you. Okay, unless someone Oh, you're ready to go. I'm sorry, Claudia. Excuse me. Okay. All right. Round two. If everybody else is satisfied. I do have two questions remaining about the site design. So one is that in the memo staff is recommending closing one of the access points from Airport Boulevard. Could you clarify on this diagram that we're seeing right now, which access point that is. Yeah, I believe transportation staff was recommending closing this westernmost access point if i'm remembering correctly. Okay. And I mean, how strong of a recommendation or requirement is that? Does the code require that we close that or could it be kept open if it supports better internal circulation and land use patterns?

[57:03] My understanding is that typically the access requirements are trying to get each property down to one access point. Okay. Where exactly that falls and the best place for that I think could be looked at for sure. Okay, and then… a question I feel like I've been asking a lot recently, and I'll try to get clear on it at some point. What are the… two things here. What are the fire access, so emergency access on the one hand, and then accessible parking requirements in terms of proximity to residential buildings. Of this style of this style I see that a number of these buildings are surrounded by access drives, others have access on one side. What are the actual code requirements for how close emergency vehicles And accessible parking has to be to these individual buildings. I don't know that off the top of my head. I think our applicant team may be able to speak to that, though, in terms of the design of of those fire distances and access.

[58:06] Okay, I will move that question. For later. Thanks. Okay, Kurt? Just one follow-up kind of along the lines of what Claudia was asking. But about the The sidewalks and pedestrian access So a number of these in the site plan most of the buildings to the north and North and West show some kind of pedestrian access, it seems like the buildings along the southeast at the angle and then the building The building on the far east. None of those seem to have specific pedestrian access. Is there any requirement in the code or from ADA to provide pedestrian specific access to these buildings? What comes to mind for me when you ask that question is that's just the site review criteria and how we're looking to provide that high quality pedestrian access to all of the buildings.

[59:04] So that would be what comes to mind first for me in terms of other more specific like ADA and that type of code requirement. I don't know that off the top of my head, but I'm But yeah, I think either way we would be looking for that type of Type of design that provides that high quality access. Okay, thank you. Okay. All right. Unless someone wants to yell, I'm going to, we're going to move on so the applicant can give us their presentation and we can follow up with questions of the applicant.

[60:38] We're all set. All right. All set. My name is Jeff Winger. Great to be here this evening with you board members and staff members. It's been a minute since we've been here.

[61:02] In fact, I think the last time we were here was actually for the annexation and site review that Shannon was talking about for this actual site. That was five years ago. That started in 2018, went into 2020. And things sure have changed since we got that approval in middle of 2020 to the point, that's why we're back here. The building that we got approved. The market just changed. Need for that type product is is effectively gone. In fact. Were very challenged today to lease some of the type product, the buildings that we have up there now. I'm sorry. Better? Okay, sorry about that. So yeah, we continue to struggle and try to fill these buildings and keep them occupied. And that's one of the primary reasons we're back here with a different concept. Looking at something different here tonight. Bill Reynolds, my partner, started our company, the WW Reynolds Companies, in 1966.

[62:06] We've developed about four and a half million square feet of commercial and residential property over that time period. We continue to own and manage a good majority of that. Fun fact, Bill Reynolds still owns the original building he developed in 1968. It's a small little tin building on Old Pearl and the same tenant that occupied it in 1968, still occupies it today. Just a sign of our commitment to the community to Boulder and we're here. We're not going anywhere and we want to see this community succeed. And just be part of it. So that's been an important part of our history. In the mid-1980s, Bill. Saw this site and the opportunity to do something with kind of a rural area up near the little airport. I think his vision was really to be able to accommodate what was coming in for some of the tech and the bio companies and achieve a business park that could accommodate some of those users. And I think we've been very successful at that and that park has achieved that.

[63:12] What he also envisioned in the 1980s was because of the vistas and the views. Up here was that this could be a really great residential site. In fact, in the 1990s, when we went through an initial annexation of these sites that we're talking about tonight. We included a residential layout and proposal as part of that annexation, that annexation didn't go through at the time, but subsequently we obviously got that done. A few years later. So we continue to believe that this is a great residential location and we think that this is a really good opportunity to find some location for housing, much needed housing. To take care of the city of Boulder. Current housing situation. I also wanted to add that I had the opportunity to sit on the East Boulder Subcommunity planning group with Board Member Kaplan. We spent three years of our lives working on that.

[64:09] Had a lot of fun. Laura, I don't know if you remember, but one of our very first field trips was actually to this site. And we talked about the industrial zone district there. Opportunities that we might have for residential in those zone districts. I think pretty quickly in that process, the planning process everything north of Belmont was dismissed and not part of the residential conversation or really for that matter, much of the conversation with The changes that were happening in that East Boulder sub-community. I think we may have missed an opportunity, not including a little bit more of that discussion and looking at residential. And taking advantage of some opportunities for land that can get us some better affordable opportunities. So with that, less of me is better and more of our great planning group design group.

[65:03] What you need to hear about. So I'm going to let them walk you through the project. But I am here to answer any questions you have about the site. About my participation on the East Boulder Subcommunity Planning Group. Or anything else you might have, just let me know. Thank you. Thanks, Jeff. Bill Hollicki with Coburn Architecture. We in Boulder are rightly very proud of our open space. We publicize it, we talk about it. We've committed a great amount of community resources and taxes to it. It surrounds our community. And it's pretty awesome. We have trails that the public can get to. But in terms of living next to it, the vast majority of our neighborhood edge along open space is dedicated to the wealthiest of us. Think about foothills and the western side of our community, it's all multi, multi-million dollar homes. If you think about the eastern side, northeast and southeast, it's all very large homes on very large lots looking out over the open space to the county so it's for our most privileged.

[66:04] This site happens to be near open space. And this open space is pretty interesting. First of all, it's gorgeous. It's a valley with a pond at the bottom. It has incredible views from it. You can see the mountains, you can see the plains. It's a pretty cool place. It's ringed by residential so this kind of Illinois shaped green thing is this open space valley. And it's residential on most sides of it. We would continue that ring on the north and the east, it follows the pattern I talked about. Very large lots, very expensive homes. For the folks that are the wealthiest in our community. But to the southwest it's not. It's a mobile home park. And it's really cool to see that equity of allowing folks of a different level of income to live around our open space. And that was probably the biggest reason that we were excited about taking this project on because we can do that same thing with workforce housing and put a unique project in place where folks with a different level of income

[67:04] Have access to that amenity that we've as a community deemed so valuable. It really doesn't exist kind of anywhere else in our in our in our city. Or very few places. Now, as soon as you put people on the open space, the open space exists at the edges of our community. It's hard to make transportation connections there, obviously. The wealthy don't care. They just drive their cars. And we talk all the time about putting people along transit. This open space is a little different because it's a bit inboard in our community. It is much, much closer to our transit routes. And as you can see here, the site is in the middle of those concentric circles. It is only about a five minute ride from there to the Valmont bus stops. Belmont is a really good transportation corridor, multimodal corridor. It also has great access to all kinds of bike routes. And Mark, you're correct. It's not complete officially right now, though I will say One of our employees rides about 150 days a year from gun barrel along that path to So it's doable. That is on the work plan as we understand it to complete. So that would be a really great benefit for all of the community, including Gun Barrel, supposed to be completed all the way to Gun Barrel.

[68:17] So it really allows folks that want to get out of their car to get out of their car and still live along open space. Right now, and generally when we add units in Boulder, we're generally bringing people out of the commuting world into the living in Boulder world of the 50,000 cars that come in every day. That means that folks from Lafayette and Berthoud and Erie who have no choice to get on their bike or on a bus right now, have the choice to do so. And like I say, we have people in our office That do it from a much further distance every day on the same route. So that's a big deal, allowing people that choice. And yes, it is not the same as a project in downtown Boulder where you can get out and walk a block to a bus station. But this amenity is so valuable that it's worth a little difference. I would also point out

[69:02] That in the comp plan, it lists three criteria for residential and industrial zones. They are not ands, they are ors. And that's documented in our land use codes. The ORS are Adjacency to open space, adjacency to transit, or in a neighborhood planning area. And those are reflected in our land use code that was affirmed two years ago by council. Within a quarter mile of a major transit hub. One sixth open space or in an area plan area. It's not ands, it's all ors. So the idea that it's valuable to put people along open space views and along open space adjacency is embedded in our code and was firm by council a couple of years ago. One of the things that's interesting about this is even if these are too challenging. These five minute bike rides or 10 minute bike rides to the center of Boulder are too challenging for people on a regular basis. It still has a massive, massive carbon impact. And I think a couple of people on the board are going to know these numbers a lot better than I, so I will be general. But the latest transportation study, I believe, said the average commute into Boulder was 8 to 11 miles, something like that.

[70:01] And if you double that up, that's about 20 miles that people are driving every day. Even if folks are only driving five miles from this location to central north or south boulder, it's still saving 200 days times 15 miles times a couple hundred people, 600,000 vehicle miles traveled less on the road every day, even if they never get out of their cars. Which we believe based on personal experience that they will get out of their cars. We also believe the East Boulder sub-community plan makes it clear the areas of change are just that. They're areas that we assume new residential models or new other use models. But the areas of no change are not supposed to be frozen in time. There's specific criteria in the area plan that says that nothing in these area plans are supposed to prevent a property owner from using their property according to the underlying zoning. And of course, that was infirmed by council When they updated the IG and IM zoning requirements that said you don't have to be in an area plan. You can be.

[71:02] You can also be near a transit hub. You can also be near open space. So we feel that a lot of the area plan ideals are reinforced by this project and certainly nothing in the area plan or in council's action of the code was intended to say that somebody outside of that area of change couldn't do this. And of course, it continues the residential pattern Around the open space now. So in terms of how the project is set up, some of your questions will be answered here. Ml, the top slide in the middle. Shows the grade change. It's pretty substantial. It drops about a story and a half within the project site from where the plus is to where the minus is. And that's explaining the configuration of the buildings. The buildings are designed to be terraced with the land. So staff brought up in the memo that there is a pro or a prejudice against major earth moving. That is not the intent here. It would also be crazily expensive. The idea is to let the building step down the site towards the open space and expand the inside or allow the inside of the site to have that access visually to the open space as the project tears down.

[72:05] And then the next thing on the upper right is really trying to bring that pedestrian connection or web through the site. And you can see that permeability just in those arrows on the left. And then the bottom middle slide is like the moneymaker side for the whole thing. The thing that makes this site different is its proximity to open space. The whole site is designed around having these internal open spaces that are formalized, they're protected. And that's that kind of lighter green in the middle. And then it expands outward towards the open space. We'll get into that in more detail. But it creates these little bubbles of community space that you can see in that last bottom right slide. And that results in the site plan that you see here. Again, the buildings are really designed to terrace with the site. The parking is kept at the periphery. And there's this sort of figure eight maybe of open space in the middle of the site. And we can get into that in more detail in a minute. It's not just this open space of Illinois. To the right, as I've been calling it. It's also the continuation of open space throughout the network As we all know, Valmont Bike Park is right there and it's awesome as a biker, I use it a lot.

[73:11] There's also the Frisbee golf course in the playing fields of Elmont Park and in the eastern side of Belmont that we all hope at some point will be amenitized. But there's also the fitness trails for biking, hiking, and running to the bottom right, it head out to the east. So it's a pretty rich network in the area. And I think that You know, on the East Arapaho Working Group, that was certainly something that you guys discussed. So getting back to the open space in a little more detail, the idea that this purple is protected is pretty important. That's where, and Steph made this comment in the memo, you know, there's got to be a place for families or for People that just want to hang out and don't want to be on the periphery. That's where that is. That's a pool and a garden and a socializing plaza. Cookout and all that kind of stuff. Then the darker green are the parts that open up to the views and tie the project back to the multimodal path in green.

[74:00] And of course, the walking paths are primary in blue. Parking is all kept to the periphery. In terms of connection to that cul-de-sac. You know, I think two connections work better. That's been varied in the past. It's not critical if that was to be one connection, it wouldn't Certainly wouldn't sink the project. I'm sure that the second connection would want to be emergency access vehicle at least And that's possible. It could just be a fire truck only kind of access point. But again, the idea is not really is A, to not have parking lots, and B, staff in the memo pointed out that often we would like to see sidewalks along those parking areas. In this case, they're really kept to the outside and there's a pretty rich pedestrian network on the inside kept away from the cars. It's only a concept plan. Kurt, your comment about how do you get into some of these buildings? And I think, Laura, you may have also had that question. I can walk you through all that. Perfect yet by any means. We're still working on it, but we would expect that the ends of the buildings on the south would be the entries and there would be corridor buildings. So you'd get in on that side.

[75:05] And then the front of the building would open up to the open space. Bill, I'm going to give you a two-minute warning. I can do that. Thank you. So again, a wide array of units. You see that on all of our projects. We're pretty committed to that because we feel it creates a diversity of income, diversity of age, and a diversity of demographic that's pretty important to creating a community. So bigger units cost more, smaller units are more appreciated by younger folks. That diversity helps. I should also mention while I'm here, and I'll just do this quickly, we have talked to the airport representatives quite extensively and they're supportive of the project, which may be a surprise to some of you. But I think they're eager to show that residential is compatible with the airport. We're eager to show the same thing. Please ask about the nori's ordinances and the aviation easements, which is a word I'm now also very familiar with. But with Boulder sustainability codes, getting to that that requirement of noise is not a problem. Our buildings are so tight.

[76:03] It's pretty straightforward. Also, there is a requirement for projects in industrial zones that there is a signed disclosure that people can see when they move in explaining that there may be noise nearby. I can expand on that too. From an architecture standpoint, we don't have any yet, but we are thinking that the vistas, the mountains and the plains and all that stuff, the horizon might be a good sort of touch point for the architecture. And some of these kind of shows and then maybe the, you know, a little bit more of a profile or sculptural roof I'd be interested in your thoughts on that. The open space would probably be in two parts, more formal on the inside, more wild and natural on the outside. And then I think you've seen these, but these really are getting at the question that staff had. How can there be protected and neighborhood feeling open space in the project? These are really taken on the center of the project. And these are my last slides. Mark, just about done. This is where the community socializing would be. This is where any kids would hang out, any playgrounds would be.

[77:03] And it's really protected. I think that the nighttime noise and noise inside the buildings are important. But we have found that we've designed your train tracks quite a bit. We have found that buildings act as a really good blockade for daytime outdoor noise. So there's a reason that these majority of these common spaces are inside the buildings because we do feel than any noise from industrial or airport or anything else would be mitigated by those. And we're just looking at that kind of figure eight in the middle right now. The last couple slides here. And I think on this next one, you can kind of look down and see that sort of overall continuity on the inside. And of course, on the outside it would be much more focused on the view. So there you go. I think that hits most of this stuff. And feel free to ask questions. Great. Thank you, Bill. Okay, now time for questions to the clarifying questions to the applicant. And again, kind of be thinking. Is this a comment that I want to save for later? Is it a question?

[78:05] So with that. Guidance, who's ready to go. Okay, Laura. Thank you, Bill and Jeff, for that presentation. Thanks for being here tonight. So just a few questions. In the application, it talks about 4,000 square feet of amenity space. Can you talk about that? Show us what that is. I think at this point in the project that pretty much describes what it is. Any ideas would be useful right now we would expect an amenity space would be for the neighborhood so You know, that's likely things like fitness areas, co-working That kind of thing Honestly, we were hoping to get your feedback and start to develop a plan that responded to your feedback. As of now, it's just sort of a general idea. Can you show us where it is on the site plan? I saw one diagram that had like a little blue outline, but I wasn't quite sure, like, is that the first floor of one of the buildings or what is that?

[79:07] Yeah, I think that so if you can see up here where the pull area is, we would expect a bunch of the amenities to be around the pool. That's generally like where the fitness areas go. And then I would think that like co-working and other things like this would be away from that activity. So probably down on the south side. But I mean, just to be honest, it's not designed. So thoughts on that would be really useful to us. Okay, thank you. And then, I'm sorry. We also haven't, there is that requirement for buildings over 45 feet and view areas up high. Haven't made that determination yet. So any thoughts on that would also be useful. Okay, that's to meet the requirement that you take advantage of some kind of open space on the site that has views of the open space, basically the mountain views. Elevated, yeah. So any thoughts that Planning Board has on that would be super useful. Okay, thank you. The open space that fronts the multi-use path I know there's some significant grade change there and I'm Not great with diagrams. I wasn't clear how close your buildings are to the terracing that will have to happen there.

[80:08] But is there any kind of active use or pathways or gathering areas that are on the south east edge there by the bike path. Yeah, and of course it's early. We've pulled the buildings back so the buildings aren't within that terracing or drops. The buildings are on the flatter area. There's a pretty nice open space here on the south side. It does have some drop to it. And I think these are each one foot. So you can see that on this whole area, it drops like three or four feet over the course of 50 or something like that. So that's one area that we've targeted for that. We also want to take the space right in here. This is a major pedestrian path idea that we have like this This way to go through the entire project is sort of across. There's that. And then there's this figure eight that comes into it. But this area we would expect to expand into a pretty Or let open up into a pretty big important sort of viewing area And then this one up here also is flat between the buildings and fairly flat because that's where the bike path has come up.

[81:05] Higher. So there's only like a one foot drop or a two foot drop from the road down to the bike path in that location. So that's the third place we had identified as a pretty flat area. So pretty early still, but those are the conceptual concepts. Okay, so there could be some programming or amenities in there. Yeah, I mean, that's like the biggest sales point of the whole project is the fact that you've got this incredible amenity. So the project wants to front it pretty badly. Yeah. And thank you. Could you go back to the slide that showed the transportation connections, the bike Sorry, the bus stops and the trails Yep. Thank you. So I was a little confused by showing a bike or sorry, a bus route here on Airport Road and a proposed transit stop.

[82:02] When I read the East Boulder sub-community plan, I see a proposed location for a mobility hub, which could include like an e-bike station or scooters or car share spots. I'm not aware of a proposed bus stop, but maybe I missed something. Do you know of a proposed bus stop? I think that's actually supposed to be the mobility hub. So it's shown on our East Boulder slide as a mobility hub. But yeah, I don't believe they're planning on running a bus there. So that's just an error on this slide. Okay, so there's no proposed bus line going up airport road. No, and I think the original idea was just to get people from that mobility hub to the bus line on Valmont, not to extend the bus line. So sorry for the mistake. Yeah, no, no, that was my understanding too. I just wanted to know maybe I missed something because I don't keep up with all the transportation master plan stuff. We missed something. Sorry. Yeah, no worries. Just want to make sure we all have the same information. And then… My last question in response to something that you said, you said you've talked to representatives of the airport. Yes.

[83:03] When you say representatives of the airport, can you be more specific because there's city staff, there's tenants, there's journeys, which is kind of the airport host. Yeah, there's Andrew McLennan and Clemens are the two folks that we talked to. So they're heavily sort of involved as representatives of the airport community maybe is the best way to put it. I would say the tenants. Yeah, that's fair. Yes And so I think the tenants are the ones that have had the biggest concerns with neighbors and impacts from the neighbors to the airport. So when we started the outreach, we figured, well, you know, the folks that have the most concern are the ones that we want to talk to. So that's who we've been chatting with. Yeah, I'm glad to hear you're talking to them because Andrew is the one who runs the flight school and Clemens is the one who runs the glider operation. That's right. With the tow planes. So I know a whole lot more about flight paths than I did two months ago. Yeah, you and me both. Yeah. And it actually is very interesting because they answered the question I always had. Why is the airport influence only to the north? And the answer is no.

[84:02] Perhaps they feel it shouldn't only be to the north so This just happens to be in the middle of the two glider paths. It's not right underneath the flight path, but it still would be I think in the area that they would prefer to have a southern airport influence zone. I'm sorry, I missed what you said about the north. What to the north? Well, in the code, there's an airport influence zone that currently exists to the north of the airport. There is not one to the south. They would prefer one be added, obviously. Their flight path to the south, which is primarily a glider path. Exists to the west and to the east of this site, but not directly over the site. That's not to say planes don't ever go there in the case of something out of the norm, they would. But this isn't like right under the normal flight paths, for example. Right. Yeah. No, the tow planes go kind of south and around basically East Holder right between Arapahoe and 55th and around in that box. Which is kind of what you were talking about earlier in terms of the navigation easement locations. Yep. Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. Those are my questions.

[85:03] Kurt? Thank you. I just have a few questions. One is about the topography again. So there's an existing retaining wall that between the two buildings, right? Which is maybe… It looked to me, I didn't measure it, but it looked to me maybe 8 or 10 feet tall, I think. I was thinking like eight or 10, too. Yeah. So I don't think we measured it, but that's what our assumption is like a story. Right. And so that will be removed. Is that correct? It'll be graded on a slope. Yeah, although the intent is to bench it. So, you know, rather than it being like on a perfect slope, it would be three flat areas and that that topography change would be caught in like Call it a turf. Like a two to one turf slope So you kind of a flatter area that works better for cars and people and accessibility and buildings.

[86:06] And that's on the upper level, say where this building up in the corner is. And then the next level will be the two buildings here. And that might be another bench. And then the last bench would be down here. And that's conceptual. We would have to get into the grading to figure it out. But that's the idea. So no retaining walls would be replaced by kind of a terracing site. Right. Okay. That makes sense. But then I have a question about the grade then on that east-west street that goes through the middle? Yep. Do you have a feel for what the grade there would be? Because it seems like it would be fairly steep. Well, so because we think, you know, this upper level here we can get down to this east-west street. That should only be going down for half of the site. Topography change. So we think you know maybe that's seven feet or eight feet that is falling It might still be steep so we might have some steep civil engineering to figure out there. I don't have an exact answer for you, but the point is

[87:05] It's not trying to drop all 15 feet on that street. It would be trying to do half of it. Sorry, I missed the first part of your statement about why it would only be half. Because that grade change, let's call it a 16 foot grade change for argument's sake from where the cursor is now can I Yep, you can see it. Down to the edge of this building. That would be split in half. This building might be on that upper terrace. That would allow this street to make up a big portion of that drop before you turn and go this way. So these north-south streets are picking up some of that first terrace. I acknowledge what I'm saying like doesn't it's not… It's not very obvious how all that would work. That's probably because we have a lot of figuring to do. Conceptually, we've benched it We've worked with a contractor to figure out how that bench would work conceptually, but it's only conceptual. So we have some issues like the streets to sort out. Okay.

[88:00] Well, I'll let you figure it out. It will just be something that'll come up. It looks to me, looking at the contour line that goes It splits right through the cul-de-sac, right? Yeah. And then the contour line actually continues It continues down sort of south south southeast. And so that should all be at the same level. Yeah, you might be, you might, yeah, maybe we have to rethink the way we're doing that but Yeah, the idea is to terrace it. You're showing me that I'm not a civil engineer in front of the whole world. So thank you for that. You'll figure it out. Okay, great. Next question. Oh, is about the paths that you show going I guess their pedestrian connections going down to the multi-use path, those I assume would be stairs. We're going to have to work through the site accessibility requirements because there are ADA requirements for some of those paths, you can have some with stairs, but you have to have an accessible path to everything as well.

[89:04] Some of them may be from, probably will be stairs. Some of them may be something that contours with the land and switches back in order to make that an accessible route. But I think it would be easier to put the accessible routes to the north side of the existing multi-use path because that It's closer to grade than it would be on the south. So it's likely That's all hedging. Yes, it's likely the south side would be more stair heavy and the north side would be less stair heavy. Okay, great. And… Oh, the last question is about this possibility of closing the axis. If that were to be done so you would You couldn't just keep the same site design, right, and close that access because then you don't have a turnaround. At the end of that west side? Yeah, I think we'd either have to put a turnaround or put a, you know, we could just if we call if we consider that to be parking, then instead of a street, because again it would be probably a private drive.

[90:09] We would just put You know, like code would require a single parking space turnaround. It might want to be a little more robust than that because of the scale of it. But we would still have almost certainly an access point there for emergency vehicles. So like, you know, drive over bollards or something like that. Okay, I guess really the question that I should have asked is. Would that require reconfiguring the buildings, chopping off parts of buildings? Probably, you know? Probably not. I do think it probably works from a circulation standpoint because you can see that all the cars are kind of kept to the north and to the west. It would work better with the two access points but it wouldn't be non-functional with one. It would still generally work because that's not really circulation. It's more parking. Okay. Those are my only questions. Thank you.

[91:05] Kurt, maybe we would actually connect those two across the north side of that north building so that you can still loop. I'm just looking at this. Well, that's what I was wondering about. And that seems like it would then require chopping off part of that building. Probably it would. But, you know, I think we would work with transportation staff to figure out what they feel is the best way to go. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay, ML, you ready? I am ready. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I think there were two different somebody from Reynolds and somebody from Coburn, thank you very much. I have sort of three general areas that my questions are in. And one has already been touched on, which is the Topography across the site. And I think I heard you to say that there is a 16 foot drop from the north of the site to the south. Is that correct?

[92:05] It's an irregular shaped site. So that's probably the most anywhere, but some of the sites less than that, both on the north and the south. But yeah, just Rough numbers. Yes. It's hard to No, given the drawings that you've provided how you are negotiating the grade change. Do you have a section or anything that um begins to talk about how you will be managing I mean, that's a two-story building. Yeah, it's a pretty big site. And like I said, we've worked pretty hard to make sure that we understand how this would work. At conceptual plan time we are essentially saying, okay, we know we have this topography. Here's our strategy for dealing with it, but we certainly aren't doing detailed drawings for how that works at this point. That's just further down the road.

[93:05] The concept is that there's three tiers and each building sits on a tier. A flat tier and a flat tier We worked with a contracting group to understand how that would best work And what's really great about the Turing is it means the building at the far north is a story and a half or something above the building on the far east or you know southeast Right. So you get this tiered effect towards the open space, which is really pretty ideal. Now, we really… Do you happen to have a building section, a site section that shows this Because that's part of a concept and you know we're looking at concepts That's your site concept and it's not there is no image for it Yeah. Yeah, we haven't drawn any site sections. We have some contour drawings that aren't included here. Okay, that's fine. That's fine. That line of buildings on the east side consider that to be pretty indicative of where the lower tier would be.

[94:03] Yeah, here we go. Right, right. I'm i'm… I just was… interested to hear that you had a concept about the way you're going to work with the topography and I don't recall seeing it on the drawing, so I understand why I didn't see it because it's not there. And that's totally fine. So the second set of questions I have are there's a lot of reference in your narrative about the accessibility to transportation and all. There is that bus down on Belmont, the 208 So the 208 runs once an hour. Between 8.30 in the morning and 6.30 in the evening. And it does not run on Sundays. So that is a very limited public transportation option and it really is the the only viable walkable.

[95:04] From the site. So just FYI When you come back. Think about the language you're going to use when you're talking about access to public transportation. Because that's very, very limited access on the 208. I have tried to use the 208 to get here and there and it's It's really quite frustrating. So I was hoping that I'm glad Laura asked the question that the bus up airport In the works because that would make a lot of sense and I think would change the discussion about how accessible is the site regards to not using your card to try to get places. So that's just something I would I would Um remind you up in your thinking what transportation are we talking about um and then Lastly, you said something in your introduction about workforce housing.

[96:07] Are you proposing that this is workforce housing and if so, how does that get implemented. Workforce housing is a term used in our comp plan and code that's undefined. And what it's intended to mean housing for the people that comprise Boulder's workforce. We can't control prices. Obviously, the scarcity of housing in Boulder controls the prices, but we can control the types of units the finishes, all that kind of stuff. So these are not intended to be luxury units we're not talking You know, custom wood floors and really nice cabinets or any of that kind of stuff. We're talking about housing design for people that are in the working community to use so that means builder grade cabinets. It means vinyl floors and carpeted floors. We think as a design group that we're really good at making cost effective

[97:00] Finishes feel awesome. I have to say that, but they are cost-effective finishes and cost-effective units so That's the way that As I understand it and have been told. Is intended to be used within the code. It is not deed restricted and it is not luxury. It's just Housing for normal people. So are you saying that you are saying that you said kind of a contradiction there that you can't control the cost. No, the… You can don't you control as to what you're going to rent them for? Isn't that in the purview of the of the owner. The city controls the cost through the scarcity of housing. I mean, the… this owner can control the cost. They can set rent rates but you know um yeah Right. That's what I'm talking about. They can't they can because you're going to use as you say, not luxury finishes. So it's going to cost less and thus perhaps that will get translated to a lower rental cost. Okay.

[98:00] That's the intention. You know, that's one of the reasons why you're not seeing structured parking you're seeing alternative parking solutions. Because the idea is that this is an industrial area with lots of jobs. Trying to get some housing into this area would be really great. The other reality is that that's an underserved market. So the desire for this development is to serve those people. And the only way that can be done is to control the cost of construction Not putting parking underground, not putting it in structure, trying to create three and four story buildings that are distinct so they're cost effective to build. You can see that the buildings are regular forms. Oh, right. They're sort of rectangular and again not massive earth moving, letting the buildings run with the slope All of those things are designed to reduce the infrastructure costs of the project. And then, of course, that allows us to spend more money on the finishes and make the outside look better. But the intent is to create housing that is not It's not 30 pearl it's not you know patrioled brick. I think I get what you're saying. Thank you.

[99:00] Yeah, but it's hard to talk around that. You know, it's really, really difficult to talk about price points just because of the way it all works. So you understand. Well, just because you use the term workforce housing and coming from an applicant, I wasn't looking for a kind of a code definition. I was wondering what you were implying by that. And I heard your answer and I'm good with that. But you reminded me of my last question, which is. How wide, what is the range of width of these buildings because they're rather narrowish there's not a big giant bulk of a building. So I'm just wondering what are the range of widths of these buildings. We try really hard to keep our buildings between about 68 and 75 feet because if you do that, then you get a lot more natural light into the units and it drives down the energy usage of lights and lights are Generally about 6%, 5% to 6% of the energy use of a building. So if we can have the artificial light usage, which we can do, we've proven that on a couple of buildings.

[100:03] By having really good access to outside windows, it really has a pretty significant impact on the sustainability of the buildings. Great. Thank you for that answer. And those are all my questions. Thank you. Okay, Mason. Thanks for the presentation, Bill. So following on. How do you all plan to meet or exceed the city's expectations for housing affordability? Is it primarily through the cash in lieu or are you thinking about deeded. I'll defer to the owner, but at this point, I don't think you have made any decisions on that. Honestly, usually everybody waits till after the concept plan to kind of see where they're going and then they start trying to figure it out so Don't know. Do you see any difficulties in developing the bike path to the south over that ditch I want to say no. The answer is probably maybe. We've had pretty good luck with ditch companies in the past they they generally you know they're they sort of

[101:07] The only people that have more rights than ditch companies is God. They were here first. Some people question that. So they get to kind of do whatever they want. They're really difficult because they, you know, they only meet twice a year and all that kind of stuff. But generally, we have been successful on every project that we've executed. Getting over a ditch. That's not to say like mutual funds, right? Past performance don't indicate future results but Generally, what they would want is some way to protect the ditch from shrapnel and allow them to maintain it. One way to do that is to put it in a pipe. They love pipes because they don't have to go clean out a pipe. I know that Jeff has talked to this ditch company in the past and it's been not roses and wine and wonderful things But the intent would be to try to connect that. And of course, it would be a really, really big benefit for this project.

[102:00] You want to talk about trying to amenitize a project, that would be a very high priority for this project to try to get that figured out. And I noticed you labeled the property to the southeast-ish as open space But there's not really any access to that property, right? It's not like trails or… I actually don't know what that property is. It's got like a pond in a building. Oh, yeah. That is city of Boulder open. Well… Is that City of Boulder or is that county? Sergio. It's actually, it's in the city of Boulder. The preponderance of that where that pond is actually is still owned by the developer. It was dedicated to, it has a conservation ease over it so It sits there, it's effectively created his open space, but it is still privately owned. But there is no access there other than there for the use of that pond, which used to be a fish basically a fish breeding pond.

[103:04] And there's some city open space vehicles that go over that too. And that was part of the discussion when we did. The southerly portion of this site to the city in 2020. So just so I understand, it's privately owned, but there's conservation easement, so it's going to remain to be open space. It will always be open space. There is some city of Boulder owned open space around that too. Okay, great. Thank you. And then you address this in your comments a bit, but I was hoping you could expand on it. And I'm not going to paraphrase you because I'll probably just get it wrong. But I was hoping you can speak to how the site plan supports a mode shift away from single occupancy vehicles. I think that we need to develop that. It's early yet and i to ML, I think you bring up a good point about the headways on the buses. Our site is a five minute bike ride from that bus stop. It's also maybe a five minute bike ride or less

[104:06] To this network of bikes. The thing that we need to figure out, and this you discussed, I think on the on the site to the south that was in front of you for a concept plan A couple of months ago, we do pay attention. You know, I think a robust mobility plan is going to be pretty important. I don't know that we know what that is yet. I mean, obviously the that getting that five minutes, we've had good luck with electric bikes. We've had good luck with electric scooters. But it's sort of a different animal if you're trying to get on a bike path. So I think support for cargo bikes and e-bikes and that kind of thing is going to be pretty important. But of course, you know, there are some pretty good transportation experts on this board. So I always like to hear what you all think. I do think that's going to be a pretty important part of it. Project. And kind of circling back, I forgot to ask um it sounded like there was going to be a variety of unit types Can you speak a little bit to that? Yeah.

[105:00] I kind of mentioned it. It's just something we believe pretty strongly in that if you get a homogeny of units, you get a homogeny of culture and that just makes for a worse neighborhood. We've done a lot of neighborhoods over the course of our company life. And the ones that work the best are the ones that have, you know, they have some condos and they have some really small studios and they have some big two or three bedroom units and It just attracts a variety of people. And it tends to attract a variety of aged you know different ages. Maybe that's the biggest thing for me is that, you know, studios work really well for older people and younger people. And two bedrooms work really great for young couples. They work really great for a young couple with a family. Three bedrooms are better for a family or maybe roommates. And that's like a demographic range. That creates a pretty good interrelationship. It also creates a little bit different income levels because all those rent for different amounts so That's the intent. Makes sense. That's all. Okay, Claudia, you haven't gone.

[106:02] Thanks. I still have one question on my list here. This is a variation on what I asked staff about emergency access and accessible parking requirements. In terms of proximity to the buildings, what are the requirements for putting parking and access right up to those buildings? That is a… difficult question to answer in a black and white manner because accessibility requirements are only guidelines federally and they're only enforced through lawsuit. So that makes it really fun. To do our job. Generally. The way we approach it is that if you have parking the most proximate parking to the building should be the accessible spaces. So if you have 50 spaces right next to a building, the two or three that are closest to the building should be that. It is in theory possible to do a building that's remote from parking. And then have the closest remote parking spaces be the accessible ones. We do feel as a company that is maybe risky in terms of complying with the federal standards for accessibility.

[107:05] So remember at Alpine Balsam, we actually brought some accessible spaces right to the buildings Even though the bulk of the parking was in parking garage remote. We think that's probably best practice in terms of taking care of folks that are differently abled. Okay, thanks for that answer. I think what I'm thinking about, and maybe I'll just let the question sit and let it inform my comments later. Is how much of the internal street network that you were showing on this site plan is required by code or various accessibility standards and how much of it is for resident and visitor convenience. And I'm happy to just let that question hang, but it's something that I'm thinking about in the site design. Yeah, I think that It probably is site design dependent and probably the site design can respond to your comments tonight and then we would try to make it figure out how to make it work as best we can.

[108:04] George, did you have any questions for the applicant? Okay. And might have been answered, so I'm going to wait till comments and so Unless we've missed anyone. We'll go ahead and go to the public hearing. Hi, everybody. Just checking to see if we have anybody uh registered to speak in person before we move to our online participants. We do not have anybody registered to speak in the room. Thank you. Okay. Thanks for letting me know. If you are online and you would like to speak for the public hearing. Please go ahead and raise your hand now so that We can just see how many people are in the queue. Each person will have three minutes and we'll start with Lynn Siegel Please go ahead, Lynn. Please go ahead.

[109:09] Everybody is always complaining about all the congestion and everything in Boulder, but how come nobody is ever at these meetings? How come I'm the only First of all, I'm going to say the most important thing that you can do for the economics of this Project is Free Palestine now! Believe me, that is it. Now, you're doing another cul-de-sac here. Just like Airport Road. You're going to put a bus up a cul-de-sac. Hello? What's wrong with this? I don't get it. You know, Bill… There's a scarcity of housing in Boulder. There's an inelastic market. So it doesn't matter how much building you build. It doesn't matter how much housing.

[110:00] It's just going to be just as expensive. So you make some smaller units. It's still per square foot. Per person. My God, when are you people going to hear? This is the destruction of Boulder. Another thing. No, no, no on this project. You know, I had a retro. I don't trust the city of Boulder for anything. I had a retrofit done for free on my house for free. It'll take… thousands, tens of thousands of dollars to get rid of all the stuff the city put on. They way overspent, just like this project and many others. 25,000 for an air handler when they could have used a 7,000 mini split, $7,000 versus 25,000 of the taxpayer's money. So trust is not a big factor here. Um It was brought up TDM, Transportation Demand Management for this project. You bet it needs transportation demand management. Where is the southeast, the Northeast Boulder Rec Center? Where's the library?

[111:08] Where's the grocery store? Where is any of the infrastructure for this out in the middle of an industrial park housing project. This is like so revolting. I can't believe it um It's a destination resort. Who wants to go out there? Yes, there's open space around Bill. That's great. But you know what? People don't want open space out there. People want the mountains. The mountains. And when they do, they're going to get in their car and they're going to come into Boulder and congest the place. This is also a Trump economy. You know, we don't have an economy anymore. You look another year, we won't have one. So think about that. When all this developments coming in, massive development like we've never seen And it's not, like I said earlier.

[112:00] Where's the vitality? I don't see it in Boulder Junction. I don't see it in Macy's. What we need is a department store in Boulder. Thank you, Lynn. Three minutes are up. Thank you for being here with us. Anyone else? Joining us from the public online, if you wish to speak, please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. Give you a few moments to decide if you wish to participate. Looks like we just have one speaker. No other hands are raised. Back over to you, Chair. Okay, thank you, Vivian. Thank you for the Comments from the public. We want to give the applicant, if you need a chance to respond to anything. You may now. If not, we'll move on to comments. Okay.

[113:02] So, comments, advice from the board? Who's ready? Mason, you're smiling. You're ready? You don't have any comments? Okay. Wait. Okay. Okay, you don't. No. Okay. Okay. Oh, do you want to pull them up? Yeah, okay. Let's… You can pull up the key questions. Yes, there we go. Okay. Okay. All right. So the first one, compatibility with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. I believe the proposed concept aligns with the BBC's goals of encouraging infill development and housing diversity in ETH. East Boulder. However, I'm encouraging the applicant to go beyond minimum requirements, particularly regarding affordability, multimodal connectivity, and environmental performance to better reflect BBC values around equity, sustainability, and integrated land use and transportation planning.

[114:12] So the second one. Feedback on conceptual site plan and architecture The proposed layout offers a good foundation. I know there's a lot in works there, so we'll be excited to see The final plans, I especially liked the attention to the green edges and open space adjacency. As well as improving the the bicycle connectivity there. Multimodal connectivity. That said I would like to see more more of that integration, including maybe facilities, clearer architectural expression of the site's industrial residential transition. And I hope that you all consider stronger placemaking at the multi-use path interface and architectural elements that emphasize durability.

[115:00] And climate responsiveness. Let's see here. Then other key issues. I am, it's probably obvious from my questions, hoping that the applicant explores on-site affordable housing options. I hope that you all prioritize non-auto transportation strategies early in design Including, of course, a very strong TDM plan. When I look at TDM plans, I'm looking specifically at more concrete infrastructure. Around the project, not just kind of promises and what will happen. And I do anticipate learning more about the energy performance requirements at site review. Coordination. I do appreciate the coordination with adjacent industrial users and the including the airport and mitigation of potential conflicts will be critical, which it sounds like you guys are well on top of.

[116:02] Yeah, so I guess in short, I'm looking forward to further development of sustainability and community benefit components as the project moves forward. Towards site review. I can go next. Thanks again to everyone who presented. So with regard to the BBCP, I agree with staff that it would be hard to approve a 100% residential project on this site. And we had the same comment for the other project on Airport Road. It just isn't a very amenity rich site. In terms of retail, in terms of neighborhood serving uses. And if we want walkable neighborhoods, we want people not to have to get in their cars all the time, which I know is a goal of the applicant as well. I think it serves the project to have some level of mixed use Perhaps especially in that northern IM portion of the site. I don't know that it has to be whole buildings that are mixed use. I mean, in my opinion, it could be ground floor mixed use with residential above.

[117:00] And some options might be residential serving retail such as a bodega or a restaurant or cafe. Some live work studio housing might be interesting to explore, or maybe even some kind of light manufacturing on the site. Like for example, I hear that Fraser Meadows has a resident run brewery on site. So I would encourage some creativity, think about how it can be an amenity for your folks and also serve the neighborhood. And in addition, I'm super excited about that connection to Valmont and to the San Lacero Mobile Home Park and think about how you can strengthen your connections with that community and maybe offer something that serves them as well in terms of Makerspace or a bodega or something that would serve that community well. In terms of the East Boulder sub-community plan. I have no concerns about the compatibility with the East Boulder sub-community plan. This area was not designated as an area of change. But as the applicant and staff have noted. It does meet the contiguity requirement for considering residential in light industrial zones.

[118:02] Like I said, I do have that concern about whether there is enough mixed use to support the residential conversion, but I think I am confident that the applicant can can come up with something great that would serve the neighborhood and make this really A development that works for everybody. And I would point out that there is already a lot of housing either planned or constructed around here, not just on Airport Road, but there is the Velo Condos on Airport Road. There's this development that we just I think approved a concept for a little bit further down at 5450 Airport Road. There is Vista Village, there is San Lassaro, there is county housing to the north and northeast. There's a lot of housing around here, as the applicant pointed out. So I do think this is an appropriate area for residential. The main constraint is just that The car mobility is limited, but the applicant is working to help with the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, which I think is great. I do think a TDM plan is going to be super important.

[119:01] Especially in terms of those first and last mile connections. And I'll talk about that in regard to another criterion. Which is coming up now, the Access, Transportation, and Mobility Criterion. Like I said, I'm super excited about the multi-use path connections, both of them. The TDM plan will be key. With emphasis on micro mobility and bicycling And I do think that staff made good comments about pedestrian and bike circulation through the site and complete street design. Which I'm not going to repeat the comments there, but I think they're well worth paying attention to. And I will be looking for that when this comes back. With regard to open space and landscaping, again, I thought staff made great comments about programming the open space, especially for the needs of families with children. And I appreciated the comments about pets and the needs of people with pets. To offer some relief and exercise for pets. And the use of the southern edge of the property for active recreation. And then finally, with regard to building, design, and siting. I want to just really appreciate the job that you folks did trying to keep the parking away from the cul-de-sac and away from the bike path on the east and southern edges.

[120:09] It's clear that that's what you have tried to do with the tuck under parking and with the limited surface parking and I appreciate that. I would encourage you to orient the inviting facades and entrances to the extent that you have main entrances for residential buildings. I don't know how many doors you're going to have. But orienting those things to the places where people are going to be in transit, right? The cul-de-sac with the bike connection. And then the eastern edge with the bike. Just make sure that those facades don't turn your back on the public realm. I appreciate that you are considering that bike path and that southern open space to be kind of your front door for those southern buildings. And where there are buildings that maybe don't touch on the bike path or the cul-de-sac connections. You know, orienting towards that shared internal open space is also a great idea.

[121:03] And then per our criteria, we do look for windows and transparency, especially along the public realm and blank walls are to be avoided, especially on ground floors. We've had a couple of projects that got some criticism for that. And then a big plus one to staff's comment about the criteria for buildings requesting a height bonus, which I expect ML will also have some comments about this, but that requiring the project to take advantage of prominent mountain views from common areas. And it sounds like you're already thinking about how you can do that. I don't have a suggestion for a particular building. But, you know, of course, we will be looking for that. So I think that wraps up my comments. I think this is an extremely promising project. And I think you're thinking about all the right things. And I appreciate that you've given us a substantial concept to comment on. Thank you. I'll try to be brief and not too repetitive. I think as you might anticipate, the primary concern at site review is going to be consistency with zoning the BVCP land use map.

[122:07] And the East Boulder sub-community Plan. Staff have expressed significant concerns here, which may or may not be shared by the majority of this board. For my part, I think housing could be appropriate at this location in support of BVCP goals around the jobs and housing balance Compact and infill development and more mixing of uses. And I also want to note the unusual opportunity To provide multi-unit housing. Adjacent to environmental amenities. And I think that has the potential to increase access to high quality residential design for more types of households. I am concerned, though, about the isolation at this site at the moment. Without additional housing and investment in multimodal transportation options. Housing here is not likely to become part of a viable neighborhood, which is another key goal of our plans.

[123:00] So I disagree with staff saying no outright to housing here, especially based on the IM zoning. But I think the applicant will need to focus on connectivity to satisfy criteria. At the time of site review. Having flagged that big issue, the remainder of my comments relate to site design. Three points here. This project will have to undergo a use review in addition to site review to do residential here. And one criteria that stands out in that process to me is that the site needs to be buffered from noise and other externalities of industrial areas. And so as you work on refining the site design. I would encourage you to consider making stronger use of things that are already going to be required in some form, such as parking. And the building height that you're already proposing in portions of the site, use some of those things to help create some of that separation. From the industrial land uses. I'd also like to see some improvements made to the usable open space.

[124:00] Right now, that interior open space, as I read your plans, appears to be Somewhat degraded by pavement and vehicle circulation and also what looks like a wall of four-story buildings along the contour at the south of the site. You talk about it being protected. I see that on the north and the west sides and the south and the east. It looks more like a ring of driveways and blocked views. And I'm really glad you discussed the elevation change over the site. I think that maybe lessens some of what I was reading in those plans. But there still is this additional building height, those four-story buildings. Being positioned in that direction of maximum views where this site interfaces with the open space. So what I wonder as you refine site design, is there a way to reconfigure the buildings or the circulation or both And the parking as well that increases the contiguity of the open space on the property. And the access to that bluff amenity. Especially given, as Laura here mentioned, that our criteria for additional height includes preserving and or creating views from shared spaces.

[125:11] So can you open up more of that? Interface with the bluff, with the elevation. In your site design. And then finally getting back to the mobility and connectivity concerns that a number of us have raised. At the time of site review, I will be looking for features like low friction rideshare options, e-bike facilities, etc. Really anything that can enhance transportation options here in the absence of city and or RTD investment in this area. I know I think we would all like that bike path that MUP to be connected. To Balmont Bike Park. You may not have full control over that. And we certainly have no control over the RTD and its bus headways, but anything that you can do in the context of this site to increase mobility options will be helpful at the time of site review.

[126:06] Great, Kirk. Thank you, and thank you for bringing this to us. I will also start by addressing the issue of the residential use. I think that the residential use in this case is completely appropriate. To me, the operative point is that we planning board and city council considered quite extensively the question of whether to include this 1 sixth contiguity. Criterion for allowing residential use once it's contiguity. To open space and we very deliberately included that And so to me, that really should take precedence over some of the ambiguity or mixed messages that come from arguably from the Boulder Valley Comp plan and the East Boulder sub-community plan So I think that a very largely residential use is completely appropriate.

[127:04] I do think that it would be great to have the amenity space, as Laura mentioned. As some kind of neighborhood serving retail. I worked. As it happens for… three years or something at 5661. Airport Road, which is right to the north of this site in a little one story commercial building there. Interesting building with Akiva in it. As Jeff might know. And… You know, there was no retail available at all. You had to go quite a ways to get to any kind of retail so It would not only benefit the residents of this development, but it would also significantly Benefit all the people in the commercial buildings around, to some extent, maybe even the people using the airport, although I guess there's some sort of amenity there So I think that that would be a significant benefit.

[128:05] I think the… few thousand square feet of amenity that you include. If it could be neighborhood serving retail, that would be great. There was also a question in terms of the residential use about the noise of the airport As I said, I worked for many years. One building closer to the airport and really To me, the airport noise was never a major concern. Every once in a while there would be one of those jets taking off. And it would be a little bit annoying. But to me, from a noise standpoint, that was not That's not a significant concern. To me about this use. Interestingly, when I was there a few days ago visiting the site. What was noisy… was the generator. On the east side, I think it was an emergency generator on the east side of the AGC building.

[129:00] Whatever EGC, whatever the the biotech building to the west there is. They have sort of back of house on their east side And there was some giant generator running producing this giant plume of black diesel smoke It was kind of awful. And so I would urge you to just keep in mind that The buildings, the units on the west side of that westernmost north building are going to be backing up against that and so some kind of buffering or something there would be important, I think. Now, maybe that was a once in a… three-year situation that I just happened to come upon. It was just my observation. A few other Maybe minor comments. I would… Even though ordinarily I'm strongly supportive of illuminating or reducing the number of accesses a property in this case, because the accesses are on the cul-de-sac, it's not like people are

[130:10] Traveling fast through this location because you're just going around the loop, basically, unless you're going down to the multi-use path. To me, I think the additional access is not really problematic. And I would rather keep that additional access if eliminating it would lose units. And potentially require even more pavement it seems like the way it would be implemented would be to provide additional pavement on the north side of that first building there. Which would just sort of duplicate pavement that's already in the loop area. And to me, that would be really a lose-lose I definitely appreciate the attempt, the design attempt to create kind of a street grid.

[131:02] Which, God knows is completely missing out there right now. And so I think that that's wonderful. I do have concerns sort of, I think, as Claudia was alluding to to the amount of pavement there and to the extent that we can reduce that pavement. And, you know, minimize the street widths and so on that would be great I also want to see really good pedestrian access to all buildings. As with any good street. Also regarding the design, I think Claudia Maybe he was hinting at this or maybe I'm reading this into her but I could imagine reconfiguring it so that Instead of having that open space in the middle of the project. It is on that southeast edge. So that it really ties directly into the open space there. And, you know, so that when you're sitting at the pool, you can look immediately Out at Belmont Butte there Or, you know, down to the pond So on.

[132:08] So you probably have thought about a variety of designs but would be just something that I would urge you to consider. I also really appreciate the mix of unit types and sizes, including ones that might be appealing to families, two and three bedroom units, which we don't get a ton of. So that's really great. And I mentioned the amenity. I think that's it. Thank you. Great. I see George and then we'll go George and then ML. So go ahead, George. Sure. So I'm a no on this project as it relates to the way it's been presented to us. I think straight up residential in this location. Is inappropriate given the land uses, the lack of transit. Lack of retail, lack of amenities outside of the environmental component, which is nice.

[133:08] I think some level of residential is appropriate for this site, but I think there's a huge opportunity for for what's noted in the memo around light industrial And some manufacturing actually being the primary on this site. So what's been presented to us well Nice. I don't think fits with BBC. I don't think fits with the site. I don't think it fits with our transit goals. I just don't think it fits. And so I think there's… There's a huge opportunity for mixed use here. We're walking away from the retreat staff presented to us that Actually, light industrial and light industrial some light manufacturing are desired uses in our area that are actually things that are still thriving versus office.

[134:11] So I think there's an opportunity to mix those uses with residential and and really get this area off to a better foot than currently exists. So that's my answer on number one. Number two… I don't have feedback on the concept site plan because I don't think it fits. So I'm not going to give any feedback on that. And, uh. I'm kind of supportive of, although probably more extreme than Laura's direction as it relates to transit retail. A mix of uses. I think that's what needs to take place here. And so beyond that, I don't really have feedback for the applicant given that I don't agree with what's been presented. Thanks. Thanks, George. Ml? Okay, so regards to the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, I think I Mm-hmm.

[135:10] Really supporting where staff started at and I don't think that they're saying there's no residential here at all. I think the point being that Boulder Valley Comp Plan is Looking. To put residential into these industrial areas where it's appropriate. And I don't see a I don't see compelling evidence compelling conversation that you've done the work to without a doubt make us believe that it's appropriate here, what you're proposing to do so. I would concentrate on that idea, is this appropriate? And take a look at, yes, there are other housing um developments up there.

[136:10] They're the offices and the industry and then there's the airport and then there's the big ditch and there's the views. There's a lot going on. And I think if you keep circling that and bringing it in. I think you will find the right mix of What housing, what percent housing is appropriate here. I think that would be a good exercise as part of the next. Next development. I think the lack of amenities to create walkability, as people have mentioned, would be a part of that conversation design conversation you have. But I think the biggest thing to putting primarily residential And especially if you're looking at

[137:01] Doing residential for a range of people. You talked about from seniors to families with children At this point, I think there's every indication that these numbers of residents could could radically increase single use or auto trips to and from the site. It's remarkable how much, even if the people aren't going anywhere. How many times UPS and Amazon and deliveries come to single family residences or residences at all so I think you need to think about how people are getting, how people in services are getting to and from the site a little more comprehensively. So that's that's that's kind of what key issue number one. As far as number two, I already brought this up. This is not a flat site.

[138:01] And I think you would do yourself and the project a great benefit to start cutting some site sections And taking a look at what's really happening there because the grade is a significant grade. I mean, 16 feet, that's a huge amount of grade. You have a lot of opportunities to do things with you. We started to talk about, well. You know the buildings that are moving down the site won't be blocking any views because they're going to be lower because we've got these tiers. I think that will be vital to be able to see how this project will actually do right by the contours rather than just ignoring them and saying it's a flat site, which to this point That's what's been shown. And lastly, and I think you mentioned this. The applicant mentioned is it's a pretty incredible site. You've got views both to the Flatirons and to the Butte.

[139:02] And I would hope that the architecture you propose could make something worthy of the natural setting. That you've got there. I don't think that that is… give it enough time and space in our conversations. But you do have a pretty remarkable site and you had the opportunity to do something really wonderful on a lot of scales, you know, to begin to create a nucleus for walkability and a neighborhood And connection to the site and a range of people living there, ages and hopefully the idea of workforce isn't just a concept in the code, but it is in fact people that want to live and make this their home. So those are my comments and Thank you so much.

[140:01] Great. Great. Thank you, ML. Okay, I'm going to… make my comments now and then we'll conclude this item. In regard to item number one, in regard to the BVCP, and other plans. I'm unmoved by staff's concerns about This being primarily residential. And… I think that when I was visiting the site today. That the… that passing by the residential area which is on the what would be the north. West corner of Airport Road, the existing residential area passing by the proposed additional residential area and then continuing on to this site. That we have the opportunity here to actually make this neighborhood a mixed use neighborhood. And some of our best neighborhoods our mixed use neighborhoods. They're not mixed use necessarily within a site you might have a site that's all retail or light manufacturing and then you have housing.

[141:15] But the neighborhood is a mixed-use neighborhood. And I think this has the possibility of being a mixed-use neighborhood especially if there are some possible coordination about the amenity space. I share Laura's And the other board members concerns about what can be added. To the site in terms of coffee shops, small store, et cetera, so that it does start to really feel really like a small neighborhood and you do start to minimize some of the trips in and out of the neighborhood For industrial users and for residents alike. So, uh. That's my comments on number one. The bulk of my concerns go toward the site plan and the architecture and i know There's always a tension, and I repeat myself about this, a concept review.

[142:14] Between coming with a loose set of information that is subject to change and that you're willing to change because you don't have you haven't invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in it. And at the same time. You give us an aerial view of seven rectangular boxes and it's kind of like, well. I don't know. That doesn't seem so great. So when I was at the site today. I was really struck. By if if at the back by the cul-de-sac. And you have these enormous views. Due east. South and uh and south-southwest. And it's a radial sort of view. And the site, because of the ditch. Because of the path and because of the cite just the site just geography of the site is a radial sort of opening, like a triangle with a radius front edge to it.

[143:13] And I don't feel like the site design and the building design addresses that. And I agree with ml that the grade drop off towards the south presents an opportunity, you know, I really thought about got to thinking about Chaco Canyon. And these narrow, or why I say narrow. Shallow buildings that radiate that attract light. And Bill, I appreciate your comments about narrower buildings that bring in more outside light yet your buildings, four of the buildings are oriented in a north-south. Along their length rather than their length sort of a series of buildings step down kind of following the contour so I'm not an architect. I'm not a site designer.

[144:07] But I can say that that site to me warrants more creativity in site design and the way the buildings are placed and acknowledgement. Of views and then how to incorporate the open space into that so that your idea Kurt, of that the the cool or maybe as you. Anyway, the pool there in that kind of southeast quadrant looking out. And so I think this is a stunning site and I think it could be a really great place for a lot of people to live. And maybe work in the park and walk to work. But I don't think at the current design takes advantage of the site in a creative way that I'd like to see. So those are my comments. Okay, and one more chance for the applicant to respond to anything they've heard.

[145:05] Appreciate all the comments. Very specific. Looking at the site plan while you all talked and uh I think they're very good comments. A lot of ideas, no solutions. I think we can come to you with… different stuff. And I think your comments are going to be really useful. So thank you for that. Okay, I'm going to call… break and between now and our next… review so it's 800 Seven… we'll say eight. 35.

[154:44] Back to order here. And it looks like we have everyone present as far as I can tell. And we're going to begin a public hearing for consideration of a site review amendment to develop a vacant parcel South of Winchester Circle in the Gun Barrel Tech Center.

[155:08] Currently addressed as zero Homestead Way. The proposed two-story building will be about 66,000 square feet And we'll have future industrial and office uses. This is reviewed under case number LUR 2024. 00006. Okay. And… We have Allison who's going to give us a presentation. We're going to follow the same procedure we just did Staff presentation, clarifying questions, applicant presentation, questions. And then board deliberation. Okay, Allison, whenever you're ready. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Allison Blaine. I'm Senior Planner and the case manager presenting this next. Allison, I'm sorry, I'm going to stop you. I'm going to catch myself, okay? Any conflicts of interest ex parte communications, anything?

[156:08] I want to simply divulge that Ed, I assume you're here as an attorney for the client. Okay. Ed and I served together on the board of Better Boulder. I have never And we've done other things together other city uh functions. I've never talked to Ed about this site. I was surprised to see you here. So anyway, I don't think I have a conflict of interest or any concerns, but if any other board member does. Now. Mark. Yes. Can you also confirm that you could be fair and impartial? Yes, I will be fair and impartial. Yes, and just for other board members, if you ever have questions about conflicts of interest and you want to talk in advance, we're always willing to talk about those. Okay, yes. So I'm sorry, this is not about this site, but for the previous public hearing, I probably should have made a very similar disclosure about knowing Jeff Wingert from the East Boulder Subcommunity plan. I also was surprised to see him here and had never talked about that site. I believe I was fair and impartial in that hearing. I don't know if it's too late to do that.

[157:13] Ex parte communication disclosure but Yeah, that's okay. It's a concept too. It's not as quasi judicial. So we appreciate that. But maybe when it comes to quaditional, it would be good to say that. All right. I'll try to remember that he's involved in that project. Okay, thank you. Yeah, no problem. All right, Allison, sorry to interrupt. Please proceed. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Allison Blaine. Senior planner and the case manager presenting this next item. In this presentation, I will discuss the planning process to date, the existing site and surrounding context, a summary of the proposed project. Key issues for discussion and conclude with the staff recommendation. The item was called up by planning board at the March 18th meeting, and as such planning board approval of the application is now required at a public hearing. Staff is recommending approval of the application, finding the proposal consistent with criteria found in Section 9214H.

[158:05] And subject to the recommended conditions of approval. There are no proposed modifications to the land use code as part of this application. And to clarify, the application was submitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 8515 and therefore reviewed against the city's older version of the site review criteria. And last public notice was provided per code. Staff did receive comments from neighbors who expressed concern for existing animal habitats, increased traffic and ditch impacts. Those comments are included in the memo or packet. The site is located within the Gunbarrel Tech Center just south of Winchester Circle. Access is from an ingress in egress easement. The majority of the site is designated as light industrial where the use is primarily consist of research and development. Like manufacturing and other intensive employment uses. The rest of the site along the southern edge is designated as OSDR and protected by a scenic easement.

[159:00] The site is zoned industrial manufacturing with the definition here on the slide. It's adjacent to other IM Zone properties to the north and east, RM Zone properties to the west, and residential uses in the county to the south. The site was originally annexed into the city in 1984 and was added to the existing gun barrel tech beauty at that time. The beauty was initially established in the late 1970s and has a suburban industrial office park appearance. It's characterized by broad landscape setbacks, mature plantings, and buildings with large floor plates of one, two, and two and a half stories. Surrounding uses include other office and industrial uses within the park and then the residential uses to the south of the site. The 8.7 acre site is currently undeveloped and contains the white rock and left-hand ditches, Cottontail trail. Some existing social trails and unpermitted bridge and undisturbed open space and landscaping. As mentioned, there's an existing scenic easement from the 80s that runs along the southern boundary of the site and contains those two ditches. As well as the Cottontail Trail, which is part of the Lobo recreational trail.

[160:05] The proposal being discussed tonight is to develop the existing site with a new 66,000 square foot building for future industrial and office uses. The two-story building will be 40 feet in height and will not exceed the maximum height allowed in the IM zone, which is 40 feet. Site access is taken from Winchester Circle via private access drive located on the property to the north This was previously approved as part of the annexation, so there's currently no street frontage for the property. There is an internal sidewalk to the south of the parking area and around the building for pedestrian circulation. While vehicles will move through the site via the parking area to the west and a perimeter road that will also serve emergency access. The Transportation Master Plan, or TMP, shows a proposed multi-use path connection from the south of the site across the two ditches and to 6840 Winchester to the north Which will then eventually connect to Winchester Circle. The applicant will be required to dedicate an access easement as part of this application, which will allow for the future construction of the connection as identified on the TMP.

[161:03] Staff did not require the construction of the bridge or a portion of the multi-use path connection as part of the site review approval due to several factors. Including the connection does not link to a greater transportation network or connect to a public right of way, bike lane. Or multi-use path, it's really essential functions as more of a local access. The anticipated use is disproportionate to the time and cost associated with constructing the bridge for the ditch crossings. And then the construction of the bridge to complete the connection is also contingent on ditch company approval, which cannot be guaranteed at time of site review. The existing path on the site is part of the Lobo Recreational Trail System and is a crusher fine surface that is not maintained in the winter. Without year-round maintenance or a paved surface, the path is not considered accessible for commuting and connectivity. Additionally, there is an existing access point to the business park on the northwest corner connecting to the Lobo Recreational Trail to the south and the west. Recreational trail access to the west of the site is shown here in the blue or teal.

[162:02] And then the bridge crossings are shown in the blue circles. It might be hard to see, but we can look at that closely. And last, construction of just a portion of the multi-use path without the bridge was not required as it would disrupt the proposed open space area or connect on either side. Parking will be located immediately adjacent to the northern, western, and southern building facades with additional parking located to the west. The applicant's plans do indicate that EV parking will be provided and long-term and short-term bike parking is provided for a total of 59 spaces. The proposal also includes a request for a 3.6 parking reduction to allow for 159 spaces to be provided were 165 are required. The submitted TDM plan outlines strategies that support the requested reduction including eco passes, on-site showers and gym and access easement for future construction of that multi-use path connection. The existing site conditions also limit improved mobility that existing drive on the adjacent property was not developed to support multimodal connectivity.

[163:02] As there is no current detached sidewalk or designated bank route. The context of the site lends itself to a variety of open space areas due to the existing scenic easement on the south of the site. As development will be restricted in this area, the area will be preserved as passive open space. Other open space amenities are provided, including an employee gathering area with shade and seating. As well as a walking trail loop with benches along the perimeter. In these areas serve employees and visitors to gather and recreate. Total open space makes up 63% of the site, including the scenic easement. The building orientation is in response to the unique configuration of the site, which does not have public street frontage. The orientation of the building places employee entrances, service areas, and truckloading along the northern facade so that the back of house elements are adjacent to similar uses on the properties to the north. The building's main entry on the south side of the building faces the recreational path and residential uses to the Higher levels of glazing and pedestrian elements are incorporated on the southern elevation, including entry benches, landscaping, and a link to that walking path to the south.

[164:09] Of the parking. Features like metal awnings, parapet transitions, fenestration, and color transitions wrap around corners and introduce human scale elements to the main building facades. The project is consistent with the design guidelines and the PUD related to the material palette, glazing, intended setback requirements, and location of parking areas. The project will modify the height and truck loading location prescribed in the PUD, but will meet by right code requirements. We only have one key issue for discussion. And that is, does the project meet the applicable site review criteria, including those related to consistency with the BBC? Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the BBCP and the site review criteria. There are no proposed modifications to the land use code and the proposed development will meet setback density and height requirements. Therefore, staff is recommending approval with the following motion language.

[165:04] And I will now open it up to any questions. Great. Thank you, Allison. Okay, clarifying questions from the board. Ml, I see your hand up. Go ahead. Thank you for seeing me. I wasn't sure. So I have two questions. And Alison, correct me if I'm confused here but um I believe that these are site review criteria and one is the circulation The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized. And so I'm curious in your analysis and evaluation Is it minimized? It seems like there's a mighty lot of land devoted to the street system. Yeah, I think the site is unique. Again, it doesn't have that street frontage or access So while there is internal site circulation.

[166:07] And some surface parking. The majority of the site circulation that you see is for I believe that perimeter road and that is required to meet emergency access So that they can reach all sides of the building. Right, right. Okay, thank you. And then my second question has to do with parking the design of parking areas making efficient use of land using the minimum amount of land. Again, in your analysis Does it meet that? Yes, it does. In my analysis, it meets all the DCS parking requirements And given… the orientation of the site and where they've chosen to locate the parking. It is adjacent to building entries and the building facades where necessary. And they do have that supplementary parking area to the west in order to serve the intended uses.

[167:04] So it's using the minimum amount of land. In your okay Okay, those were my questions. Thank you so much. Correct. And yep. Kirk? Thank you for the presentation. Two questions. One is you include as a condition, the requirement of removing the existing sort of social bridge And I'm wondering what cyber review criterion, this is intended to meet It wasn't intended to meet the site review criteria, but it's a bridge that was built by Local volunteers. It's not permitted It doesn't have city approval or ditch company approval. And therefore will need to be removed due to safety concerns. So how is that a site review Condition?

[168:03] I think it relates to safety and meeting um I mean, I guess it doesn't directly relate to the site review criteria. But it is not permitted, so it can't be there. But you looked at me. Well, I thought, yeah, I thought maybe you had input. I'm just… usually… My understanding is that when we impose conditions on site review they need to be related to site review criteria. I can clarify if you want to. Brad Mueller. So anytime we find… code violation and we're working on a specific property part of concluding a current process then is to bring it into conformance. If they had been in for a building permit, it would have been a condition of the building permit. It's a site plan. It's a condition of the site plan. Okay. And we've done this before. It's… And we've done something like this before where we've required the removal of something like that or maybe will require the adjustment of something It is not an unusual practice.

[169:16] And not to be… I want to follow on on this because one of my questions was will you allow, I didn't actually catch it, that it's in there as a condition. If we can't. If we can't impose the construction of a bridge. It doesn't logically to me make sense that we can impose the removal of a bridge especially If we're saying that the ditch itself And the ditch company's authority is the authority that we are subservient to I don't understand. And is the ditch actually the property Even though it's adjacent to the site.

[170:06] The ditch is the ditch company's ditch. So our authority over that seems, we've already stated that it's limited. Because we can't. Require either the applicant or the ditch company to fulfill our desire for a bridge. So I also wonder about this whole requirement of its removal. Well, I mean, I think… You know, it's an existing code violation in you know the city limits. So we have enforcement authority today. We could ask bridge be removed immediately. It doesn't necessarily have to be tied to this site review. So I think we have the jurisdiction to ask that it be removed either as part of this process or outside of the process. Yeah, and I think part of the reason we do it is the site review criteria is we have check-ins like we're going to do building, you know, we're going to do different reviews to make sure that it has been removed rather than using the enforcement process.

[171:06] It's an alternative mode, but… We can't do it another way. Yeah, please go ahead, Mason. Yeah, so I had questions about this. And, you know. Like obviously the community uses this facility. Regularly, there's this bridge. I think there was an additional crossing that that isn't mentioned here, but I know that was even less maybe substantial. There's also the community gardens that that you know are on the on the property as well. And by community, I just mean the community was using it as garden space. And what This discussion feels very different than the discussion we just had about another bridge over a ditch where we had one applicant that's like, yeah, we'll do whatever we need to do to get it done. And what I'm hearing here is like.

[172:02] There's nothing we can do to get this done. I feel like. Am I hearing? I'm just having problems like making these things fit within my head. Yeah, I think the distinction is that staff felt it could not be required that we have them build the bridge. I think the context of the two different projects are very different. For some of the reasons I addressed in the presentation. Looking at the fact that this is a recreational trail. It's not paved. It's not meant for Commuting and accessibility. We also can't require something that we can't guarantee or know that the applicant can obtain approval from the ditch company Also looking at the intended use and the TMP, it was intended to be a more local access. It, again, doesn't connect to a larger network or even A bike lane or a public right of way. It's sort of just this like middle neighbor access. If that's something that the applicant would like to pursue, it's just something that the city felt we could not require as part of the site review. And I see Laurel.

[173:05] Yeah, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the legal side of it in addition to what it's not different. It's addition to under US Supreme Court decisions and it's been codified into our statute or into our ordinance as well under 998. Conditions can't be placed on the land use approvals unless there's an essential nexus between the dedication so this bridge dedication and a legitimate local government interest And that dedication has to be roughly proportional both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed user development of such a property so it's this Proportionality test is what we call it. But trying to require the applicant to dedicate something has to be roughly proportional to the interest that we're getting out of it. And so what Allison was talking about a little bit is this is different than the last one in the sense that There isn't as much use on it potentially. And I won't repeat what she said but Staff was looking at this refer personality and just saying, you know, it's not quite the same, the amount that we're asking this person to pay or these folks to pay for a ditch company crossing that

[174:02] They may not even allow, may not be the same as the benefit that the local government is interested in, but it's a balancing task. That was Dasporby, of course. Yeah. Kurt, we kind of cut you off, but Carry on, please. And I don't know if that satisfied your concern. Okay, well, no, that was helpful and I appreciate the colloquies. I do want to follow up on one statement, Alison, you said about The Cottontail Trail being a not a commuting trail that's strictly based on the fact that it is Not paved? Would you say the same about a gravel road? Would you say that a gravel road is strictly a recreational road. Well, I think it comes down to the maintenance and the year-round maintenance. So the gravel path, the crusher fine path couldn't be used throughout the year, it's not maintained. Not plowed by public works or transportation so In that sense, it doesn't meet the same standards as a paved multi-use path would as far as connectivity accessibility, mobility.

[175:16] Okay, it looks like Mark has a color. Well, I just… I actually find it a little ironic given the level of cycling dedication and experience commuting on gravel paths and in fact the desirability of that under certain conditions over under Paved multi-use paths. So I don't want to get into an argument about this but I think that the claim that the Lobo Trail. Lobo Trail is commuted on every day. By people going from Longmont to Boulder and boulder back and boulder It's a commuter trailer.

[176:00] I guess I would rather see us stick to more legal arguments than cycling arguments on this one. So anyway, Kurt, I keep interrupting you. I'm sorry. Carry on with your questions. Not a problem. Thank you very much. I have one other separate question. Oh, is about… The connection that's being proposed, the street, the private street i think it would be that connects two Winchester Circle. I'm not seeing in the design, I'm not seeing any kind of pedestrian facility on there. Is that something that we would require even though it's a private street? We can't require any… pedestrian facilities, biking facilities within that existing access easement to the north of the property that was part of the original annexation. And it's on private property. And off-site.

[177:03] So we have no control over the design of the design Even that section that is on the property. If it's on the subject property, yes, but anything Off-site, no. Okay, so we could require… at least a stub of sidewalk. It could. Yes, it just wouldn't connect past the property Because there's no sidewalk within that existing access easement. Right. Okay, great. Thank you. Laura. Alison, could you go back to the slide that you had that showed the ditch crossing And the cotton Cotton tail. Cottontail trail. Yes, hold on.

[178:10] Is this the one? Oh, hasn't shared yet. This one? Yes. And I apologize. You went over this and I missed it. You described what that blue circle in the northwest quadrant is circling and why? Yes, so this was to depict the alternative access that exists right now to that business park. The blue here and here are existing bridges. And then this blue teal line is meant to show the existing path and access at this that exists today. Okay, thank you. Those are bridges. That's what I missed. I appreciate that. It's kind of a small picture. Do you have anything else? No. Claudia?

[179:05] So the plans show a linear water quality or detention feature on the north portion of the site. And I'm curious if that feature is satisfying a particular PUD site review or other requirement. It would need to meet DCS and any sort of storm drainage. For the site. But I'm not sure I'm clear of your question as it relates to the more specifically is is it in that place in that configuration to satisfy a particular requirement? I don't believe so. I think it had to do with the site design and drainage flows. Okay. And then I have some questions about parking. You talked in the presentation and also mentioned in the memo that the proposed parking locations satisfy PUD guidelines around parking. What are those specific guidelines?

[180:08] Yeah, I can pull those up. I don't have it off the top of my head. It had to do with like the location of majority of parking wasn't in the front yard. Again, this site is a little bit difficult because it doesn't have our traditional yeah and that's that's why I'm asking if it is supposed to not be all in the front yard, what is the front yard on this It has to more do with the function of the site since it doesn't have that Public realm or realm access to the frontage. Um so you know, typically the north would be the front yard because that's where they get their access from. The site has been sort of designed so that the south is treated as the front given its proximity to the recreational trail and the residential uses and then the other uses to the north are more of the back of house elements of the other properties.

[181:02] So that's why it was… consistent with the PUD because the PUD didn't really anticipate this sort of lot And that's what I'm trying to figure out since we're playing with different sides of the buildings and inverting that. Where does the PUD guy, where do the PUD guidelines want parking to be and how does that correspond to this building? It was just they didn't want parking. They wanted a majority of the parking not within the front yard. But again, this parcel doesn't really fit those Do we have a front yard in this? Parcel? Are we calling something the front yard? We're treating the southern elevation as the public-facing area. Okay, okay. So the majority of the parking should not be in the front yard, according to the PUD, or am I getting that backwards? No, it should not be in the front yard. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, it was a little confusing. A couple more questions about parking. What would the parking requirement be on this site for warehousing and distribution uses? I know the applicant said they were using the larger of two numbers to calculate parking. Yeah, so the For the zone, it's 1 to 400. And then the special use for warehouse and

[182:12] Distributions as one to 1,000. Okay, so that would be… like roughly 66 parking spaces if you used that other if the entire building was to be used as a warehouse. Does staff have an opinion on which use should be used for the parking requirement calculation? Not particularly. It's… Since that's supposed to be a flex industrial space. But we don't. Have an opinion on what should apply in this situation. Okay. And then last question. What are the outdoor lighting requirements for parking. And are they any different from what would already be required on the south side of that building? Given the circular access drive that's there. They'll need to meet all of our outdoor lighting requirements that's verified at tech doc We do have some parking lot standards. It's usually about light poles, max lumen foot candles And the maximum foot candles is based on whether it's a parking area or building entry.

[183:20] So that southern area would the lighting specs would need to be building entry requirements. I think it's 9916. So it's broken down based on different uses on the site. For lumens and foot candles. Okay, thanks. Mason? Yeah, thank you for your presentation. So… I'm just going through. We answered a couple. Yeah, so I'm trying to learn a little bit about how to read these diagrams. Can you explain to me what flow line of swale means?

[184:06] In terms of the ditch? I might have our engineer who's actually on the call. Explain that because that's okay That's a little technical for For me, but if Tom wants to Oh, Charles says it's just the bottom of the ditch. So the flow line is the bottom. What is the toe? Do you know the toe? So that's the base of the slope. The base of the slope. Okay, so like the flow line is the bottom, but the toe is like the point going to the bottom. Correct. So if I'm looking at this right, the bottom of the Ditch is going through the parking lot in the The south… west driveway. That can't be right. And what sheet are you looking at or page of the packet?

[185:02] I'm on page 99. And so maybe we'll call on Tom Pankauer. Engineer who's on the call. And what I was trying to understand is you mentioned that this meets all the buffers that are required. And when I was thinking about the buffering, that just didn't quite compute. So I'm just trying to understand the diagram. Every time I see you. Just as far as the grade goes down to the ditch from the site? Well, if there has to be buffering of the ditch, then you can't be building on the the bottom of the ditch, right? When you say buffering. So I would assume there has to be some sort of buffering with the from the site to the ditch. Is that not correct? Well, there's a conservation easement that exists for most of that area. Which would indicate that nothing could be built there.

[186:00] Right. Okay. Well, maybe, Tom, you can help me understand what the heck I'm looking at then. I am. Tom Pankow, review engineer for Planning Development Services. I'm trying to figure out what you're looking at too. I'm just trying to pull up the drawings. Yeah, so I'm looking at page 99 of 179. It's the PDF number. Maybe it's not the exact number of the packet. And then it's a drawing of the proposed building with the parking lot, etc. There's a sheet number here, Tom. It says sheet number C3.0. Yes. Thank you. C3.0. I have a different agenda pulled up. One second. So this is a horizontal control plan? On page 48. Of the packet sheet C2, the utility plan i think also shows it pretty well And it says flow nice swale and it has arrows pointing to a bunch of lines kind of looks like wrinkles.

[187:12] And then like the parking lot and the driveway are directly on those. Am I seeing that? Are you all seeing that? Is that just me? I see that. I see the same thing on the drawing. When I was at the site today. There's the ditch that has the bridge over it and then there is this supposed ditch farther to the north. Which is what is here, what's shown here on the drawing. And it's like I didn't see that ditch. Did you see it? No. This is like a phantom ditch or like a remnant, as far as I can tell. As far as I could see. There is no ditch farther into the property. The only ditch is along the Cottontail Trail.

[188:01] And so, yeah, I would, it's like if like the ditches in this case shown a couple of feet away from the parking lot. So it's like. Yeah, no. Anyway, I didn't see that ditch. Sorry, Tom, you were saying? Sorry, I'm still trying to pull up what you're looking at. I also did not do the drainage review, but I can answer as best as I can. And I guess to ask my question that I was really trying to get at, trying to answer myself before asking it. So maybe I'm just asking it. What is the standard or typical buffer distance for irrigation dishes? Or ecological corridors in the tech center or similar contexts. So we usually work with the ditch company to determine the width of those easements. I don't think there's a standard size. I don't know what was done for this application.

[189:02] Okay, cool. Well, I'm going to assume that This is just some sort of phantom something and you guys Or on top of it and move on. Mm-hmm. Well, I'd actually, now that you pointed out I mean, it is on this drawing, sheet C3. Maybe the applicant can answer it too but it looks like there are maybe not contour lines, but lines that are associated with the flow line of swale that do appear to be going right through some parking spaces and right underneath the access road. And this is on the southern edge of the property. So… It is very confusing. So maybe, Tom, if you could think about that while we move on to some other questions and come back to us. Thank you. Mason, do you have a… That's it, actually. Okay. Anyone else have any questions for staff? Okay. All right. Then we're going to move on to the applicant presentation.

[190:10] And… I'm going to give you 15 minutes, but maybe you won't take it all. If I can get my technology where you can do that. Oh, no, you turn on your, go ahead. There you go. Okay. That's better. We've got to see what I can do here. I can do Zoom. I've never done it from a podium, so that's a… So, yeah. So do you need to, for sharing Share. Do you need promoted access to screen share? I think so, yes. Apologies, what's your name? Robert Van Pelt. Okay, I'll go ahead and promote you. Yeah, I got to join as panelists. And then I'll just have to make you co-host and then you should see the share screen button pop up.

[191:04] Gotcha. Okay. You should have that ability now. Yep. I'm getting there. Okay. Okay, well, we'll start at the beginning. So my name is Bob Van Pelt. I'm with RVP Architecture here in Boulder, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant, which is Andrew Freeman here. He's the managing partner of the partnership. We're pleased to be able to have this opportunity to present this project to you, this proposal for this building. We just want to thank Allison for her presentation. We are in agreement with staff's recommendations and analysis, just really mostly here to clarify items. There's a small wording of condition number five Very minor. We'll address at the appropriate time. But anyway, everything looks good to us.

[192:07] I'll just start and kind of try to hit on these, maybe elaborate where necessary on about these five items I've referenced here on the following slides. So neighborhood context. Alison. Obviously spent time and talked about this being the Winchester Circle being established, sorry, the Gun Barrel Tech Center and Winchester Circle, which serves it being established in the late 1970s. It contains these 21 lots that all abut it. Our lot you can see down here I've superimposed our plan with the building parking and such on it. So this area is largely built out. I think we're one of two remaining lots in it. As was mentioned, this was actually brought in later, so it wasn't part of the initial center. So it was kind of an add-on and hence it's, I guess, peculiar nature of how it sits behind the other buildings and has this singular access easement and doesn't directly abut

[193:05] Winchester Circle. So what we're proposing is, as I mentioned, a two-story building. Actually, it's almost like one and a half, but for height wise, it's a two-story building. No identified tenant this time, so hence we're calling it a flex industrial building We expect the users to be consistent with those other approved uses in the park and so we're not asking for anything special. In that respect, as mentioned, the lot size is a little under nine acres with this 3.1 acre scenic easement, which has been discussed. Here at length. And as you can see from this and what Allison showed, really that whole easement buffers the entire industrial park from the neighboring established residential uses from the south to the south which are largely established single family homes The scenic easement in our case does encompass 45% of this nine acre site. And as talked, nothing in there is going to be touched or is planned to be touched. We can obviously talk about the whole bridge piece, I realized, but in terms of our development We're not planning to disturb it or we can't. So we're just looking at it as a

[194:13] As an adjacent amenity and buffer. For us, parking is provided primarily on the west with a little bit sprinkled on the north and south to serve the buildings. The north is the area here that abuts the the backs of the building, primarily this building at 6930 Winchester, is where our building was proposed to back up to. So the back of house functions will face that. And then we've got this larger area, which I'll touch on a little bit more of this usable open space on the west side where we're providing kind of our usable open space on-site amenities. As far as site, a little more site planning and site layout. Again, the lack of street frontage is kind of our biggest constraint here. Here is a picture of maybe helps for a little bit from the earlier of what the entry access looks like from Winchester.

[195:05] As you can see, it's fully paved now. So back to some of these questions about the ability to separate or do separate ingress, egress types access to there. It's already paved to the site. So it's kind of what we are working with. Again, here to the south, this is the view looking north. This is the back of the building, hence one of the large reasons we wanted to orient our backs towards this because what you see here is a very industrial Look and function at 6930. So that's where our manufacturing R&D loading areas will face to the north. And then the office and people will call it concentric uses, will be facing to the south. This is kind of a view from the building pad site. Looking south where you can see that it's very well, pretty much most all this landscaping you are seeing here is within that scenic easement, whether it be on one side of one ditch, one side of the other.

[196:04] And then, you know, backing up to the residential fences. Again, limitations really the providing a good pedestrian access off of Winchester right away. With regards to the building design, the building is 375 feet long and 150 feet deep at its widest points. The 150 foot depth allows for a tenant to build out these office areas and the people oriented areas as we've chosen. On the south side along window lines could you know be some open spaces in there to let secondary light. Through north side again with recessed loading docks uh was where we'll move truck, some limited truck traffic probably in and out. And have staging areas and areas to load and unload products and equipments for the users. Again, the building is single story, or sorry, it's largely single story in terms of interior function. The height's constant all the way around. So it reads as a two-story building and it's in the 40 foot height, but the back will just be more open to get the necessary

[197:11] Height that we need for flexibility of use back there. The mezzanine is about 20% on the second floor, and that would be a similar office or administrative functions. We have, even though with absent a user, we've located kind of earmark areas that could be potentially work for the showers and changing facilities. And the interior bike parking employee lockers that were part of our TDM plan that Allison mentioned. The exterior of the building is in line with what else is largely in line with the surrounding GTC, I think, feel it's a bit more contemporary, but it's a mix of Over here, concrete with some metal corners and some metal canopies, as Allison showed in her Presentation and is contained in the packet. The roof will be engineered for solar capability and the entire building, you know.

[198:02] When we get to that point, we'll be highly sustainable. Kind of how we approach it will depend on the user and their needs, of course. And it's going to be dictated by current energy codes, whereas many of the buildings out there were built quite some time ago and therefore under older and more antiquated energy type codes. So here I won't spend much time on this. This is just some snapshots of the existing GTC buildings if anyone is Hasn't looked closely, but just to kind of reiterate over here what Allison said about kind of the suburban feel of the office park with the mature landscaping. And the setbacks and whatnot. So again, that's kind of what we're trying to match, not match, but we're just trying to be compatible with. A few additional key criteria. Allison did touch on some of these as well. That we aren't seeking anymore, even though we're going through a site review and it's really, I guess, technically it's a site amendment, but we push us through a full site review criteria. Because it's part of the tech center. The only thing we're seeking is this 3.6% parking reduction.

[199:06] Again, to kind of address what you was talked about earlier. I mean, we're trying to absent a user, I mean, we feel the one to 400 is more likely. We don't feel like a full warehouse or distribution center user would be very likely because that usually requires Larger truck courts and much more heavy paved industrial type areas than we have here. And quite honestly, better access to get trucks in and out. So we feel like there's a very low density development in terms of site coverage and building height. The FAR, which is 0.175 with the scenic easement open space 0.275 with that area excluded because we realize that kind of distorts the numbers, since it's not really can be used in anything, it just kind of pads the open space number but So we're still way under it, even if you take that out. The FAR technically of 0.35 would allow a building of up to 100 or 32,000 some square feet to be constructed on this site. I mean, straight numerically.

[200:08] Whether you could achieve that or not is in a whole other conversation, but the numbers could get you there. The building is mentioned is with 40 foot tall, which is in the IM zoning conformance. And Allison mentioned that the open space is 63% of the site and also note that if you back, again, if you back out the easement, we're still at 42% of the site for open space. And I think from what Allison told me, the PUD doesn't specify a percentage of open space, but the IM zone only requires around 15%, so we well exceed that. What would be required based on that. This is kind of a view down here looking at this area to the west where we have the usable open space. Basically, we're putting in a crusher fine trail with a covered pavilion and some outdoor seating areas. Otherwise, we want to leave it naturally undisturbed.

[201:02] I mean, we can have this whole, obviously the conversation about the bridge. I mean, ideally we would get access across there. And if, you know, we're willing to look at options on that depending on how it affects what's been talked about before, the legal ramifications and What can happen, but we recognize, at least from the users of this building would benefit to be able to have pedestrian access. It doesn't seem like from what was mentioned earlier and You know, that really connectivity at this point in time to allow outside users to cut through. Is practical given the lack of an ability to go anywhere now, but we certainly work, you know, we're granting the easement. So if that came up in the future. It could be accommodated. I mean, I do feel that Ant kind of addressed what was talked about earlier Given that we need a looped road around this building for emergency access, we have tried to be very efficient in terms of loading our parking off of that to minimize paved areas rather than stretching it. Out through the site or what have you and trying to keep it as concentrated as possible while still staying fairly close to the one per 400.

[202:04] And let me just to provide the necessary pedestrian and vehicle access. I mean, that's basically what I wanted to cover here. And of course, I'll have to answer any questions you may have. As will. Great. Thanks very much. You're very welcome. Okay, we are on to. Clarifying questions for the applicant. Anyone? I think I'm sorry, maybe I can clarify, I think that swale question when appropriate that was coming up, so I don't want to lose track of that, but I didn't want to jump up out of order. Do you want to answer that now? And I don't have that plan at my fingertips. I mean, it's somewhere in here. There was an existing couple, two small swales that are north of the actual scenic easement and ditch swales. And this came up in our review and we talked to the

[203:01] No one knew what they were there for. I mean, they looked like either they could have been somebody years ago, like directing water drainage But we checked with the ditch company and I think with Tom and staff, no one's identified him as being a critical piece of infrastructure. Either related to the ditch, they're outside the easement. So I think they still showed up as a natural existing condition. On the civil plans and they will be eliminated and they don't serve a purpose and they're not required. Yeah, that's exactly right. So we'll do a real deep dive on that at technical document review requires a separate civil review, so we'll do a deep dive, but we've been going back and forth in the background here. Is that what you recall? Okay, great. Okay. Kurt, did you have questions for the applicant? Yeah, thank you for your presentation. That was helpful. So as you've noticed, this issue of the connection and the bridge and so on are of interest to a number of us.

[204:04] And I think that when this came… to us as a potential call up. I think you were somebody who was on the Yes. Okay, yeah. And… As I recall, you said that You had started some kind of discussion with the ditch company and then Dropped it when it sounded like that wasn't going to be required, is that? No, let me clarify. I said we were prepared. So we had a separate conversation with a ditch company, obviously, to make them aware of our proposal and they had no concerns about are part where our Project was and specific to where our parking was in proximity to the ditch as it relates to the being on the north side of the ditch. But that was really for access and access purposes for them to manage the ditch. And I think my comment, I may have said that it took a while of back and forth to get them to, I mean, through their engineers.

[205:04] You pay their engineer, and you may be aware, you pay their engineers to to speak on their behalf. And there was a litany of emails that took over two months, if you will. For them to acknowledge, no, we're fine with what you're proposing because generally they have plenty of room on the scenic easement size to access their ditch. Concurrent with that, once the whole… piece of that the city wasn't going to try to push forward or work to try to see if we could look at doing a bridge at this time. We just let it stand. But we did indicate and it is in our TDM that, you know, we're well, I mean for For behalf of the users of this building, we're you know we're willing to to see if we can make headway, however you define that. You know, if reasonable. So, because on behalf of the owner, it would be, as I mentioned earlier, an amenity to the users of this site to be able to get to that trail. And use it. I mean, because, yeah. And not have to go around to the other connection points on 71st or Winchester that you would have to go to to access it.

[206:11] Okay, thank you. Yep. One other question is about, you mentioned the TDM plan, so this is a follow-up on that. You, well, the TDM plan, I won't say you, the TDM plan says that The project will not include paid parking. Due to the location of the site. Can you clarify how the location of the site? Are you talking pave… If I can get to the TDM, are you talking about a specific location or paved parking where… Paid. Paid. Oh, sorry. I was like, T-A-I-D. I got you. Yeah. Right. So that was one of the entries in the TDM plan. And it stated that parking will not be priced. Due to the location of the site. Well, I think that the intent of that, and I'm not an expert on They say the language of TDM.

[207:13] But I think as compared to maybe a more urban environment where parking is somehow priced Because more of as a commodity, but it just gets back to this being more of this suburban industrial park There's no price for parking, if you will. It's just all, you know, it's going to be that the users come and they'll park where, you know, whoever I don't want to say gets there first or whatever will be park in the parking lot wherever there's available spaces. But there could be a price for parking right if you charged a price for the parking? There could, but it'd be within, I guess it would, I'm not sure how it would function since it would be within the tenants of the building. I mean, I guess you meaning they're Theoretically, I mean, if you build it into leases. Can you speak at the microphone and introduce yourself, please?

[208:06] I'm Andrew Freeman, the developer. The market really doesn't you know, I don't say loud, but there really isn't a market for paid parking. I charge it. If we could. But in this market for industrial flex buildings, really, I think anywhere Flatiron Park, Gun Barrel. There isn't really any paid parking. I think it's really mostly downtown Boulder. So it's a market factor. Are you saying that the the employees or whoever was coming would not be willing to pay? Well, it's not the employees. It's really the employer and a typical lease for an industrial building. There generally is not… in our market it's just a base lease rate for the building and the parking. There isn't tenants don't or employees don't pay separately to park on site.

[209:08] So it's mostly about what is standard practice. What's market? Right. Market. Okay. What other… buildings uh what other buildings Yeah, what kind of lease requirements other buildings impose? Is that… For parking? Yeah, still talking about paid parking. Lease basically just says… you're allowed to park here and this is the amount of spaces you're allowed to park in. So in a lease. Companies sometimes grow. And if they grow and they start to overpower, you know, there's not enough parking spaces, that could be a violation of the lease. I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to. From a pure rental standpoint, basically the rental rate of the building the tenant is to occupy the building and gets to use the parking all included in that one lump sum rental rate.

[210:12] Does that make sense? Yeah. Again, it sounds like what you're talking about is the standard practice for these kinds of leases. Yeah, there isn't any buildings I'm aware of that are in industrial parks or even Eastern, you know, not downtown Boulder because obviously there is a lack of land, so a lack of parking So… Maybe not now, but that allows the landlords in downtown Boulder to charge for it. But again, in Gunborough and Flatiron Park. Pearl East, Harrisonne, any of the buildings, competitors in lewisville I'm not really aware of any buildings where they actually charge for parking. Okay, thank you.

[211:05] Okay. Who else has questions? I want to make sure I… C, ML, or George. Okay. If… Claudia, I'm sorry. Okay. Look to your right. I have some more questions about parking. Actually, I first want to start with a question I asked staff. And that is your plans show a linear water quality or detention feature on the north. And I'm curious what its function is in that particular location on the site. Is that responding to particular criteria, engineering requirements. Why is that there? Yeah, it's largely engineering. I mean, it's practical engineering twofold. One, I mean, the site does slope. From south to north, as you kind of see from the pictures, it does plateau a little bit where the building pad is.

[212:02] But there is an off-site drainage easement That goes, well, this was a longer story, but there was an off-site drainage easement that was done along with the PUD or when the site was brought in that leaves this area we actually ended up having to redo it and move it and get permission We had to enlarge it because current drainage requirements have changed. So it wasn't big enough from way back then. But anyway, so yes, the natural drainage goes out of the site. This way to the north and ends up down here. So it's meeting required, you know, it's serving to meet required detention In terms of how it's the structure is built and its location was that that's the natural place to do it so that it can capture the drainage coming that way and release properly to the north. Great. Thank you. That's really helpful. So I'm going to move my way around the building now. The setback on the east side of the building is labeled as a parking setback on the plan sets, but there's no parking drawn there.

[213:05] What is happening in that space on the eastern side of the site, kind of outside of that access ring road? And what are the limitations on using that space? So, I mean, I have to go from memory. And Thomas might be able to help me because one of our last comments was they want that I'm going to say the city wanted to say That reserved, and I can't remember And what that was for. I mean, we're still landscaping it but they wanted a piece of that to an easement. So I don't know if someone could help me, my memory and our civil engineer at It's not on here tonight. But it did come up in the last round of comments. And we're not intending to use it for parking, so I don't know if it was for emergency vehicle or access parking. For doing maintenance. Yeah, and part of my question is why this is starting to come to me.

[214:00] Was it was some type of maintenance purpose Yeah, there is a right-of-way easement located there. So that would be reserved for what future access from Winchester or from the adjacent property? I mean, there are some easements that are off-site here that we didn't, I mean, we weren't really able to use, but I can't, I just, I'm sorry, I don't know the Can I clarify what we're talking about here with the east side of the site? Correct. So there's this access road that circles the building. Yep. And on that east side of the site right now, it's showing just the access road. And I guess in that diagram, a landscaping strip On the main plan set, it's described as a parking easement But there is no parking there. So I was curious what is happening there and if that space is encumbered in any way. So I'm showing on sheet C3, 20 foot side parking setback.

[215:09] Is that what you're referring to? I believe that's the sheet. Let me scroll up here. Okay. Yeah. So there would be, but per the PUD, there is a 20 foot setback where you cannot park in. So we've Okay, so those are PUD guidelines. Yes. Thank you. Okay, but I do think I thought at the end, one of our latter things, there was still an easement there that you might have been referring to versus a setback. So sorry, I misunderstood your Thank you. Again, that's clarifying. And then how many parking spaces are planned for the south frontage of the building? Um… I can check. I don't think I have it on my, I don't have it on my fingertips. Probably say 50, I mean, just estimating in the neighborhood 10.

[216:03] 60 or 70 maybe. Of the 300… Okay, and so that's out of a total of 159. Yeah. So somewhat over a third of them. That's my question. Yeah, I can get a… Yeah, I'm doing my math wrong. Apologize. 25 spaces. Because there's two rows of parking there. There is, yeah. And landscape islands so okay All right, last question. The long-term bike parking that you have on the plan sheet, I know that's somewhat tentative based on your tenant mix and build out. Correct. It indicates, though, I see 15 wall-mounted racks Are there any additional elements of long-term bike parking described anywhere in the plan documents?

[217:05] There are not. I think just again, because of the uncertainty, if it's one to you know the number of tenants, so we ultimately might divide them up. Okay, so there's nothing specifying weather protection, electrical connections, et cetera? There is not that level of detail right now. Thank you. Mason. This might be for staff, but I didn't see any mention about the reducing greenhouse gas emissions requirement for sites over 30,000 square feet That's part of our newer site review criteria. This is the old site review criteria. Yep. Got it, got it. And then I saw, and sorry if I missed this, I'm starting to… to peter out. I saw that there's the easement across. It looks like that's for a potential connection and we're talking about the bridge again with the bike connection across the property. Am I interpreting that correctly? You are. That was the one. It's this one right through here yes yeah and that's the one we worked with

[218:09] Staff with, and I think Allison touched upon that would allow for a future north-south connection to occur if other variables, if you will, or whatever. Came to fruition. So I guess my next question is, when we're doing transportation planning for these bike lanes, like how does How do we remember that that's there? I imagine there's like a ton of these little things everywhere. How does that work? Yeah, do you mean the easement as far as like when it comes up through CIP projects? Yeah, exactly. Well, it's a document that gets recorded with the county. It's reflected on our GIS mapping. So it's parcel tagged. So it'll kind of live forever. Anytime anybody clicks on the property that easement is going to show up.

[219:06] And if there was redevelopment of the site that was ever proposed, it would be very apparent that there was an easement dedicated for that purpose. Right. So when we're doing playing around, say, multi-path, say a lot of things change here or whatever and just like search, all these things pop up and you can… Okay, cool. Great. Understood. Thanks. Okay, and ML, you've got one. Yeah, and kind of it's a follow up there. So I'm looking at that easement And it doesn't seem to line up with any of the kind of organic paths that are currently on the site. So, right, if you look at the historic maps or not even historic the current map, you see these dirt pathways And this doesn't line up with any of them. So where does this what is this connecting? I know it's connected to a street

[220:01] The… Yep. Opposite but with connecting two through the site Right, yes. All right. So that's identified in the TMP in that location it's mostly conceptual, but the trails you're referring to are the social trails that are existing from the existing bridge That is not permitted. So that's in a different location than what is shown in the TMP. So that's why those social trails don't align with where that planned future public access easement is. Does that help? So when that easement I see where it points to it, points to a street when it crosses the creek Where does it land when it goes across the site? Is there a path is there a pathway On the south… Yes, there's a path on the south. There's a bridge that's off-site though. And that's, it's like this narrow parcel that then connects this parcel to Homestead way to the south And then to the north it sort of spits out

[221:07] I can't remember what the address is of another parcel to the north. So it lands in somebody's parking lot? Somewhere on their site. I think it's closer to the site. It lands on the west side of the access driveway that accesses Winchester and it's supposed to run along that side of that access drive to Winchester. And I think we can probably pull up What the… Yeah, we could… So access drive, you mean like in that street there And I guess there's parking on either side, double loaded parking or something. Okay. I just was curious because when the social trails you know usually that's how people figure out what the best way to get from point A to point B is. And it's not even close to those social trails. So it's just like, huh, what is this? What is the logic? Of it going to where nobody has naturally walked.

[222:07] Yeah, so just it lines up with the TMP connection that's shown on our mapping. That's why that access easement is there. The social trails are coming from the bridge which is does not currently line up with where the planned connection is. So that's where that discrepancy is. I pulled up a little… bigger blow up. So I think I might add some of the hard parts. So here is where the established trail is and the bridge, there is a we'll call it a legal bridge that crosses The boulder and white rock ditch here then hits the trail. Right. Other ditch. Left hand ditch. And then you come further down and this is where you cut across the whatever, the… the other ditch with no record of bridge. So I think the idea is that I mean, the idea is, you know, ideal connectivity rate would come

[223:01] If it could be done, would come through here, up here, and then it would be a connection. I mean, you could put a real bridge across boulder and left hand, which then would tie in to the bridge that exists. Yeah, we have a helpful diagram that we're trying to pull up. All right. Do you want to… Ef, you would, yeah. Yeah, I'm just going to share our mapping. So yeah, this is Right. It just shows the social trails and the proposed trail and they don't have anything in common The green line is going to… align with the bridge crossing there and then it would I'm sorry, the west side of the access drive that goes out to Thank you.

[224:03] Okay, Mason, you have a… No. Okay. Does anyone have any remaining Questions for the applicant. Okay, we need to do our public hearing. And… I don't know if there's anyone left online. Thomas, are you going to do this or is Vivian still here? Vivian went ahead and signed off for the night. We do have one hand raised. And I think that will probably be it because the other only other attendees left are Deshauna from CAO and And Mason, who's online with us in the room. All right. Lynn, you have three minutes. You can go ahead and speak whenever you're ready. Well, this is another cul-de-sac situation. Except this one is called a flagpole annexation Which I never supported at all. And I think we should unannex the whole gun barrel project Experiment.

[225:06] For the city of Boulder to draw in more sales tax revenue. This project is you know, jobs. And where are these people going to live? And then somebody's going to come in hollocky or rentals or all the people that want to build housing. And… wherever anyone goes when they're transporting themselves Whether it's even by bike. Or by car. There's a time factor, the quality of life. In the time for them to get to and from their destination and this is you know a commercial space that requires people that requires people employees are going to be in there. So I'm concerned about the quality of life. For them in the time spent driving you know and that last project I make about four trips a year in my car.

[226:14] And one of them is every two years I go to the emissions place that's on Airport Road. And ironically. Those people are all people commuting every day out of there. And… polluting the air more so they really should be going to the emissions place more than I am. With four trips a year. In my car. So it's a greenhouse gas issue. Like these cul-de-sac things it's like weather vane whether rain happens to be on a main arterial of Arapaho It's not a cul-de-sac.

[227:05] But just the same. The whole problem is we now have a completely downed economy with Trump. We've got to get justice for Palestine, a fair solution for Palestine, and we can't be conducting these proxy wars with Russia through Ukraine, through funding ukraine Because we haven't, this is all debt that we're incurring. And we're not going to have, you know, our currency isn't going to be respected in the near future with trump In office here. And these are all pipe dreams for this commercial development today and for the housing and for the jobs housing imbalance And the more housing you have, the more jobs you have, the more jobs, the more housing. It just needs to have adjust some point. Thank you, Lynn. I have a question. Thomas, any other… people online. We have no more raised hands online. Back to you, Chair.

[228:07] Can I interject real quick before you move on to the deliberations? No, that's okay. There's a slight amendment that the application applicant would like to propose to What are the timing requirements for the conditions of approval? Condition number five, it says prior to building permit application Changing it to prior to building permit certificate of occupancy Do you have… you have the proposed change that we can see or do we need to look at our particular page in the packet I can pull up that real quick. We just wanted to give it to you before you start deliberating in case the applicant has to. Yeah, no, that's… While they're pulling that up, I'm going to procedurally ask a question This seems pretty straightforward to me and we've ask a lot of questions and they've been answered.

[229:04] Is there any opposition? To beginning with a motion and then if anyone has a motion proposed conditions they'd like to make to amend the main motion. Rather than do a big round of comments and then go to a motion and speak to the motion. Is there any objection to beginning with a motion in this particular case? Okay. All right. Hearing none, we'll deal with this site amendment and make sure that's included Yeah, are you ready with your… Okay. Charles is working on it.

[230:02] Apologies to cause a delay. Again, while we're there doing that. Does anyone anticipate make proposing an amendment to the main motion with a condition. Claudia and Kurt both, okay?

[232:15] Just give me one moment and I'll… share this document I have going.

[233:04] So we have… Okay, so Kurt has submitted. Okay. There's a proposed… This is the one that Charles just sent over. Okay. This is the suggested motion language from the memo. And then these are the proposed conditions that Kurt and Claudia Okay, let's go back to the… proposed condition here the Okay. So instead of prior to building permit, it's prior to certificate of occupancy. And this is fully acceptable to staff, I assume. Yeah, because they're not exactly sure who their tenants are. So they're not sure how many eco passes they'll need until they start. Lisa. And… We do approvals. All the time that this is somehow incorporated into the original staff memo, right?

[234:09] That the… It's unusual, I'm asking why. Why we are doing it, why is this not already incorporated into the memo Like it normally is when we do a site review. Is this an oversight? Not necessarily an oversight. Sometimes it's hard for us to know whether or not a building's a spec building or whether or not they already have tenants. So they usually kind of tell us. They just told us now. Okay, so that wasn't something that came up as we were drafting conditions of approval. Okay. So… then I'm going to suggest that I'm going to suggest We… move the main motion. Move the proposed condition that staff has put up, adopt that quickly and then move on to the conditions that Claudia and Kurt are proposing. So does anyone want to make that main motion.

[235:12] Kirk. I move to approve site review amendment application LUR 2024-0006. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. A second. Okay. And now rather than… Debate the main motion. I'm going to move a condition prior to certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall submit a financial guarantee in a form acceptable to the director of public works in an amount equal to the cost of providing eco passes to the employees of the development for three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

[236:09] Second. Okay. We now have an amendment that has been moved and seconded. Is there any debate on this? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and… count the votes on adopting this amendment. And I'm going to go my left to right so mason This is just on the proposed condition, correct? This is just on the on the on the proposed an amendment conditional. Question, is three years the normal length of time? Okay. Yes. Yeah, I'm a yes. Okay. Laura. Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kurt? Yes. Ml? Yes. And George. And I'm a yes. Okay, so that passes unanimously.

[237:01] Now… Do you guys want to arm wrestle over who goes first? I think Kurtz is first in the document. Okay, Kurt. I move to add a condition which states the plans will be amended to show construction of a 10 foot wide Paved multi-use path on the west side access easement outside the extents of the ditch easement and a crusher fine path on the access easement Within the ditch easement. Kurt, can you explain this a little bit more? Is this just to say the access easement that they're dedicating for the bridge, you want them to go ahead and construct the path as if that bridge has been built or is going to be built. Correct. It's the public access easement that we've been discussing that cuts across the left side from lower left to upper right.

[238:04] Currently, as things stand there's no requirement that the applicant construct that the multi-use staff? So this would be to require that they actually construct the multi-use path Not talking about the breeds, just the multi-use path, not including the bridge. The reason that I distinguish between inside the The ditch easement and outside the ditch easement is that we heard last time that within that scenic access easement whatever it's called. Nothing could be paved. And so… I'm saying that what the condition says is on the part of the property that where there's this public access easement that is not within the ditch easement that can be paved and that should be paved.

[239:09] Continuing that on the part that's within the scenic easement along the ditch. But making it just a crusher vine path because then OSMP won't have fits about pavement within the scenic access easement. It would be simpler if there weren't that constraint. But that was my understanding from our discussion last time. So we might have some changes. Proposed. No, good. No, go ahead. Yeah. I was just going to ask staff before we look for a second. Whether, and Kurt, you can or mark you can tell me if I'm out of line in asking this question, but I wanted to ask staff Does this propose any legal challenges? Does it propose any challenges with OSMP? Does it propose any safety issues with having a trail that goes up to a

[240:08] Stitch that doesn't have a bridge on it I could speak to the safety issues. I'll leave that up to staff. But from the legal perspective, I don't know that we could require putting in any sort of path in a ditch easement. We'd have to look at the easement. I don't know that we'd be able to do that without their approval So that makes me nervous about having a path into achievement without. Looking at that deeper. Yeah, and then a dead end path. You know, that kind of runs down to the bottom of the ditch, I don't know, is great from a safety perspective either. So I might defer to Tom on that. If he has any thoughts. What about simply the portion that's outside the the ditch easement, which is not very… a very large portion. So the portion that's just on the property itself? Correct.

[241:05] Right. I mean, it's going to create other challenges, I think, as far as what's been programmed originally with this walking loop on their property. We'll have to consider it for drainage. So it would require some redesign of their site, but I think that would be possible. With things slightly awkward but possible. With something like this, can there be a timing component added? Like, say… five years this is revisited. It would just be really hard for us to track that, yeah. Okay. That's what we usually do. Yeah, we usually do like at time of tech talk or time of building. It's like when they come back to the city, we can look at it. The plans, if that makes sense. Yeah, there's a trigger time of what? Like tech doc at the time of tech doc or yeah. And then the other thing is once it's approved. Then you have this hanging out. It's not technically approved. It creates some some weirdness.

[242:02] Legal term. Kurt, do you… based on that input. Do you want to modify your condition. In the hopes of getting a second. I'm happy to modify it to include just the first clause, I guess, which would say… The plans will be amended to show construction of a 10 foot wide paved multi-use path on the west side access easement outside the extents of the ditch easement. Period. So period after the… After ditch easement. Correct. Eliminating. I would second that second. If you want Thomas to… Thomas, can you… I will accept that as a friendly amendment. Well, okay. Yeah, it's not an amendment because it hasn't been seconded yet. So it's still your motion.

[243:11] You're still making the motion is what I'm saying. No, it's a friendly minimum because it hasn't been seconded, right? Yeah, it's actually, well. Anyway, I'm just saying if you modified your motion you might get a second. Okay. Can I just ask, where did the 10 foot wide measurement come from? Is that standard for multi-use? I believe that's our standard for multi-use paths. Yeah, okay. Okay, thank you. So, Thomas, can you delete everything after the comma So that, yeah, that section. Would you make that Motion again, please. Sure, I will make the motion again. I move to add the following condition. The plans will be amended to show construction of a 10-foot wide paved multi-use path On the west side, access easement outside the extents of the ditch easement.

[244:12] May I make a friendly suggestion? You may. And we've identified another issue with that. Since we don't actually know where the bridge alignment will be in the future, it may end up not being in the place where it's currently the makeshift bridge is located. Which could ultimately affect where the paved section of the multi-use path would go through the property. So it's I think the easement is how wide 20… 16 feet. 16 feet. So for shifts. Yeah, so if there's any, yeah. If there's any shift in the optimal bridge location. We'll probably have to redo portions of the path to meet the takeoff of the bridge and the grading.

[245:01] It's just a possible issue that could arise in the future just with the alignment. Okay, but that might be just a shift of a foot or two, right? It's tough to say without knowing what the engineering and the grading would look like. But if you were constrained within 16 feet and if it's 10 feet wide, you can't You can't move it very far. It could potentially move outside of these. It could potentially force it to move outside of the easement. That's our concern. Well, I'm confused about that. How could we… build the bridge… outside. We can't just take their property if it's outside an easement. We would ask them to amend the easement or Or something like that. Or pay them for it, right? There are other ways besides just taking, you couldn't just take the property. Yeah. But we don't know until we future about it.

[246:05] So in a lot of ways, the bridge location kind of dictates how the rest of the path is going to lay out across the site. We're kind of reverse engineering. Again, it's not impossible. It just could potentially result in some issues if and when the bridge ever gets built. Sure. I would also just like to add the accessibility requirements for building these public paths that might require some additional grading. And we just don't know what that looks like yet. On the other side of the easement, I just want to make sure everybody understands on the north side. That goes into private property. So until that building gets redeveloped. People are going to be trespassing.

[247:02] To get to that easement to walk either through that property or through our property. So also just taking consideration This is an easement that goes into private property, not to Winchester. Yeah, and I'm well aware of that. The problem is that we run into this time and time again where we're trying to construct facilities piece by piece. If it were a motor vehicle facility we would just take the land. We would just do it. And with these non-vehicular facilities, we're all tentative and And we don't treat Non-vehicular facilities Sidewalks, multi-use paths, and so on with the same importance as we treat streets and so on. And so we end up not building them in a lot of cases. And I'm trying to avoid that.

[248:01] And it's awkward because we end up trying to do them piece by piece by piece. And each time you're trying to do one piece. The argument is, well, it doesn't go through and so we shouldn't do this piece. But if you don't if you don't do a piece when you have the opportunity, then it doesn't get built. So that's the situation. I don't know if I understood that, but okay. So… I'm going to second. This proposed amendment. And then we can then we can debate it and we'll debate it pretty quickly vote on it, okay? So, Curtis. So can I offer a friendly amendment to the wording? I think it would have to say something like. To the satisfaction of staff at the time of tech doc and including any other adjustments to the site plan that might be required, for example, to the drainage.

[249:04] So I just need to, I'm trying to anticipate Laurel's comment here Does that work? Do you guys have any concerns about that? Yeah, I think that makes sense. Okay. The timing requirements, yeah. If you guys are okay, I can repeat that. I'm certainly fine with it. Absolutely. I'm fine with it. Yeah, I just wasn't sure that that would be required, but that's great. And including… any… necessary. Adjustments. To the existing site plan. To accommodate. This connection. Okay, procedurally, this is procedurally like not a great thing but we've got it. We've got a motion. We've been made. It's been seconded does anyone Kurt, you go first if you want to speak to your motion.

[250:09] Yeah, well, I've sort of spoken to it but again. We have this connection that's shown on the in the transportation master plan Low stress walk and bike network And we… we can't build it all at once. That just doesn't happen. We need to build it piece by piece. And it's an awkward process. But I feel it's a really important connection. We talked about last time when we were debating this call up And I think that there is, it seemed like at the time there was pretty strong agreement on the board that That this would be a useful connection once eventually it goes all the way through There's obviously tremendous demand currently for people to get through here because of the social When this… new project goes in.

[251:10] Presumably some of that demand will go away, but there will be new demand. From the tenants, employees, and so on of this project and so I just, I feel that it's important, even though it's an awkward process, I feel it's important to take the opportunity when we can to build pieces of these connections, because if we don't take the opportunity one by one as they Come along, the opportunities as they come along then the whole thing will never happen. Okay, a second, I'm going to speak to this. Yes to everything Kurt said. And… This should be viewed. By the applicant. As an amenity and as an amenity a um and a as assistance in as making their site connected and more attractive and more attractive forward-looking tenants and their employees. So I don't consider this some kind of odd…

[252:18] Requirement, I consider it actually an amenity and fulfilling As Kurt said, our TMP, our low stress bike and walking network, our connection plans. Mason. Uh… I guess just two quick things. First, I appreciate you putting this up, this was an amendment that I came with and I actually deleted it based on staff comments because I couldn't figure out how to make it work. So I appreciate You bringing this up and to the point of people trespassing, there are already people using these paths to get to that other property anyway. So that doesn't really hold true. I appreciate what you said, Mark. That this should be seen as an amenity. And I hope that this I know it must feel like. I know if I was a developer I would feel like planning board is maybe overstepping or pushing or whatever.

[253:13] And I… I understand if that are the feelings that are being felt. But at the same time, I'm hopeful that Maybe you'll see… our point of view and that these things do have to be done piecemeal. If you want to talk in more detail, I'm sure there's multiple people on this dais that would Gladly accept that conversation. Okay, any other comments on this amendment? Proposed amendment. Cool. Just very quickly, I think I would have, so I would be torn about this If not for the fact that there's already an existing loop there that it looks like this piece could be incorporated into the design of that loop in some way that would make sense.

[254:00] And also create this potential connection for the future. I think this isn't just an orphan segment. It could become part of this landscape design for your open space to the to the West. And hopefully this small amount of pavement would not Change the open space calculations in a way that harmful, but I assume that staff would let us know if we were messing with our open space calculations in a way that would kill the project or something but Okay. That's my comment. I see your hand up. Yes, I do have my hand up. And, you know, I think that this will um Will unequivocally highlight the point I was making earlier. It's like this easement is pointed into somebody's parking lot. And that's where it ends up at this point right now it's like it's curious that it's curious that we put these pieces of information on to site plans.

[255:10] That if you look at the actual This is not where the existing sociopaths come through or access the site at all, right? It's way off of those However, those people are coming from the buildings and the roads there. So I think it illustrates that that To your point, Kurt, we do things We intend to do things And then for lack of actual connection whether it's just in this case, I think there's no logic to how that easement Is going to make any sense. When it lands in somebody's parking lot.

[256:01] You know just like what are we thinking and we're calling it right now. It's going to land in private property. Well, that's what the easement did. So why is that easement there? If… it isn't intending to make true. Impact to how people move through the site. You know, I think I will support it just because the whole thing is is illustrative of illustrative of Some of the conundrums we get into in trying to conceptualize, it's just like the idea that the path isn't used all year round. It's like, well, just because it isn't paved Evidence shows that, yes, people use it all year round. There's a disconnect. Okay.

[257:00] Between reality and the things we draw sometimes. And um Okay, any other comments? Okay, I'm going to count the votes and I'm going to again go left to right, Mason. Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kurt. Yes. Ml? George. And I'm a yes. Okay. Yes. Okay, one down. Claudia, would you like to… make a motion to amend. Sure. So… I move to amend the main motion. To propose a condition. To satisfy site review criteria and these are the Old. Designations as we've been given 9-2-14h to a Three.

[258:02] 109-2-14hf. X. Which both of which deal with minimizing adverse effects on natural features and systems, as well as 9-2-14H2E Three, reducing visual impact of parking and lighting. The final plans shall be revised. To remove all parking, with the exception of ADA required spaces adjacent to proposed building entrances. On the south building frontage. Parking may be relocated to other sides of the building or removed in conjunction with an additional parking reduction to be approved. My staff. I have a question. Yes. So right now, the site plan shows ADA parking centered right on the front south side, the center. That is how I read the plans, yes. Okay.

[259:01] And then non-ADA spaces on either side. And then a row of non-ADA spaces across the drive. Across the access drive, yep. Okay. Would your proposal remove just the spaces on either side of the ADA parking or the additional parking farther south. I believe this language would remove all except the ADA. Parking, I also have language that is somewhat more relaxed, which would remove the southernmost strip, which is across the drive aisle. So that would also mean that we're granting an additional parking reduction. So I think we're going to need to do the math on that on the number of spaces we would lose or specify some sort of maximum. I did try to put language in the condition.

[260:01] Allowing that calculation to be made And approved by staff. So I have a comment and a question potentially before we go to a second, if that's acceptable. Of course. So my comment is, I thought a lot about this parking as well, and in particular in conjunction with the applicant's discussion of what happens if your future tenant is warehousing and distribution. You need less parking. And in that case, you had talked about taking out the parking at the north edge and making that more like truck accessibility and turn around and movement But leaving the parking at the southern edge. And I didn't offer an amendment about that because it seems like you don't yet know who your tenant is going to be and how much parking you will need and whether this parking reduction could be feasible. But I guess my question is, I'd like to ask a question to the applicant If this amendment were to pass. What would you need to do to meet your parking needs? Would you redistribute parking to other parts of the site, would you just eliminate it completely? What would you do if we passed this amendment?

[261:17] We're already, I mean, right now at basically one space per 400 square feet is the minimum most likely. We can get away with. Understand that when we talk about a warehouse user. Or someone who's a company that just needs storage. Or a logistics company like Amazon. It won't be amazon but Number one, the cost of the building won't allow us period to allow us to most likely find that type of tenant. Those tenants are going to much less expensive buildings along I-25, I-70, So… bolder, you know, it's really going to be most likely

[262:10] A company that may have a component where there's some warehouse, some manufacturing. R&d office. But the likelihood of a likelihood 100% warehouse user happening from a financial standpoint And just from… building standpoint, they need a lot more docks. We have four docks. So… we're not going to get that tenant. If we lose any more, and there's no more room to put parking anywhere else we worked a lot on that part of the layout. And there really is no room. To move that parking. That's basically right at the main entrance. If we lose that parking, the project just really is not viable because we will lose tenants who need that at least that amount of parking And that's what our competitors have.

[263:06] So you could not, for example, shift the building southward and put more of the parking on the north. Shift the building. Which way? To the south. Shift the building mass to the south and put more parking on the north, for example. Just as a thought. It would be pretty challenging to go back. We put a lot of work into this. It'd be pretty, I mean, I guess we can try to do anything, but we are now talking about redoing plans. Starting over and probably adding a year to our process. Let me talk to you. Okay, go ahead. I mean, we did look at this, and obviously I was the one that laid it out, so speak to it but I mean, again, it's kind of this idea of the, I mean, a couple of things. We have to have, I think you understand, we have to have the loop drive around for emergency access. So the most efficient way then

[264:02] Is to, where feasible. Park on off of that on either side. I mean, when I say most feasible, but the most efficient in terms of minimizing paving rather than creating extra lots that don't serve that well. So this is really an efficient use to the point it puts the parking where the most people concentric uses are using it. If you start taking away from there, now you're putting it in the back of the building where less number of employees are going to be entering the building. I mean, the only other place to look on the site that could accommodate it's the very West End. That's our usable open space. That's where there's your motion that just passed has just put this access trail and it would just stretch paving Out across the site since that looped road would still remain. And may I think that the other piece of the motion, and we're talking about 40 spaces. I did go and count if you back out D. I think it's eight or nine ADA spaces. I mean, you know, part of why we put that parking there was knowing we had this big scenic easement buffer that speaks to the language here in terms of reducing in visual impacts of parking and lighting i mean

[265:14] That buffer is doing that there is 40 foot tall trees along there. I really don't think that that's going to impact that residential neighborhood. We're going to be set below that. I'm just saying that as a very low impact area for parking. And, you know, code compliant 25 foot tall pole lights as needed. It would be very detrimental. To change that. Having heard from the applicant and a couple board members I'm going to see if we have a second. To either advance it or dismiss it.

[266:03] May I revise it to use the softer version of the language that I have. Okay. So… Let me see where this would be inserted. So I would change what you see on the screen there the final plans. Shall be revised to remove the southernmost row of parking stalls on the south. Building frontage. The other language that is on the screen would remain the same. And I think you can then take out the section about the ADA required spaces as those are not in that southernmost row. Does that look okay now on the screen? Yes. That is correct. And Claudia that is 25 spaces, I think. By my count, it was 25.

[267:06] Cuff here. Okay, we have a modified motion on the floor. Seeking a second. Okay. We don't have a second so that amendment dies, proposed amendment dies. Okay, do you have another one there farther down? Yeah, I have a second separate one. And that is to satisfy site review criteria 9-2-14H2 the six Four. Four. Thank you. Promoting alternatives to the automobile. The final plans shall be revised to show a long-term bike parking area that provides weather protection horizontal parking and charging infrastructure for e-bikes.

[268:05] I'll second that. Can we mend it slightly just like to the satisfaction of staff, that kind of language to make sure that Satisfaction of staff. Approve it. At Tech Talk, yeah. Same as… The Kurtz? Do we want to include this language as well? No, just the to the status. Yeah, so the part before, though, to the satisfaction of staff. At the time of Tech Talk. Thank you. Do we need to remake the motion? No. We're being a little flexible tonight. So, um. Okay, Claudia, you've made this motion and you get to speak to it.

[269:00] So I will speak to it very briefly. I'm not going to lead the fight for a newer continuing bridge connection. I appreciate other colleagues for doing that. But I do think the proposal needs to improve on-site offerings for bike commuters in anticipation of a future cross ditch connection. And for those folks who are still going to be making the longer bike commute. To this site. And this is one of the few things I think we can do on site to improve. Alternative transportation. Options. I just want to make a question to the applicant if I can. So I think I heard you folks say earlier that it was your intention to provide this kind of bike parking facility You just didn't yet know where it should go because it depends on like who your tenant is and how many tenants you have and the configuration of what they need. So I guess my question is, if we require you to put this on the plans at the time of tech doc. Does that constrain you in terms of your working with your tenants or or I guess I don't want to do something that will logistically constrain you from something that you want to do anyway and that you could do better

[270:11] At a later point in time. Does that make sense? That's a good question. It is difficult even at tech docs because most likely we're building this building spec. I would love for a tenant to come along prior to tech docs and sign a lease and we'd know but most likely that won't happen. So… At least from that standpoint, it's a little hard to understand where that tenant's going to want it, what the requirements will be. For that. So let me ask a question. Can I ask a question to staff? If we don't do this at time of tech talk, is there a way that we can make this requirement at the time of tenant build out or something like that.

[271:04] I think that'd be difficult. I think if it's not at the time of tech doc. They would probably have to come back and do a site review amendment. And we don't really have any enforcement authority at the time of build out, right? Whereas tech doc, we can say we're not going to approve this if it doesn't meet our standards. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. I really have kind of a enforcement mechanism or anything with teeth. Okay, thank you. And I see the applicant wants to say something if that's okay with the chair. Yeah, all right. Yeah, and I guess maybe I'm just trying to understand because, yeah, it is a timing issue. I mean, we're fully supportive of the concept. I mean, we want to provide this, which is trying to figure out, you know. How it works. And I think part of it is I guess. Anything inside the building, the details are done really at construction document submittal, which is really passed tech docs. Yes, we submit architectural plans, but they're not the same final plans as the exterior civil and landscape plan. So I guess what I'm hearing is the enforcement piece. I mean, we can show it at tech doc, but I guess I'm trying to figure out if there's a vehicle out there if it

[272:05] Tenant comes in and says, yeah, we need it, but we want it here. There's two tenants. We need to break it in half or something. Yeah, then we can do an amendment. At that point, is that the way yeah but then at least we have a baseline to start from that you guys have made the commitment and honored the condition of approval. And then most times the amendment process would be administrative. So either a minor modification or Minor amendment. Well, we'd show it at the time of tech doc. But if we needed to change it for a tenant. You could do it administratively. An administrative minor amendment. Yeah, yeah, okay. I mean, I think… It's not like hung on the wall. I guess it's… That's just the concept that it's not a hanging bike rack. It's something that someone can easily put like an e-bike or a cargo bike in a horizontal position rather than a hanging. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion before we vote?

[273:07] Okay, we're going to, Mason's ready. Yes. Laura. Yes. Yes. Yes. Ml? And George. And I'm a yes. Yes. I mean, yes. Okay, any other Kurt. Yeah, I have one other proposed condition, which I just sent to Thomas. And just to describe it. I'm just, this would be a condition just requiring construction of requiring construction the portions of the sidewalk along that private street connecting to Winchester Circle, just the portion that is on the site again.

[274:00] This is going to be a piecemeal kind of a thing. But if it doesn't get… constructed now than even when the other properties redevelop, then there would be a missing link so it would be to require sidewalks on either side of that private vehicular access just on the portion of the site. Require sidewalks, plural on on both sides. Of the… the access road, the private access street up until the point that the property ends. Correct. Okay, and while… I support, I'm going to question this well. Is it up there yet? We started a draft condition. I don't know if that's helpful or not, but… Oh, you sent him something. Okay. Um… From a practical matter, my greatest concern is someone on the Cottontail trail gets to go across a bridge and go over to Winchester Circle.

[275:05] And right now, these social trails and stuff, they do. They dump out and and They dump out into parking lots and stuff. People commute and they go through and they find their way From a practical matter. Especially a stubbed in sidewalk. Wouldn't would you think… that a cyclist most likely would just stay on the private access street and Or would they, even if it was complete. Would they jump up onto a five foot sidewalk rather than just go in on the on the street. You said a cyclist? I mean, if I were biking in, yeah, I'd bike on the road, but this is for pedestrians. Okay. I'm thinking about pedestrians who want to up there maybe to another facility one of the other buildings on Winchester or? Okay, so your main concern here is pedestrian on a five-foot sidewalk. Okay. Correct.

[276:08] So can I make… So I… move that the following condition be added. The plans will be revised to show detached five-foot sidewalks on both sides of the private vehicular access to the site. To the satisfaction of staff at time of tech talk. And I will add that I don't explicitly say here on the site, but I think that that is implied because everything here relates to the site per se. If we want to try to make that more explicit, we certainly can. I just wasn't sure how. Laura. Can I ask a question again? This is a pattern. So my question relates to what… happens on Winchester Circle? Are there other sidewalks? Do people walk around the industrial park. I visited it very briefly and my impression was that these are kind of isolated

[277:13] Buildings and people don't really walk between them and people don't really walk into the neighborhood from these because it doesn't really connect to anything. But I don't know, what is the state of sidewalks on Winchester Circle and in this gun barrel tech center? If I could add, and I'm happy to hear input from staff but My recollection is that there were sidewalks on Winchester Circle itself. Yeah, those detached sidewalks on both sides of… And also when I was there, which was before the call up, so a few months ago. There was actually a food truck at one of the properties there. And I could imagine employees here wanting to go up and, you know, partake of the food truck. And wanting to not have to walk in the street, basically.

[278:03] So I'm just trying to achieve that, even though right now, you know, and again, until the other properties develop. Redevelop. It'll just be stubs, but it's better to stub that shows where things should happen than nothing, in my opinion. That's helpful. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, a motion and a second. Kurt, do you want to speak additionally to your Motion. Anyone else? Okay. All right. We're going to count votes again. Mason? Yes. Laura. Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kurt. Yes. I see George up there. George. Ml. And I'm a yes. Yes. Okay. Two five footers here. And then in the future. Anything else? Okay, any other proposed conditions? Okay. Then we're back to the main motion.

[279:06] As amended. Does anyone want to speak to that or are we ready to Now that we've amended it successfully, we're ready to vote. Okay. Can you reread it for the record? Oh, yeah, okay. Not all the amendments, just the as amendments. Okay. Yeah. May I? Can you scroll, Thomas? It's the first one. Okay. I'm reading. Okay. Okay. Oh, I see. I got the Kurt. I was reading Kurt. There we go. We have a motion to approve. Site review amendment, application number LUR 202400. Adopting the staff memorandum is finding findings of fact, including the attached analysis of the review criteria and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum.

[280:06] And as amended by the conditions that follow. Should I just say and the conditions? Because is it technically an amendment to add the conditions? I'm not sure. I have no idea. Yeah, those are all amendments to the main motion. So as amended. As amended by planning board. There we go. Thank you. Missing the W. Okay, so I'll just Read this one more time. Motion to approve site review amendment application number LUR 2024-0006. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum and as amended by planning board in the conditions below.

[281:15] Okay. Mason. Yeah, based on staff analysis and responses to board inquiries, I find that the proposed project as amended is consistent with the site review criteria outlined in BRC. What? When I don't want to comment, I have to comment. We're just… We're just voting yes. I've got four paragraphs. Yes, yes, yes. I'm a yes. Okay, Laura. Yes. Okay, Claudia. Yes. Curse. Yes. Ml. And George. And I'm a yes. Okay, that concludes our public hearing. Congratulations to the applicant.

[282:03] And, yeah. Okay. Okay. We are moving on. To matters. And we'll let staff Go first. Nothing from staff tonight. Okay. Nothing from the city attorney? Okay. Nothing from me. Matters from the board. I know it's a late hour here. Okay. Anything, ML? I have one super quick one. And just while it's fresh. And that is, it is my understanding is And this may be something Brad and Laurel and everyone can help me with.

[283:02] We need to be cautious. When asking applicants about how they plan to fulfill their inclusionary housing requirement. It is not. Part of the site review criteria. They may choose to fulfill their inclusionary housing requirement with cash in lieu. On site, but we cannot make a determination based on what methodology they choose to fulfill their inclusionary housing. Ordinance and so Brad, is that correct? Yeah, that's fundamentally correct. And I would say there's a couple practical things about that too. When somebody is doing the construction they may not, unless it is designated as affordable housing and has the capital stack and all that, they may not know what their price points and such Are at the time that they're doing that they're doing review and all of that, and it ends up being something that they know as the project's getting built.

[284:06] The other practical matter is actually as a city, we are able to capitalize on cash in lieu. I think the number I remember is like triple from what we would get when it's on site. So there actually is More times than not an advantage to getting it as cash in lieu because then we can work with partners, get federal grants, et cetera, et cetera. Capitalize that and also make sure that it's being applied geographically throughout the city. Now, the one thing we do want to do is make sure that affordable housing is integrated into other housing and that kind of leads to an instinct to want to do it on site oftentimes. But if the sites small to medium size, that becomes less of a factor than if we're finding sites within that block or neighborhood.

[285:02] I remember seeing a map of where all the deed restricted, no, I'm sorry, it was Boulder Housing Partnership properties are in the city and they're just very diversely scattered throughout the city. They are not concentrated. Boulders had an exceptionally good run at avoiding the number one sin in affordable housing, which is clustering it and essentially creating ghettos. Which is the lesson we learned from the 1970s. Cannot do. Procedurally, the applicant doesn't have to decide until building permit issuance so up Until the bitter end, they… can make that consideration until we hand them over a permit. Yeah, that's all useful and interesting is it not allowed to ask during concept review about this. I understand site review cannot be a part of it, but that wasn't during CyberView, right? I think, again, I think this is also what I've learned early on about state law is about It just can't, I mean, I guess if you're asking for curiosity reasons it may not get us in trouble at concept review but

[286:20] It becomes… could be construed as whether or not, as a requirement when it's not a requirement. Yeah, here I'll add a practical consideration to all those curiosity questions. What kind of business is it going to be? How many employees are you going to have? Are you going to sell coffee till 10 or 11 at night? You know, all of these probably are not legally a problem, but they kind of sit in a person's mind of like, well, that's important to me. And so I'm going to or to an applicant or an audience member's mind if that was important to them, they must have made their decision based on that and that Isn't criteria, so that kind of becomes problematic. Yeah, and I would also add generically, unless it's a housing authority that's bringing forward a concept 99% of the time it's going to be cash in lieu.

[287:12] It's just the way that the economics shake out. These days. And the practicality under state law of rent if you have affordable truly affordable in the technical sense of the word, affordable housing. Rent control is not still allowed under state law. And so anyway, it gets very tricky. And the other thing that happens is Even if the applicant brings it forward. And says, oh, we're going to do on-site or we're doing it here to fulfill this requirement it creates this, again, a community expectation that then when that goes unfulfilled, but they actually fulfill All the requirements of inclusionary housing, but they don't do what they said they might do.

[288:04] Which is, this is the Fruhof site. Scenario. Applicant comes, says, I want to do this project here. I'm going to fulfill my inclusionary housing requirement here. At 33rd and Arapaho at the Fredhoff site. I'm going to do this whole thing. Sounds really great. They changed their mind. We approved. 311 Mapleton. And then subsequently, they changed their mind, as was their right And they paid cash in lieu. The community. Was in an uproar. Because it seemed like we had let them off the hook. They had promised us one thing and done another. And in fact, it's… all within state law and their legal right to do that But the discussion of it became a sticking point for a lot of the community and it And it's taken a long time to kind of overcome that

[289:05] The perception that the developer screwed us. And I can testify that on the numerous emails I've had to write and respond and explain to folks. And, you know, for me personally If I hear an applicant making a what sounds like a commitment to something we know cannot be committed at that stage, whether it's affordable housing Or site design when it's not under site design, it's just under subdivision. Like, we're going to work really hard to say for the record Hey, that might be their intention, but we don't know that that's going to happen. We don't know that Habitat is going to build these affordable homes. So just be aware as you make your decision, you know, planning board that That might be their intention and we believe that's their intention, but we can't know that for sure and they they may find themselves in a different situation. You know, we've made a commitment where we're going to be really delivered to try to make sure to Point those, point those out.

[290:08] So that was all I had in regard to that. Anyone else anything? I know it's late, but Brad, before you sit down, can I just ask you one question real quick? Something that I've been curious about I know that with the inclusionary housing program the rates that we charge for cash in lieu are meant to be the equivalent for building units, like what it would cost a developer to build 25% of the units. As affordable. But can we actually build or acquire that number of units for the amount of cash in lieu that we get? It seems to me that the cash and lieut that we get would not actually build that number of units. I don't know off the top of my head. I'd have to go and ask the Housing and Human Services folks i think there's the development impact fee, the inclusionary fee that is required of all housing. I know that is below what the

[291:07] Maximum fee would be. But in terms of cash in lieu, I don't know if that, I know it bumps up every year. And my assumption is that that's based on inflation and theoretically should match it. Now, again, we're able to leverage that. Or our partners are. In almost all situations. I think that is the saving grace is that we can… use it to get additional grants. Yeah, but I've not heard either way whether it Yeah, that's an actual home or not. I've thought quite a bit about that and I would love to hear an answer to that? Okay. You know… Even if it's just over a meal here. Because I feel like if it was better balanced, then you would see more. Like you said, 99% of the time. We don't see it on site. And to my mind, that means it's because it's out of balance. Well, I think there's a lot of complicated reasons for that that maybe we can't go into tonight because it's the late hour. Not to mention there's a lot more built maybe than you realize, I mean, it's kind of surprising. Yeah, and there's also other things that go into that fund too, right? Grants that you talked about

[292:14] There's also like the when you have a big fund, there's also interest that accumulates too right so We don't get it directly just from Cash and Lou. There's other things that… play into it as well. That's good to know, Laurel. Thank you. Okay, I won't prolong this anymore. We should be able to go. We'll get back to you with that question, though. All right. Seeing no further matters from the board. I'm going to conclude this meeting. Thank you all. Thank you. Good night. Good night, everybody. Good night.