December 2, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:04] Okay. Good evening, all. Welcome to the December 2nd, 2025 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. This evening. We've started with a few technical difficulties, so I can't predict what's going to happen, but we're gonna keep going, and we hope that this all records both on audio and visuals. But our online participants, which are ML and George, if I'm not seeing you or whatever. shout out. But right now, I can see you both, so… We'll go with hand raising, but if you feel ignored. You can, raise your hand or shout out. Our second item of business is our public participation, and Vivian is with us tonight to walk us through

[1:06] Our, guidelines or rules for public commentary. The public commentary is for 3 minutes on any topic. Other than our public hearing item, tonight. So, anything other than that, you're welcome to speak. Vivian, if you're ready to go? Yeah, I'm ready, great. Thank you, members of the public joining us tonight. This is a hybrid meeting, so these rules of public participation apply to both people joining in person and online. So first of all, the city is engaged with community members to co-create a 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.

[2:00] And we have a lot more information about this vision on our website. Next slide, please. And I'll just share some examples of rules of decorum that are in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this productive atmospheres vision, and all of these will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that all participants, speaking in the open comment portion of the meeting or public hearing identify themselves by first and last name. Next slide, please. For those of you joining us online, when it's time for open comment or public hearing, you can raise your hand by clicking this icon at the bottom of your screen. If you're joining us by phone, that… you can also, dial star 9, and it'll raise your virtual hand so that we see it. And you can also get there by,

[3:06] Hitting the reactions button. So as Chair said, this portion of the meeting is for, items that are not on the agenda, but you can address the planning board and would have the 3 minutes. And Thomas has informed me that there's one person signed up in person. We can start with in-person, and then move to online participants. Thank you, Vivian. Yes, we do have one sign-up in person, that's Ed Byrne. Ed, you'll have 3 minutes to speak, and I will go ahead and start your timer. The timer on the dais is not working right now, by the way, so you have one up there, though. Okay, great, you can go ahead and start when you're ready. Thank you. Ed Byrne, I'm not anyone's attorney tonight, which is somewhat refreshing and perhaps even a little liberating. I live in North Boulder, and I was at the BizWest conference last week, watched the Middle Income Housing Panel.

[4:05] And it made me think about a project I did work on many years ago, the Iris and Broadway 3303 Broadway project that Margaret Freund Tried to bring forward with Efficiency living units, and some… a mix of housing, and I watched that one go down in flames, and it was… Hard to watch, very disappointing. But I know that she has also brought forward 2801J Road as a… project that has, I think, 80 middle-income Housing units proposed. And I don't know all the details. I read through the comments. I don't want to go through those one by one and suggest that, you know, one is better than another. I just know that it's been 2 years… For, you know, kind of the land use discrimination, and then annexation, and now it's been 6 months

[5:01] in site review. And after reading the comments, all I could think of is what I would be so disheartened. if I was bringing this project forward and had made so little progress towards Solutions in the time. that's been spent on the project so far. I would assume, I think every comment can be Defended. But, in many ways, it to me, seems like a roadmap revealing… Why our code is keeping middle-income housing from being built. Do we want middle-income housing? I think we do. But as I read through the comments, all I could think of is this project is being nibbled to death by ducks. And… we should be able to do better. And, you know, I think staff can do more problem solving. But they've got a code that says, you know, meet this, meet that.

[6:00] And, I'm not sure what, if anything, Planning Board can do about this challenge. But I invite you to try. I don't know, you know, what sort of engagement is possible in the middle of a process that seems stuck. But this is a project that I think is in the right location and has the right elements to it. And we ought to be able to get it built. And right now, it just seems like we're spinning wheels. We're not getting where we need to go. So thank you for listening. Thanks, Ed. Thanks so much. Thomas, anyone else in person for open comment? We don't have any other sign-ups for open comment in person, so we can move to online participants. Great, so if you are joining us online and you wish to address the planning board, please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. And I will note to call on you. Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. You have…

[7:01] Hold on, give me a second here. Thomas, can you go ahead and unmute her? Somehow my… that window has disappeared. Sure. Lynn, you should be able to speak now. Thank you. Lynn Siegel, as a segue from Ed, You know, the more… LIHTC, low-income housing, Projects go through, and… the endless… Trail of subsidies for… All of the… market rate. properties that… that come along with them, which are always disproportional. All that it does is it spreads the wealth equity… it diverts wealth equity in Boulder into more towards homelessness at one end, and super high

[8:00] cost housing at the other end, and increases the demand. for middle. as… this process happens, and… That makes it even more challenging. Besides just having permit issues that slow middle-income housing from going through. You know, they don't have LIHTC funds the way Low income has, and… That's a federal project. With, you know, the federal government pushing more and more housing into the localities, and… It's like, how can Boulder resist? But at the same time, there's a cost to that happening, and the cost is that we have the greater wealth dispersion, and the greater inequity, and the greater demand for DEI, and…

[9:05] For, you know, the impacts of homelessness, and, evictions, and… you know, the whole process just gets worse and worse all the time. Also, with what's happening? with CU. And… Now, the bottom line is, you know, 6-bedroom apartments. And these aren't like Marpa House. Okay? These aren't, you know, 40 people with cubbies and bathrooms that maybe supply 4 bedrooms, you know? Instead, there's… Well, now they're finding probably some kickback that one bathroom, you know, for… six people isn't working, and now they're going the opposite extreme. They're having a bathroom per bedroom, which is also not very practical. When you're talking about basically kind of communal housing, the MARPA model is best

[10:12] But that's what was eviscerated by John Kirkland, and… and then he was applying for the iris fields lately. Anyway… Never enough time. Bye. Thank you, Len. Thank you, Lynn. Okay, looks like we don't have anyone else online with their hand raised, but just a reminder, if you do wish to speak later, you can right-click on your name in Zoom and change it to first and last name so that we can call on you by your full name. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Vivian. That closes out Agenda Item 2, and we move on to Agenda Item 3, approval of minutes. The first one is Agenda Item 3A, the March 4th, 2025 Planning Board Minutes.

[11:01] Does any member have, I know these have been edited some, but I believe this packet has all of the edits incorporated. Does anyone have any additional comment or… edits to the March 4th minutes. Okay. like, a motion to approve. I move to approve the March 4 2025 Planning Board Minutes. I'll second. Okay. Any other discussion? No? Okay. Mason? Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia? Yes. Kurt? Yes. George? Yes. ML. Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, we move on to 3B, the October 7th, 2025 Planning Board Minutes. Again, Laura, as the primary editor of, of those minutes, do you have any commentary? You satisfied with those?

[12:06] I haven't checked to make sure that the uploaded version reflects that, but if it does, then I'm all good. Okay. Anyone else, any other comments? Okay, again, let's… let's make a motion. I move to approve the October 7th, 2025 Planning Board minutes. I'll second. Okay. Mason? Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia? Yes. Kurt? Yes. George? I was absent. Okay, thank you, and ML. Yes. Okay, and I'm a yes. And finally, 3C, the October 28th, 2025 Planning Board Minutes. Again, these were edited, Any other comments or questions about those? Okay. Sorry, just one. I noticed that I am noted both as present and absent in those, but I was absent.

[13:03] Okay. We can make that correction before confessing. Alright, great. With that change, I move to approve the October 28th, 2025 Planning Board minutes. Okay, I'll second that. And then Laura. Yes. Claudia? Yes. And Kurt, you were absent. I was, in fact, absent. Okay, George. I was also absent. Oh, okay, alright, this was a small one. Okay, ML. Yes, I'm… yeah. I was there. And I'm a yes. And I just want to make a note of appreciation, to everyone who edits minutes minutes, but in particular, Laura, who does… seems to do a careful reading of them all, and that's, that's no small task. So, and to Thomas, and the team for, as of late, the, the minutes have been, thorough, tied to the video, and very helpful in, for me in a number of instances. So, anyway, kind of kudos all around on…

[14:10] The minutes… the minutes and the work that goes into them. Minor point of order? Yes. The March 4th minutes show ML being absent, but I think, ML, did you vote on those? I believe that Laura submitted a change, Thomas, that wasn't updated? I'm there. I was there, and I'm actually… In the minutes, so… That is… The fact that I was absent was the old one. I'm sorry. I'm assuming that'll be posted. Thank you. Okay. All right, that closes out our minutes, and we move to call-up items. We have two possible call-up items tonight. I'll go to the first one, call-up item 4A. An expansion of a non-conforming use at 929 11th Street to convert an existing attached garage into one additional bedroom within existing… within an existing triplex unit.

[15:14] Work includes a new basement walkout entry in the backyard, and an interior and interior renovations to existing units. The property is considered a non-conforming use because it has more dwelling units than what is allowed by the current zoning code. This call-up period expires on December 3rd, 2025. This is an opportunity for anyone to ask questions of staff. I see ML's hand up, and then we'll go to Kurt, ML? Thank you, Mark. So, I have, a couple of questions, some are specific. And some are more general. So, looking at Unit A, I'm looking at the bedroom count. Is the attic considered a bedroom? It says it isn't, but the bedroom count is, is,

[16:16] It's a little strange. So we have Alex Pachez, who is the case manager on the call tonight. Alex, do you want to handle that? Hi, I'm Alex Pichazz, Senior City Planner. It looks like for Unit A, that upper story on the second level is not being considered a bedroom. Okay. They're reconfiguring the bedrooms to be on the first floor, the primary floor. Right? So, the unit count, the number of bedrooms in that, Unit A then is not, accurate, because it says there are. Anyway, you might want to take a look at that. It doesn't look like which made me think, well, are they counting the attic? So… Second question.

[17:08] I'm guessing that these have to meet the IPMC? Is that correct? Isn't that how we're going for sizes of spaces, etc? That's the building code requirement. IPMC, the International Property Management Code. Yes, that'll have to meet the IPMC. Yes. And did this meet those? We'll review that at building permit phase. Okay, so it might not meet them, and it doesn't matter… it doesn't affect our, Decision tonight, whether to call it up or not. No, they'll need to be consistent… they'll need to be consistent with all of the, required building codes at time of permit. Okay, and my second question, or third question, looking up the property, it says it's in a historic district, and they're changing the facade. Did this facade…

[18:07] change, get approved by the Historic District? They haven't applied for that application yet, but we did have our historic preservation staff review it, and they didn't have any concerns. Oh, okay, so it did get a staff-level eyes on. Yes. And lastly, the neighbors weighed in, the people that lived, I guess, next door, whether next door or across the street or whatever. What role do those comments play in your process? Because they… those comments were pretty, Aggressive insofar as… What exists now, and their concern for… exacerbating that? Sure, so when looking at the review criteria, the analysis is, Kind of… it's included in the packet, the use review criteria, looking at the character of the area and impacts to surrounding properties, and in that neighborhood, there's a number of non-conforming

[19:15] Properties that have more dwelling units, then… What are allowed in the zoning code, and in this case, adding an additional bedroom staff found that it didn't constitute an impact to the neighborhood that would alter the character of the area. So, my question about the neighbors weighing in, and it has to do more with livability, right? And the impact, they talked about parking. Etc. So what role did their input have in the process? I understand the specific criteria in the

[20:00] in the code. But we ask for… right, you reach out to the neighbors to get their input. Where does that land? Correct. I mean… oh, did you want to speak, Charlie? Well, yeah, I mean, ultimately, ML, it's a good question, and, you know, to Alex's point, we perform our analysis based on the criteria, and that's really kind of where You know, what we're limited to. But quality of life violations, so things like noise, nuisance, parking, Those are addressed through, you know, complaint-based enforcement. So, you know, adding an additional bedroom, I think in our minds, and in our analysis, didn't constitute additional quality of life violations in the neighborhood. So, if in the future there are issues with the property, then there certainly is opportunity for the neighbors to, File complaints, so that the quality of life violations are resolved, but. to Alex's point, we're really limited to the criteria that, are found in the use review.

[21:02] Right, so the point of reaching out to the neighbors is just simply to have that on record? Yeah, well, yes, and, you know, again, we want to collect all the concerns. If there's things that we can address. You know, through our review, we absolutely will. Got it. Okay, perfect. Thank you for answering the questions. Thank you, Alex and Charles. Those were my questions. And, I… I don't believe I'll be calling it up, thank you. Kurt, did you have… Yeah, I did. In my reading of the use review criteria, in this case. It really comes down, in my analysis, to the definition of degree of nonconformity. And I couldn't find a definition of that. Obviously, they're adding a bedroom, and that's, you know, part of the definition of a non… expansion of non-conforming use, but I couldn't find a definition of degree of nonconformity, because the question is.

[22:04] is it increasing the degree of nonconformity? Do you have any input on either where that is defined, or how it's considered by staff? Yeah, it's not… it's not ex… expressly defined in the code. Expansion of a non-conforming use is very well defined. This is an expansion of a non-conforming use. Right. So, you know, in our analysis, we really look at the change to the character of the area and any potential impacts. So, if it was a commercial use that was adjacent to a residential area, we would look at hours of operation, operational characteristics, things like that. In this case, adding an additional bedroom into a triplex, into a neighborhood that has you know, to Alex's earlier point, several of these types of things all over the neighborhood didn't seem like, A reach too far. As far as creating impacts in the neighborhood. So, you know, there isn't a definition, it's really just part of the analysis and kind of examining the neighborhood as a whole and, you know, the types of uses that exist.

[23:10] And what the potential impacts could be. And as you know, we don't regulate parking anymore, so we don't really look at that, you know, through that lens at this point. But one of the criteria is, 9215F2 reduction in nonconformity slash improvement of appearance. And it says the proposed expansion will either reduce the degree of nonconformity of the use. Which, it probably doesn't decrease the degree of nonconformity. or improve the physical appearance of the structure or the site without increasing the degree of nonconformity. So in staff's analysis, as I understand it, you're saying it's not increasing the degree of nonconformity, but… but I'm trying to understand

[24:01] on what definition are you using for degree of nonconformity? Well, I think what would constitute an increase in the degree of nonconformity would be adding a massive addition, you know, onto the property that wouldn't meet setbacks, that wouldn't meet floor area, those types of things. In this case, adaptively reusing an existing garage. Especially since it's no longer needed for on-street parking, or off-street parking, rather, based on the, parking code changes that we've made. You know, again, acknowledging that it is an expansion of a non-conforming use, again, it didn't alter the character of the neighborhood per the criterion in staff's mind. Yeah, I would add that in this case, in order to reduce the nonconformity, they would need to eliminate a dwelling unit, and they're not proposing that, and so instead, they're improving the appearance of the property by,

[25:02] Adding additional landscaping, some fencing elements, and… Yeah, we relied on the improvement of the appearance and found what they're proposing to be acceptable in a number of ways. They're eliminating the driveway that is located on 11th Street, which brings the site into compliance with the access and control standards, and then they're adding landscaping, they're replacing and deteriorating Retaining wall in the front along the sidewalk, and increasing bike parking, and some privacy screening as well. Yeah, thank you for that, and I would fully agree. Clearly, they're improving the appearance. But the criterion says that it… they need to both improve the physical appearance of the structure or the site, and not increase the degree of nonconformity. And so it was that second

[26:00] Yeah. And again, the conversion of an existing garage into an additional bedroom, now that we no longer have parking requirements, and we no longer have occupancy standards, again, in staff's analysis, didn't seem to constitute Yeah. Okay, yeah, thank you. I think I also read something in there, or maybe I'm just imagining it, but… so the thing that makes it nonconforming is that it's a triplex, right? That's the degree of nonconformity, is that it has one extra unit. So if they were proposing adding an additional unit and making it a quadplex, that would, in my mind, expand the degree of nonconformity, because they've added another unit. turning a one-bedroom, or into a two-bedroom, or a two-bedroom into a three-bedroom, I don't… in my mind, it doesn't change the fact that it's still a triplex, which is the thing that is non-conforming. Yeah, and that… that definitely seems like a reasonable analysis, it's just that that isn't defined. So, I will not be calling this up, but I'll just register that, to me, there's an ambiguity there in the code that would be useful to

[27:03] clear up, and maybe I'm the only one being really hung up on it, but, I think it would be great if we could define… if we're going to continue to use that standard, in the use review criteria, it would be great to actually define degree of time conformity. I'll just say that… It seems clear that there's a difference between expansion of the use and changing the degree of nonconformity, because you already know that you're expanding the use, that's why it's got a use review, right? So there has to be something that's different between expanding the use and changing the degree of nonconformity. So I agree with you, it can be a little confusing, and if it can be clarified, that would be good. Okay, any other questions or comments on, item 4A? Okay, we'll move on. That item is not called up to the next possible call-up item, item 4B. A minor site review amendment at 2445 Bluff Street for the replacement of a detached dwelling unit with a new detached dwelling unit with a basement accessory dwelling unit. Site is located in the residential mixed 1, RMX1 zoning district.

[28:17] So, same thing here, questions, comments, or, any move to call it up? Okay, hearing none, then… that… closes that item. And we move on to our public hearing item, which is Agenda Item B. 5A, which this will be a little bit of reading here, so bear with me here. This is a public hearing consideration of the following. Little a, recommendation to City Council. regarding a request to rezone two parcels containing approximately 2.65 acres of land, generally located at 5501 and 5505 Arapaho Avenue.

[29:12] and adjacent rights of way from Business Community 1, BC1, to Mixed Use 4, MU4 zoning, and adjacent, 56… Excellent. He's sick, right? and adjacent right-of-way from industrial general IG, to mixed-use 4, MU4 zoning. This is reviewed under application LU… 2025-00016. And… Agenda item 5A, little b. and form-based code review application for redevelopment of the properties located at 5501 and 5505 Arapahoe Avenue with a new 5-story mixed-use building containing 300 dwelling units and 2,908

[30:10] feet of retail and production business space. This is reviewed under application LUR2025. Dash 00027. Brad, you're at the podium. Yes, I am. Good evening, Planning Board. I'm going to take a moment to introduce this item, so thank you very much. I'm Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services, and I just wanted to acknowledge in a public forum that this is, an application that is the first introduction Under the new, form-based code that's relative to the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. And of course, Chandler, in his presentation, will be speaking to this, in some detail. But just wanted to really acknowledge, this milestone and really the fact that, this represents, a first foray into implementation, and

[31:05] I think as we've discussed with you as a body before, there is the policy-making role of this group in Council, and then there's the implementation and ultimately the administration by us as staff. And whenever there's something new, of course, there are things to be learned along the way, too, so we appreciate that, In some regards, this represents a work-through of that as well. But it is exciting to recognize the vision through any application that we now start to see, through the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan. And the reimagining of that area to a mixture of uses, taking advantage of future and current transit planning, and all of the other good things that you're familiar with. So, with that, just wanted to acknowledge that and introduce it, and then hand it over to Chandler. Thank you. Okay, and before we go to Chandler,

[32:02] I'm going to take this opportunity to do two things. The first one is to ask, our board members if anyone has ex parte communications. That they need to divulge, or, any, potential or perceived conflict of interest in this property. Laura? I… thank you. I have no financial conflict of interest, no working relationships with anybody involved in this. I just want to acknowledge that I was part of creating the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and the Stamp Plan. And as such, I worked with some of the folks who may be testifying tonight, but I have no business relationship or close personal or familiar relationship with any of them, and I believe I can be impartial in this process. Okay, and I'm… actually can't see, ML or… George, so if you do, shout out if you have anything to say. Shout out. The other thing I'm going to do is, both, staff, our agenda-setting meeting had requested, because of the nature, as Brad just described, the nature, kind of first time through on this.

[33:15] And the size and scope of the project, and first time through for all of us. Staff has requested, 20 minutes for their presentation, and the applicant has requested the same. And I am going to, ask if there is any board member that has an issue or concern with the two 20-minute presentation, and if so, we would then debate it and take a vote. Otherwise, I'll move on with it. But is there any objection? Okay, hearing none, then we have allotted, 20 minutes for each, so this will go, staff will make their presentation.

[34:00] We will ask clarifying questions, of staff. The applicant will make their presentation, we will ask clarifying questions of the applicant, and then we will, open a public hearing. And after we close the public hearing, we will then, deliberate as a board on the two, agenda items here that are inextricably tied together. So, now, Chandler, if you're ready, you can take it away. Alright, thanks, Mark. Can everyone see my screen, hear me, and not see my notes? Yes? Yes, yes, we were all thumbs up all around. Yeah, I'm just seeing my presentation. Okay, thank you. I will present on the 5501 Arapaho rezoning and form-based code review. I will not read these entirely because you just read them, but essentially we are asking… there are two public hearing items. One is a recommendation to City Council on the proposed rezoning of the site from BC1 to MU4, and the other is a decision, which will be subject to Council call-up on the form-based code review application for redevelopment of the site.

[35:13] With a new 5-story mixed-use building containing 300 dwelling units, and 2,918 square feet of retail and production business space. So the objective… which you kind of just went over, Planning board will hear the applicant and staff presentations and may ask questions. You'll then hold a public hearing. There will be opportunity for the applicant to respond to any public hearing comments, and then ultimately, we're asking for a recommendation on the proposed rezoning, and an action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the form-based code application. So a little bit about process. So, for form-based code, the form-based code regulations are found in Chapter 14 of the Land Use Code. And the review process is found in Section 9216 of the Land Use Code. These are typically staff-level reviews. However, given the project scope and the fact that there's a concurrent rezoning application requiring Planning Board action, we are referring the form-based code application to you for a final decision at a public hearing.

[36:09] Form-based code reviews do not require height modification, such as site reviews, and are subject to compliance with the detailed regulations in Chapter 14 of the Land Use Code, which are intended to be prescriptive rather than discretionary. To allow for some flexibility, exceptions to the form-based code may be requested and can be approved if the criteria of Section 9216I of the Land Use Code are met. I will go over those later in further detail. So the form-based code, we are asking for a decision by Planning Board, which will be subject to call-up by City Council. In terms of the rezoning. The process for this is that the Planning Board shall hold a… shall hear a request for a rezoning at a public hearing, and make a recommendation for approval or denial to the City Council. City Council will make the final determination on a request for a rezoning at a public hearing. Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, as well as the review criteria in Section 9219E.

[37:05] There are additional criteria that apply to rezoning requests to the MU4 zone district, which are found in Section 9219F of the Boulder Revised Code. And this requires a Planning Board recommendation to Council. In terms of public notice, for each of these applications, required public notice was provided in the form of written notifications to property owners and all addresses within 600 feet of the subject property. In addition, a public notice sign was posted on the property. Therefore, all public notice requirements have been met. We have not received any public comments on this request. So, in terms of location, the approximately 115,500 square foot site, or 2.65 acres, is located in East Boulder at the northeast corner of 55th Street and Arapahoe Avenue. The site is comprised of two properties, 5501 and 5505 Arapaho. One property previously operated as the Boulder Dinner Theater, 5501 Arapahoe, and the other is currently the Premier Members Credit Union.

[38:02] The site is surrounded by commercial and light industrial uses to the north and east, and commercial uses to the south and west. The Flatiron Golf Course lies immediately across to the southeast, across Arapahoe Avenue. The site currently contains a shared vehicular access off of Arapahoe Avenue, as well as two additional accesses per property off of 55th and 55th Streets, respectively. A shared driveway also connects through the sites to allow for a drive-through bank customers to exit onto 5501 Arapahoe. Overall, the site is largely paved, with surface parking comprising most of the former Boulder Dinner theater site and roughly one-third of the PMCU site. The access points are shown here in red. The Boulder Valley Comp Plan land use designation for the site is MUTOD, or Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development. This is defined as MUTOD areas pair existing or planned transit facilities with residential and commercial development opportunities. The goal of MUTOD areas is to transform existing, disparate uses into mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhoods

[39:04] Rich with amenities and services. MUTOD areas are located at regional or local mobility hubs and or along key transit corridors. Anticipated uses consist predominantly of attached residential uses. Supporting uses to be allowed include office, retail, service, commercial, and light industrial. Uses should be vertically and horizontally integrated into MUTOD areas. The project site is also located within the boundaries of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, which I will henceforth refer to as EBSP. Within the plan, the site is designated as an area of change, with a neighborhood TOD place type. The area of change in which the project site is located is identified as the 55th and Arapaho Station Area, which is subject to the 55th and Arapaho Station Area Master Plan, or STAMP. The stamp is an area plan that was adopted as part of the EBSP, and provides a detailed study of the vision, feasibility, and implementation strategies for this catalytic project. The 55th and Arapaho Station area is intended to include a variety of new destinations and housing into the fabric of an important working industrial area.

[40:05] The corner of 55th and Arapahoe will include a mobility hub connecting new residents to places outside of East Boulder, and bringing people from other parts of the city and region to East Boulder by bus, bike, foot, car, and even scooter. The neighborhood character will be a mix of high- and low density buildings with flexible industrial spaces whose doors open to the street, fostering exchange of people, goods, and ideas in the live-work neighborhood. The image to the right is just a broader image of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan land use designations. I'm just showing how the Innovation TOD and Neighborhood TOD areas within the EBSP have all been given the MUTOD land use designation in the Comp Plan. The project site is currently zoned BC1, or Business Community 1, which is defined as business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods where retail-type stores predominate. The site is also subject to the East Boulder Form-Based Code, which was established following adoption of the EBSP in 2022, and added to Chapter 14 of the Land Use Code in 2025.

[41:02] The form-based code updates expanded the applicability of form-based code to areas of change identified in the EBSP, and revised elements of the code to intentionally implement the EBSP as described in the plan's place types map and place type descriptions. The updated form-based code represents expectations for site and building design that implement both the EBSP and the stamp. As discussed in further detail later, the applicant is requesting a rezoning from BC1 to MU4. MU4 is defined as mixed-use residential areas generally intended for residential uses, with neighborhoods serving retail and office uses. And where complementary uses may be allowed, it is anticipated that development will occur in a pedestrian-oriented pattern with buildings built up to the street. Currently, MU4 zoning has been applied only to other form-based code areas of the city where adopted subcommunity or area plans exist, including the Boulder Junction area and the Alpine Balsam area. As shown here, the EBSP recommends ME4 zoning for the areas designated as innovation and neighborhood TOD place types in the plan.

[42:03] These areas are all currently… these areas all currently have the MUTOD land use designation in the BVCP. While MU4 is the recommended zoning for the subject site, per the EBSP, and is being requested by the applicant to bring the site into conformance with the underlying BBCP land use designation. It is important to note that the form-based code requirements supplement those imposed by underlying zoning provisions and generally applicable development standards in the Land Use Code and other ordinances of the City. If there is a conflict between the form-based code standards and other standards of Title IX, the form-based code standards control. Section 914.4 of the Land Use Code specifies which underlying zoning regulations are superseded by the form-based code. So, per Section 9216I of the Land Use Code, exceptions to the form-based code requirements may be requested, subject to the following standards. An exception may be granted if the approving authority finds that the proposed exception is generally consistent with the goals and intents of the EBSP.

[43:00] And if the proposed exception will not create any adverse impacts on residents of the development or surrounding properties beyond what is ordinarily expected through implementation of the standards within the form-based code. There is also another exception criterion, however, that is not being requested or applied in this instance, in this application, so we will not go over that now. So, in terms of the proposed project, the proposed project would combine the properties of 5501 and 5505 Arapahoe into one lot, and redevelop the site with a new, roughly 414,000 square foot, five-story, mixed-use building, including 300 dwelling units. Residences will be a mix of unit types and sizes. 2,918 square feet of ground floor retail and production business space are provided on the southwest corner of the building, and residential parking will be provided in a four-story garage against the rear setback, wrapped by occupiable space on the street frontages. The project has been found to comply with the applicable form-based code standards, with the following requested exceptions.

[44:02] So, the requested exceptions to the form-based code… At the time of application submittal were section 914-6, C5CI, production business space standards to allow for the required production business space to have a 10-foot ground story height where 12 feet is the minimum required. and to Section 91418, General Building Type Standards to allow for 70% impervious coverage, where 65% is the maximum otherwise allowed. There is an additional exception being requested tonight, which I will get into, later in the presentation. The applicant is also requesting two modifications to the land use code. These modifications are, not exceptions to the form-based code, but they are allowable through the provisions of the form-based code. So the first is a request for a second access point. This is, a modification to Section 995C1, number of access points. Generally, only one access point is allowed. They're also requesting a modification to the bike parking standards.

[45:01] Per Section 9216H, they are requesting a modification to Section 996. They are requesting just a slight shift in the proportion of long-term to short-term bike parking to allow for 22.5% short-term and 77.5% long-term bike parking, where otherwise 25% short-term and 75% long-term would be required. So now I'll go through and, try to quickly go over the form-based code consistency. So, Article 1, General Provisions. They are using a general building type, over 35,000 square feet. The plan, or the building provides over 50% of the floor area as residential floor area. Roughly 240,705 out of 304,000. That, that doesn't include the parking, total. They are meeting the maximum building height for general building types of 5 stories and 55 feet. Shop front base is provided at the corner of 55th and Arapahoe, extending 53 feet along 55th Street and 59 feet along Arapahoe.

[46:04] This is consistent with the regulating plan. One exception is requested. And that is the exception to the production business-based standards. They're, again, requesting a 10-foot ceiling height where 12 feet is the minimum required. Staff finds that this request is generally consistent with the goals and intents of the EBSP to provide supporting commercial uses in MUTOD areas. They're still meeting the minimum size requirement in the form-based code. Staff also finds that because the change is internal to the space, it will not create any adverse impacts on residents of the development or surrounding properties, and therefore finds that this exception is supportable. They're also requesting the modification to bike parking standards, as I mentioned before. They're asking to provide 22.5% short-term and 77.5% long-term. Staff finds that overall, that the long-term and short-term bicycle parking needs of the uses of the project will be adequately accommodated, per the applicant's written statement.

[47:05] They are greatly exceeding the minimum required short-term parking per national guidance from the Bicycle Parking Guidelines, published by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. They also have provided a clear and convincing argument that additional long-term bike parking will be a benefit to residents of the property, and that such a shift in the proportion will still adequately meet the needs of residents and visitors. Therefore, staff also supports this requested modification. In terms of Article 2, site design. No new rights-of-way or paseos are required for this site per the regulating plan. The requirements for street yard design and yards and setbacks are being met. The project complies with outdoor open space requirements in Section 914-12. Because the property is more than 75,000 square feet of residential, at least 2 outdoor spaces are required.

[48:07] They are providing two courtyards, which meet the requirements of 91414H, which are located along the 55th Street, or Type A, frontage. The southern courtyard includes a mobility hub, meeting the requirements of Section 91412J3. They are requesting, the modification to access standards, as I mentioned before. The applicant is requesting two access points, where one is permitted. The traffic study, approved by staff supports the additional access point. They have demonstrated that the access points are required to adequately address accessibility, circulation, and driveway volumes, and that the additional access point would not impair the use of the right-of-way or create safety or operational problems. Additional information on this can be found in the applicant's written statement, as well as the traffic study provided by the applicant. In terms of Article 3, building types.

[49:01] So as I mentioned before, they are providing the general building type, as required by the form-based code. Because of the length of the building and the size of the building, street wall variation is required. They are providing courtyards along 55th, as I mentioned, and street wall plazas on Arapahoe, which is the Type B frontage. The applicant is requesting An exception to allow for 13 feet and 3 inches of depth for the streetwall plazas, where 20 feet is required. Staff notes that it was only recently determined that an exception to the standard is required to allow for the proposed streetwall plaza depth, and acknowledges that the request was not included in the staff memorandum or the application materials. That said, staff finds that the requested exception is generally consistent with the goals and intents of the EBSP to support high-density mixed-use transit-oriented development. And would not cause any adverse impacts to residents or surrounding properties, and is therefore supportable. In addition to…

[50:00] That, so a shop front base is required at 55th and Arapahoe, extending 30 feet along each frontage. The building currently exceeds the minimum length of the shop front base, with 53 feet along 55th and 59 feet along Arapahoe. The shop front base meets the requirements of Section 91422, with a 19.5 foot ground story height, 75% transparency, and recessed entrances within 60 feet of each other. They're providing a parapet roof type, which meets the requirements of Section 914-25. And they're requesting an exception to the coverage standards. So the general building type, building siting standards in Section 914-18. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow for the project to have 70% impervious coverage, where the general building type Building siting standards allow for a maximum impervious surface coverage of 65%, with a maximum semi-pervious surface coverage of 25%. Staff finds that the exception is supportable based on the exception criteria, and that the proposed exception is generally consistent with the goals and intents of the adopted EBSP.

[51:04] And that the proposed exception will not create any adverse impacts on residents of the development or surrounding properties. Specifically, the requested exception will allow for a higher density transit supportive development consistent with EBSP and STAMP goals, while still providing adequate stormwater mitigation in accordance with the City of Boulder design and construction standards. No offset impacts have been identified or are anticipated by engineering staff. The proposed building, combined with other at-grade impervious surface area, sidewalks, etc, totals 70%. The building incorporates semi-pervious coverage in the internal courtyards and on the roof via green roof areas, totaling approximately 15% of the total site area. Combined with 15% at-grade pervious surface area, the total site coverage would be 70% impervious, 15% semi-pervious, and 15% pervious coverage. In terms of Article 4, building design, the proposed project complies with all applicable standards in Sections 91428 through 91433, as outlined on pages 97 and 98 of the Planning Board packet.

[52:05] The applicant will provide further detail on project compliance as part of their presentation. So, for key issues for discussion, the first key issue is, is the form-based code application consistent with the regulations of the form-based code of Chapter 14 of the Land Use Code? Issue number 2 is, does the Planning Board find that the requested exceptions to the form-based code and requested modifications to the land use code meet the standards of Section 9216I, 995C1, and 996E6 of the Boulder Revised Code? And key issue number 3 is, is the rezoning request consistent with the rezoning criteria in sections 9219E and F of the Boulder Revised Code? So for key issue number one, as noted above, staff has reviewed the form-based code application and determined that aside from the requested exceptions. The application meets all applicable standards of the form-based code. For key issue number 2, staff is supportive of the requested exceptions and the requested modifications, but we would like a planning board to discuss this as well.

[53:06] And for key issue number 3, whether the rezoning request is consistent with the rezoning criteria, I do have some staff findings to share. So for 9219E, staff finds that the rezoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, and that it is necessary to come into compliance with the underlying Boulder Valley Comp Plan land use map. In terms of Section 9219F, which are the additional criteria for the MU4 zone districts, in this case. The site is subject to a right-of-way plan for the immediate area. The right-of-way plan is capable of being implemented to the extent necessary to serve the property concurrent with redevelopment. The public infrastructure can be paid for by way of redevelopment without financial contributions by the city. The infrastructure meets the requirements of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Water, wastewater, and stormwater management and flood control public facilities are guaranteed by an enforceable development agreement.

[54:01] No particular infrastructure needs to be funded have yet been identified, and there's no mechanism by which to require the property owner to pay their fair share of the infrastructure needs of the surrounding area. That's an improvement district criterion. And the proposal meets the trip generation requirements of Section 9922 trip generation requirements for the MU4, RH6, and RH7 zoning districts. Staff's full analysis of the TDM plan and its consistency with the trip generation requirements of Section 9922 can be found in Attachment H on page 354 of the Planning Board meeting packet. I'm now happy to answer any questions. I also have recommended motion language for when that time comes. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Chandler. You finished that with 45 seconds. to go. So… Okay. Oh, God. Now is the time for clarifying questions for Chandler and staff. And I'm anticipating a bunch. Maybe a bus. Oh, who's… who's got some ready?

[55:03] Laura? I have a bunch, so feel free to cut me off and move on to somebody else, so I'll just… I'll just get started. First of all, Chandler, thank you so much for your work on this project, and for that very, speedy and informative presentation. Really appreciate it. As Brad noted, this is the first out of the gate with form-based code, so you're a pioneer here, so thank you so much. First question. Is the production business space, is that defined anywhere? What makes it a production business space? I think it's defined, I'm gonna have to look up the definition. But I know it's intended, instead of more for retail, it's intended for, like, light industrial, or kind of makerspace. Yeah, I did notice in the form-based code that it specifically says here's literally a dozen uses that are not allowed in the production business space, but I didn't see a definition. If you have one, that would be great if you could dig it up.

[56:03] Yeah, I don't… I don't have one right now, but I will keep looking if you want to ask additional questions. Okay, I have a related question. So, my recollection from the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, when we talked about these, and then the adoption of the form-based code. this requirement for production business spaces was intended to provide, kind of, small spaces that are appropriate for making things, right? Not retail, not housing. not office space, but being able to make things. And I think that was the reason for the 12-foot ceiling height. And so my question is, is a 10-foot ceiling height adequate for the purposes of a production business space? Like, what kind of production Would be taking place there that would not require that higher ceiling. I would probably defer to the applicant on that one. I'm not a production business space user.

[57:03] No? But I… I mean, I do like to make things, but I've never, you know, had a space for it. I didn't know if it was similar to industrial, where, like, you might need additional HVAC equipment, or additional, like, hoods, you know, to be able to use varnishes or other chemicals, or… I wasn't quite sure what is the reason for the higher ceiling height, which I was hoping the definition might clear up. Yeah, it's not… it's not well-defined in the form-based code. Okay, thank you. Different question. In the application, there was a term I was not familiar with. What is a bike rack long-term standing? I think that's just a vertical, long-term bike rack that's, secured in the way that a… A long-term bike rack would be. But it's vertical. But I would also defer. Is it, like, a hanging bike rack, or, like, stacked two bikes on top of each other? Like, what is the form of it?

[58:04] I think a hanging bike rack, but in a long-term secure location. Okay, alright. Maybe that's also, if the applicant wants to clear that up, I can ask the applicant as well. When's that time? Different topic, the inner courtyards, those two cutouts that are entirely contained within the building. What are the dimensions of those courtyards? That I would have to defer to the applicant, too. I don't have that off the top of my head. I can check, though. Okay. I'll just say that my concern is around, light penetration and the ability of landscaping to survive down there. So, I can also defer that one to the applicant. This is a form-based code one, so this one should be a staff question. I looked in the code, and I couldn't see a maximum building length for Type A and Type B frontages in East Boulder. Is that correct, that there's no maximum building length on those frontages?

[59:02] You mean a maximum permitted building length on Type A or Type B frontages? Correct. There… I think there is a maximum building length in the form-based code for Alpine Balsam and Boulder Junction. I didn't see one for East Boulder. Is there just no maximum building length? I do not believe that there is. Okay, thank you. Couple questions about the pervious coverage diagram. Maybe we could pull that up on screen. Sure. And again, if this is more appropriate for the applicant, I can… I can wait. Well, why don't you go ahead and ask, and I will, try to pull that up. Okay. The… the colors… there was a color that I didn't see defined in the key code. The bright green, like, fluorescent neon green, is the pervious coverage. But there's also, like, a more muted green that's in the interior courtyards and on the west edge. What does that green color indicate?

[60:04] Yep, that one might also be for the applicant. I… I have a highlight for the applicant. One of the reasons why I'm asking is because I was looking at… it says there's 15% pervious coverage at grade, and that neon green, just eyeballing it, doesn't look like 15%, so I was wondering if there was something I was missing. Okay. Yeah, I would… I'm gonna have to… Oh, here we go. Yeah, I believe that the, the, slightly… Darker green at grade is also included as part of the pervious. But I will, let the applicant confirm or disconfirm that. Okay. Maybe I'll do one more, and then pass to somebody else? Okay, last one for this round. Can we talk about these fifth floor green roofs?

[61:07] what is a fifth floor green roof? Because the fifth floor, as I understand it, doesn't have any elevator or stairway that goes up there. There's no human access up there, except for, like, maintenance of equipment and appurtenances on the roof. So what is a fifth floor green roof? Yeah, I will let the applicant talk about the design of the green rooms. I know they're still, I think, deciding between two potential designs. But essentially, it would be, you know, a planted area with drainage, and dirt. There would have to be some access to get up there to perform maintenance. But it would just be large, large sections of the roof that are semi-pervious, is, I think, all they're allowed to be counted as. With drainage going into the, at-grade drainage facilities. Okay, thank you, I'll pass on to the next person.

[62:01] Okay, who else has questions? Claudia. I'll go next, just because I want to pick up on this green roofs and impervious coverage issue. I'm not sure if I'm clear on this yet, so green roofs, I know, are allowed in the form-based code as a building design element. But I'm not sure, like, how are they classified as pervious or impervious surfaces? Is that specified anywhere in any of our codes? They're classified as semi-pervious, I believe. They're not allowed to count as fully pervious. Okay. Is that in the form-based code, or elsewhere in the building code? It's… it's in the form-based code. I think that, Laura quoted it, quoted the section earlier. It's in the definitions, and green roof is listed as an example of semi-pervious surface, but it is not listed as semi-pervious coverage.

[63:02] Okay. Yeah. Okay. And then using those current calculations that have been done for pervious versus semi-pervious, and the fact that the applicant is asking for an exception to that 65%, how many more square feet of pervious surface would the project need to get below that 65% limit? Like, we're going… we're being asked to go from 65% to 70%. What… what is the square footage here that we're actually talking about? Yeah, I'm gonna have to do a bunch of math to answer that one. Let me… Let me find… I did some crack math, too, but I'd be curious. If you have a… if you have an estimate, I mean, the, The image that I provided in the slideshow does have square footages. Let's see…

[64:05] Oh, no, it's on, I'm sorry, that's on, in the packet on the landscaping. Okay. sheet. I could also… The activity envelope calculation was just based on the acreage of the site, and that may not be the right starting point, I recognize that. But 2.65 acres times 5%, I got about 5,800 square feet. Does that sound ballpark? It does. Okay. And then I had one more question about, bike parking. And that is due… Do these in-unit gear closets that are being described as making up part of the bike parking, do those qualify as bike parking under our code? Yes, I believe that they do. Let me… Double-check that as well.

[65:16] If any other staff member happens to know the answer to this, please feel free to chime in. Otherwise, I'm going to scroll through the bike parking code here. Yeah, so I believe we do, okay, so dwelling units… Without a private garage, 2 per unit, long-term, short-term. And… Yeah, so the bicycle facilities… Must provide for storage and locking of bicycles. Yes, you are… in attached housing, you are allowed to provide in-unit bike parking. Okay, thanks. I'll let someone else ask some questions.

[66:02] Okay, I'm gonna go to ML, and then George. So… Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, Chandler. yeah, trying to catch up with this form-based code stuff. It's, it's an interesting start here. So, I have similar questions to what Laura and Claudia have asked, and it sounds like maybe… these questions go to the applicant. I'll ask you one that maybe wasn't asked specifically, back to the pervious and impervious. What's the definition for semi-pervious? Okay. Semi-pervious coverage means the percentage of a lot or parcel developed with semi-pervious services. What is… what does it mean… what does semi-pervious mean?

[67:05] There's also, it's actually another definition that applies, similar. Sorry. Semi-pervious surface, which is in the definition of semi-pervious coverage, is defined as a porous surface or material that allows for water to pass through the soil, including without limitation, permeable pavers, permeable concrete, and a green roof. So, given that both the courtyards and the roof are considered semi-pervious. this water, I think you've mentioned this, Chanda, this water ultimately goes into a drainage system. Correct. And how is that different from a, from… an impervious. Surface, like a flat roof. That goes into a drainage system.

[68:04] I think there's just filtration that occurs through the soil. I mean, honestly, these definitions have been, a bit challenging as well, and we have identified, some… Areas for potential clarification and future code changes with regards to the pervious, semi-pervious, and impervious coverage definitions? But yeah, I think semi-pervious is just a little bit slower. Right? Alright, I think that… The difference is that it has a water quality feature. Right. Rather than just draining right off the roof. Okay, that makes some sense. Moving, so, are there… Grounds in the criteria for reducing the, the required pervi… impervious? It's just the… just the standard exception criteria. So you can ask for exceptions to any form-based code standard, and you have to make a finding that it's consistent with the goals and intents of the EBSP, and that it won't cause adverse impacts to residents or surrounding properties.

[69:08] Okay, so there's nothing particular about… About that. Okay, thanks for that. I have two other questions that haven't been asked. One is. Regards to the, access points. So, looking at their, access… their proposed access. the one way Right turn only is coming off of 55th Street. 55th is, like. a major… street out there, right? It's not… a lot of people will be using that to come and go, because that is a big-through street. 26th, however, has the two-way. Access? It's a dead-end street.

[70:00] And you can't… Turn… left onto Arapaho from there. So, I'm just curious. It sounded like, Having the two-way street, On 20… on 56th versus 55th. was a matter of determining which was less of a challenge. Dealing with 55th Street or dealing with 56th Street. how… It seems like bringing people down into a dead-end street And not being able to fully access, going… east or west onto Arapaho. How did that… End up being the winning scheme there. Well, I'm not the transportation engineer, but I will say that the issue that you are asking about was the single biggest

[71:01] Item in terms of, back-and-forth review comments that was discussed between transportation staff and the applicant. I will… I think the applicant probably has their transportation engineer here. I will let them go into further detail about it, but essentially, a lot of it was just about safety. 55th Street is a minor arterial, which is a lower category street than Arapahoe, which is a principal arterial. 56th Street is the lowest category street. So I think, you know, there was a lot of analysis done about whether it was safe to allow, you know, turning into the site, heading south on 55th Street. That was determined not to be safe. So really, this is just the… the… what they're proposing is essentially the… has the least impact to existing traffic patterns, and is the safest that anyone could come up with. But yeah, it's a tough site because there's really no place That you can have full turn onto Arapaho other than 55th, but that would not be, acceptable to have a two-way access point into the site from 55th, so…

[72:08] This was kind of what… what was come up with. So I'm hearing you say that staff is in agreement with this conclusion? Yes. And lastly, rezoning it to an MU4. It's… Identified as development to occur in a pedestrian-oriented pattern. So, do we have any pedestrian-level imagery? To be able to ascertain whether This is, conducive to pedestrian… Experience? Yes, there are… the applicant has plenty of images to demonstrate that, but I will also just remind you that overall, the form-based code takes precedence.

[73:02] So the intent statement of MU4 is not really something we're reviewing the project against when the form-based code applies. We're using the form-based code standards, which have really strict and specific requirements for pedestrian streetscapes. So if they comply with that, we're, you know, they're in compliance with the zoning regulations as they apply to the site. And do we know what the pedestrian requirements are in the form-based code? Yes. Can you put those up? bring those. Thursday. 50 of them. Well, it's a whole… it's a whole article, right? I mean, yeah, I mean, the whole building design piece, has, you know, requirements for the space between, entrances, and setbacks of entrances, and size of windows, location of windows, like… Floor-to-ceiling height, width of sidewalk, width of landscaping, all of those things are in the form-based code, and I. So I think that the,

[74:01] as you were suggesting, that the applicant, walking us through a pedestrian-level experience will begin to address some of those questions I'm having. Thank you, thank you for that. And, my last Question… is… Oh, so, when we… In the motion, it talks about, Approving the findings of facts. Attachment G lists the draft ordinance. Did you guys catch the typo about it identifying that the public hearing with Planning Board occurred on November 18th? So… We did. Okay, so… I thought that was replaced. I'm not sure if it was or not, but we did,

[75:00] Julia pointed that out, and we asked that it be replaced. Okay, I'm just thinking that when we go to do things, we're… we don't want to be approving something that, Wasn't correct. That was my last question. Thank you so much, Chandler. Okay. Great. George. Yeah, I'll try to be quick. I've got a number of the same questions that have already been asked that we're waiting for answers on, specifically in the light wells. size of that. Do we know that, that, that, that exception that's being requested in that makerspace, to a 10-foot ceiling, that's, that's, that's a floor-to-ceiling height, that's not to, to, like, a finish, like a, like a, like, ductwork would hang below that, etc, is that correct? section. Correct. Okay. My next… I want to go back to the… not to belabor the pervious… semi-pervious thing, but it is an interesting topic, because I'm trying to understand. So if I look up the definition of semi-pervious versus pervious.

[76:04] Semi-pervious allows significantly less water to drain. And it has lower drainage rates, which can be more susceptible to flooding from heavy rain than pervious areas. So that's the technical definition, at least that I can find. So the question is, as it relates to this impervious area that's required. within that. Who is determining what percentage is allowable of semi-pervious versus pervious, considering that semi-pervious is an inferior drainage option versus pervious, because I don't… I'm not reading that semi-pervious replaces pervious, but can you talk us through what percentages are permitted around that? Yeah, so the form-based code… Allows for 65% impervious maximum, and then 25% maximum semi-pervious.

[77:00] So, if you… if you add those up, right, then it's implying that if you're at maximum of both, you have 10% pervious. Got it. And this is by design and intended to encourage the use of green roofs by allowing more building coverage in exchange. Additional site coverage also contributes. I'm reading from a response that I got from our long-range folks who helped draft this. Additional site coverage also contributes to feasibility of urban mixed-use redevelopment. As kind of an analog, other industrial zone districts, such as IM or IG, require 10-20% open space, which is not… you know, when we require open… in most other zone districts, we just require a certain amount of open space. But open space, per definition, can kind of be a mix of pervious and semi-pervious, so we don't really get that granular with other open space. So in this case, because they're providing, you know, over what the kind of minimum amount of pervious coverage would otherwise be allowed, right? We felt like this is supportable, and it also meets all of our drainage requirements and design and construction standards as far as that.

[78:04] That's, that's, that's, that's, that's helpful, thank you. And then, around this, traffic circulation pattern and the idea of a second cut into this, site. Considering that there was considerable back and forth, if that, if that exception wasn't allowed, How would this development be reoriented, and what… what impacts would that have? Well, it would essentially make it so that everyone had to turn into… I mean, 56th Street is the lowest category street, so it would be the one access off of 56th Street. So it would essentially mean that the only access into the site would be westbound on Arapaho. And then you'd essentially, you know, to leave the site and go east.

[79:00] you'd have to basically do a U-turn or, you know, turn around somewhere at a western location, but it would basically just make it so that it was only possible to drive into the site. Westbound, and to leave westbound. And so, is the concern with that… that… development wouldn't be supportable at all with that single access point, or would it just need to be reduced in scale, or how… I think it's… again, I'll probably defer to the applicant's transportation team to get into the details of it, but… I think there are safety concerns, as well as just traffic concerns and level of service concerns on westbound Arapahoe. Okay. That, that, that was it for now. Thanks. Hey, Kurt, I'm going to… I see your hand up. I have a couple questions that are very high-leveled, and I think might help

[80:02] with some of the discussion we're having, and so I'm gonna call on myself. My first question is, is… So we can… we can call up… I know this project was not called up, but we can call up a form-based code project. Two members of the planning board. Have the opportunity To call up a project, correct? If it was a staff decision, yes. If it was a staff decision. Yeah. In this case, it was referred to the planning board without a staff decision. would… All form-based code projects essentially be a staff decision. If they did not request exceptions. Any form-based code application can be a staff decision. It doesn't matter whether exceptions are requested or not. Can we condition A form-based code project.

[81:04] You can impose conditions if, without the conditions, the project doesn't meet the review criteria. Okay. So, given that form-based code, is… predominantly, a… yes or no meeting of criteria. Most of… most of that criteria is objective and numerical. Would conditioning the project require the planning board to essentially disagree with staff. In terms of their numerical calculations, or their evaluation of criteria, yes, no criteria. Yes, for that particular condition. Staff also recommends some conditions to make sure that the project is consistent with the review criteria, so

[82:09] That's already built into staff's recommendation. But if you… if you disagree with staff on… a finding. And you think with the condition of approval, under your reading of the code and the application of the facts, the project would still meet the criteria. You could impose that condition to make it compliant. Okay. I think that answers my question, as… Okay, Kurt. Thank you, and thanks to my fellow board members for all their questions. Those were great. I wanted to follow up, since George had just been talking about the second access point. I wanted to ask a couple more questions about that. The first one…

[83:00] to, really, to Chandler, I guess, is… If 56th Street… Currently, we're not a dead end, and it connected through to 55th. for instance, via an extension of Conestoga, or via an extension of Western… would… Would staff have… recommended, this variance to the requirements in 995, or if there were a connection through there, would… It'd have been staff's position that Such a… such a variance to 995 would not be… Would… would not be appropriate. Yeah, again, I'll leave it to the transportation folks to really dig into the details on that, but I know that the fact that it is an incomplete street grid, was part of the justification that was used for allowing the second access point.

[84:02] Okay. The other question, also kind of along the same lines, is. Was any consideration given, or were there any discussions with the applicant about the possibility of of modifying the… I guess it's the stamp. Connections plan to provide a Minor Street, I suppose, on the north side that would provide a connection there. in… Instead of the through-the-building connection? Was there any discussion about that? Do you… did you know… We did not have a discussion because, as far as I know, we don't have the authority to require it, and they didn't come out and volunteer, so… That… that was not, part of the discussion in my recollection. Okay. Alright, that's good enough for now. Thank you.

[85:00] Mason. I really only have one remaining question. And that is about how neighborhood plans play into this review. My reading of… of the code… It speaks to the, The character established in the city's adopted plans and regulations for the area, in terms of height, massing, scale, bulk orientation, configuration, and architecture. But, to me, if I… on point A, this is really just about the purpose of form-based code review, and doesn't say any words like shall, or must, or anything like that. So if it's not actually in the form-based code itself, but it is in a neighborhood plan, it really just kind of is what it is. Yeah, the… what's written in the sub-community plan or area plan is… only comes in if the code itself pulls it in through some language. For example, in SiteReview, we have the

[86:03] Requirement that the project is generally consistent. with adopted sub-community plans. We don't have that as a general requirement for form-based code review. The area plans really only come in through that one exception process that allows an exception to be granted if the exception is generally consistent. With the subcommunity or area plan. Okay, so if the exception is not consistent with the, area plan, then that's a reason to not allow the exception. Correct. So, and again, going back to my first question, so if the neighborhood plan says that there are, four main tenets to building form, vertically integrated mixed-use and stacking, setbacks, stepbacks. and building articulation. If those four things aren't in the form-based code, it kind of doesn't matter unless there's an exception requested. Yeah, that's correct. The form-based code already interprets the intent behind that plan. That's how the city implemented it, essentially, with the criteria that are in there.

[87:10] Great, thank you. Thanks, Mason, and I'm gonna follow on to that and, so… Hela, you and I have had this discussion before, I think both in the room and out of the room, about the words intent. So, 9-14-3, design goals for form-based code areas. This is the one area of chapter 14 That is full of subjective descriptors. My question is… and I think I've been schooled on this before, but that as interesting and Wonderful as some of these descriptors might be. They are not criteria, is that correct? That's correct.

[88:04] And that the form… the code, The checkboxes, the numerical calculations, R… The embodiment of these goals. That's right. Okay. All right, anyone else have questions for staff? I know we have a lot for the applicant. Anyone else for staff? Laura I have just one more, again, getting back to the perviousness. And I asked this over email, but I'll, but I think the answer was deferred to tonight. So, if I'm understanding correctly that… The entire building, plus any impervious, surface area. That is the calculation for impervious surface area, minus any green roof semi-pervious area. Is that correct?

[89:01] That's correct. And so, that would mean that in East Boulder, where 65% of the site can be clearly impervious, and up to 25% can be semi-pervious, that 90% of the site could be covered with building plus impervious surfaces, as long as 25% is green roof. That's correct. Yes. And… and can you confirm It was that… I know that the code was written to try to encourage the green roofs, and I encourage that, and I am supportive of that, but I am concerned that that total calculation seems quite large. So staff is aware that up to 90% of these sites could be covered by building and impervious surfaces as long as 25% is green roof, and that was intentional. That was by design, yes. Okay, thank you. But there are also… I mean, the thing is with… with the form-based code, there's… there's other standards that almost make that impossible to… for… for 90% of the site to be…

[90:01] covered by the building footprint, right? When you have your outdoor open space requirements, your street wall variation. streetscape, all of that, those things also add up, so I think there are other measures that kind of, by nature, reduce the overall amount of impervious area, but if someone could figure out a way to do that, and we granted an exception, or didn't grant an exception, they had 25% green roofs, then yes, they could have 90% impervious coverage, and that was by design. Thank you. Mark, can I interject? Yes. Before we move on? I just wanted to suggest that board members refresh their packets, if they've had their tab open for a while, so that they're seeing the latest version of the packet. It sounds like some… Members are viewing packets from… That haven't been updated. Okay, thank you. So… If you have an old version of the packet, you should download it, update it, refresh it. You can just refresh the page if you're viewing it on the new browser. It's at the same link, so if you just refresh your page, you should see the…

[91:04] Most current version. Okay, thank you. Okay, it's now time for, the applicant presentation. We're gonna give you 20 minutes, and So, and as I've told other applicants recently, Don't fall prey to answering questions during your presentation that you heard up here. Get through your presentation, and we'll have plenty of questions for you, but don't cut your presentation short by trying to answer questions that you're Answer questions that you're anxious to set us straight on. Okay. Thank you. Great. I appreciate that opening comment. Good evening, everybody. My name's Dan Kennelly. I'm with Quad Capital Partners. We're the owner and developer of the project. With me are my colleagues Zach and Christine, along with Erin and her team from Sofra Sparn.

[92:05] In a minute, Aaron's gonna start taking you through some of the details of the project, which I think will clear up a lot of the conversation that we just had. But first, on behalf of the development team, we just wanted to say how excited we are to be here tonight. It's been a long journey. It's a complicated project, as has already been illuminated by the discussion so far, and we've really appreciated the, guidance and the partnership we've had with the great team, with the city staff so far, and like I said, we're really excited to get to this point. We purchased the former Boulder Dinner Theater site back in 2022, and shortly after that, we worked with the credit union to, reach an agreement to buy that property as well. At the time, the East Boulder sub-community plan was nearing completion. And, this site is really the marquee corner of East Boulder and the Stamp area. We are believers in East Boulder. We've made a big investment in East Boulder, and we're believers in all of the thoughtful planning that you all have done over the last few years to…

[93:17] Kind of set the table for this to become, something, something really special. We're, you know, recognize that it's, you know, there's some challenges that come with being the first project, subject to the new code, but we're also really excited to be the part of really bringing the vision for East Boulder and the Stamp area to life. And looking forward to next steps. Chandler's presentation covered a lot of the details, but a few highlights. The project's 300 units of housing. It will also result in a large payment to the City's Affordable Housing Fund. It's a very sustainable building. This will be an all-electric building. You can fact-check me on this, but I'm pretty sure this will be the largest all-electric residential building in the city of Boulder. It's also keeping an existing East Boulder business.

[94:10] On the site, we're working with the credit union to actually relocate them into the retail space, activating the retail space. And we're building a lot of housing that's close to a lot of jobs, between Boulder Community Health and the Flatirons Business Park. We think this project will really help solve the imbalance between jobs and housing in East Boulder, and help support really the city's vision for this to be a connected, transit-oriented, sustainable, vibrant community. So we're very much looking forward to next steps, and excited to help make the vision for East Boulder come to life. So, with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Aaron, but around, to answer any questions you have, and looking forward to the conversation. Thank you.

[95:01] Thanks, Dan. Aaron Bagnall, Silver Sparn Architects. I'm really excited to be here. I get a general gist of the vibe you guys are feeling about this project, and I really hope that my presentation answers a lot of your questions, and also, informs you on some of the things that you might be concerned about. So, I'm just gonna hop into it. This… I put this… this, quote up here for the… from the Stationary Master Plan, because I really want to remind everyone why we… had the stamp area in the first place, and why we had the East Boulder, subcommunity plan, which I will also hereby refer to as EBSP, and stamp. This is a TOD district. higher densities are necessary to make this supportable. So I know this is one of the bigger projects that you're seeing, I get that, I live in Boulder, I work here too, But it's not… as… it's comparable to some of the buildings that you've been seeing, so I got the next slide here.

[96:05] Oops, I need to get back. So I put this up here because you recently saw Willville, right? big master plan. The stamp area is bigger than Willville, but I put it up here to say this is one site. Contextually, in a larger master plan vision. And it's not… any bigger than the biggest building that you just approved at Willville. And in fact, it has more articulation on the street face because of the form-based code. So I'm just kind of putting that in perspective, and as you look through this, hopefully you'll start to get a little bit more assured of that. There's a large delay in mine, so I'm just gonna do that. Alright, also, reminder, we started the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan because we wanted housing in East Boulder. That's… Full stop. In the East Boulder subcommunity Plan, we said in a 20-year horizon, we could have 5,000 housing units. You know, those are general numbers, of course, but we identified areas of change.

[97:08] And we specifically noted that in this area of change, we can have this much, this… this area change is gonna be this, and they're all a little different, but the stamp area was the densest. It was the way… it's the BRT's gonna come through, it's Arapaho, we're gonna have the dedicated bus lanes, we're gonna need to provide that TOD density so that it can work. So, the next… Okay. In the stamp area, we had a conceptual scenario that, I believe staff did, that said, okay, well, with what we're envisioning, we could have this much residential, office, retail, entertainment, 1,950 multifamily units in the Stamp area. We are here to present 300. They're small units.

[98:00] They will work really well in this corner, and it's what it needs to happen, because of our vision. So TDM measures were… I don't really need to get into this. As Chandler did really well in his presentation. We're asking for a rezoning. That zoning is recommended through the East Boulder Subcommittee Plan. But part of a rezoning, especially in MU4, is, showing that you're going to meet 30% trip reduction. So we have a very robust… TDM strategy, starts with connectivity. This site, there's a reason why we chose it as the stamp area. It's connected, east to west along Arapahoe. It's well connected with bike and pedestrian routes. There's lots of parks nearby. And it's easily accessible from, like Dan said, to lots of employers, so the Flatirons Business Park, and, Court of Pharma, and the hospital. I'll stop talking. A lot of this is… so bus routes, I just said that. We have a lot of infrastructure improvements that you'll see in our renderings. We are completely changing the site. It will be pedestrian-oriented ML, I promise.

[99:10] The bike storage we have, we have even more… we've… we're bringing ourselves into compliance with ordinance… I'm gonna get this wrong, but 86 whatever it is, you guys know. because we feel strongly about the bike and the TDM strategies, we had a really robust TDM bike storage at the beginning, and we were able to fit in the ordinance, And so we feel really good about that. I'll show you that later. E-scooters and B-cycle, they're in all along the… the Type A frontage and the Type B frontage to help with that last mile, strategies, we have car share, mobility hub that is one of our courtyards, so we're really excited about that. Bus passes, unbundled parking for the residential, and then the important part is the monitoring plan and implementation plan that will…

[100:04] Help us be accountable to this 30% trip reduction. So, just to dive a little bit deeper into bike parking, because I'm a biker, I'm excited about the… what we're able to provide here, The short-term biking, we'll get into the exception, but we're still providing a lot of short-term biking in a lot of various accessible places along the street frontage. The B-cycle docking stations will be to the southeast. We've got the Lime Grove in that courtyard in the mobility hub. And then, long-term bike parking. We are offering a lot of different options for residents to park their bike. People use their bike in a lot of different ways. Some people might have 3 bikes. Some people might want to park one bike in the ground-level storage, and one bike in the in-unit gear storage in their… in their room. So, we think that is a benefit, and that's why we're offering it. So we have a lot of…

[101:02] Communal, long-term bike spaces, and some on every floor, and then we have this in-unit option that accounts for one bike. 24 cargo EV spaces, they're all in that, highlighted northern bike room that's easily accessible from the street frontages. Additionally, we're providing 42, ULOC EV charging stations, so that's 99% of the total. And then we have 6 long-term EV spaces at the Mobility Hub, meant for Commercial users and people in the bank and, the people that work there that can take advantage of long-term bike storage off the mobility hub and charge their bikes while they're at work. Okay, so… So, form-based code, the purpose of it is to identify all of these things about the building, and, you know, the intent is, if you check off all these boxes, you're good.

[102:05] we've seen this, regulating plan, Chandler already went over it, but I'll just say that in… this regulating plan says a lot of things, but most importantly, it identifies 55th Street as the Type A frontage, which is the most important frontage facing, street-facing, pedestrian-oriented. Design quality face of the building. it identifies Arapahoe as a Type B frontage with secondary, and then 56 as Type C, which is, you know, the… Less… less prominent. It identifies a shop front base requirement around the corner of 55th and Arapaho, and importantly, it identifies that in the general building type, which is everything in blue, you can go to that 5 stories And specifically says that those south of Arapaho transitioning to the neighborhood, and this is all intentional as we're starting to develop this plan.

[103:02] they're only allowed to go 4 stories. So that's what this regulating plan says, is that north of, Arapahoe, which we are, we can go 5 stories. I know that is hard to… swallow for people who have been viewing this and the height restrictions for a really long time, but part of the reason… part of the benefit of being allowed this per the code, is… is not having to argue for it over and over and over again to get more housing. I had… I attended the… Charles, you're gonna have to correct me on this, but it's a Bloomberg Innovation Prototyping session, and we had a lot of… people in the development community, not development, like, the architecture design community and staff, and we got together and we said, how can we get more attainable housing in Boulder? And one of the biggest things coming out of that was allow people to build to 55 feet. Especially in areas where it belongs. So I'm just… that's just a side note.

[104:01] Alright, so Emma, this is for you. I'm gonna take you around the building. If you look at the circle. you'll see where the views are pointed. So, this view right now, we're looking at, one of our courtyards. It's the north-facing… north… northernmost courtyard, and it's what we call our chill courtyard. It's got hangout spaces, it has little bar seating elevated, for people to work on their laptops. You can see in this depiction the stoop base of the residential that's off to the left of the screen. You can see that small entry of the parking garage, that right-in only. You can see the rain gardens and some of the stormwater quality elements that we have at grade, and how they can be also beneficial to the pedestrian, streetscape. And you can see a lot of the double height spaces that we have along this Type A frontage, which is 55th. You can also, Laura, I know you're gonna be interested in this, is the articulation of the facade and the division of those 90-foot increments as we walk down the building.

[105:10] Okay, so if we turn back and start looking at both courtyards, the one on the left is the chill, and the one on the right is our mobility hub courtyard, and it's really a mobility hub because we're kind of focusing all of our Lime Scooters, it's right by the bus station. It has a LID screen that has information for people that are getting on buses, And it has that commercial EV long-term bike storage station, and that comes up in better views. try to go a little faster so I don't run out of time. This is the mobility hub, in… on close-up. You can see the other courtyard in the background there. One of the aspects of these courtyards and streetscape plazas that we'll go over is the addition of art, so these will have art pieces within them.

[106:00] Right here on the right, in the foreground, that's our production business space. I'll try to answer a question here. The production business space, as I understand it, is… is not just industrial or production. It's really meant to be… some… a lot of East Boulder has makers, I kind of envision this as a really good bike shop. It's off the Mobility Hub, something to do with with that mobility and that activity on the street, I, of course, don't know what it's gonna go… what's gonna go in it, but, the height of it well, I'll go over that later. I'm gonna take you around here. So this is the 55th and Arapaho corner, prominent corner. the street improvements that I was talking about, you can really see the… extent of those at this point. We have protected intersection. That isn't entirely accurate in this view, but, we can imagine it being protected at that curb. The bus-only, transit line, and that prominent corner where the Premier Credit Union will move, and the storefront base element. You can also see the mural on the underside of that entry roof, which is one of our art…

[107:06] inclusions. So, stepping around the corner and looking back at that shop front base, this is the bike path on Arapahoe and the multi-use path. Lots of short-term bike storage and, the start of that residential stoop base area. This is the Streetwall Plaza. Art is included, lots of landscaping is included, and it's really meant to be a… just a part of… an extension of that street… of that multi-use path. Okay. Okay, this is just stepping down again. You can see the articulation and the… and the step back of the facades and how that 90… that building articulation gets, Gets measured as you walk down the street. And this is the view looking on Arapaho and our Type C frontage, which is 56th Street.

[108:05] 56th Street will be mostly residential, it's… it's a stoop base in… in the code. But the ground floor is mostly residential, which is mostly what this building is. It has, parallel parking available, and, you can see that the entry, that right in and right out, so they call that full entry, is on the right-hand side of the… Page. So, I'll just go through this really quickly. This building aligns with all of the ESB, BSP and STAMP goals. We have the access and mobility that you've heard a lot about. The housing affordability and diversity, like, we can all… we all know that you need the market rate to contribute to the affordable housing. I'm not going to bring up how much cash in lieu this building is included, but one thing I will note is that the… they say in the stamp plan that small-scale… sorry, small-scale development… I'm gonna quote this… small-scale development, affordability by design.

[109:10] They say scale will be a key aspect of maintaining affordability and inclusivity. Smaller housing units, offices, maker spaces, studios, and retail spaces may be more costly per square foot, but provide a more affordable option for individuals and organizations willing to be in a smaller area. I say this because, 70% of our unit offerings are… studios and one-bedrooms. So, we… that is the majority of what we're out for here. They're… they range from $420 of the smaller studios, and the one-bedroom dens are up to $700, but it's still a small enough Offering that, you know, in relative terms, the affordability could be a little bit more attainable. Again, also with the production business space. Same thing applies. It's a small amount. Even with the lower ceilings, you can think about all of the production business space

[110:07] uses that might be approved, that's the other… an unknown there, could fit in there and really make it… make it great, and it's got a more affordable rent. Okay… arts and culture, I've went over this, there's art in every courtyard and every streetscapes plaza, the mural entry at the retail, and that attainable production business space, that's just part of, like, keeping the culture of existing East Boulder businesses and, By offering that production business space, we give opportunities for existing businesses, and also the existing business that, we're relocating in the Premier Credit Union. So, local business, we have the Premier Credit Union, that's, you know, we've said that over and over, that we're relocating them, but what I really want to focus on here is all of the…

[111:07] support for the existing businesses in this area that will come from added density of this project. So, you know, think about how excited Jose's gonna be when all of these people go downstairs for his lunch. The… these businesses will thrive, and thrive more with more… Pedestrian, circulation and involvement in the community. So, design and quality placemaking, we believe this is, you know, maybe this wasn't too visible in all the diagrams that you saw in the form-based code, packet that you've already reviewed. But we… we really do think this is a building that is meeting the design and quality that is, oh. you're done, but… Wrap up in about a minute, please. Okay, and we're gonna have lots of questions for you, so… So I can just use my slides there. Okay. All right, well, we… you know, the design, standards of the code say simple, honest, and,

[112:14] and human-scaled design. We believe that that's what we're offering here. The details are beautiful, the materials are beautiful, and the human scale at grade is, is a nice place to be. So I didn't go into any of my exceptions, but I have all kinds of answers to all your questions. Great. Thank you, Eric. Okay, stay right there. Okay. And we're gonna… yeah. You can sit down if you need to… if you need to sit down, but we'll… and different people can come up, based on the question. So, who's got some… Burning, clarifying questions for the applicant team. Claudia? I'll start with some easy fact-based questions. I just want to get some clarity on the dimension… the dimensions, rather, of the courtyards and plazas that you're showing, especially on 55th Street.

[113:11] Courtyards and plazas, okay. So, on 55th Street… well, the… the… in… From the building face, it's 30 feet, but that building face is stepped back, so from the right-of-way, it's more like 45. So that would be a depth. And then they're 30 feet in width? 48 feet in width. So it's a pretty nice courtyard, you know, the space is… Yeah, and you're using those courtyards to satisfy the outdoor space requirement, is that correct? Correct, yeah. We are required to have two. Right. Okay, and then I think there was a question earlier about the dimensions of the inter… interior courtyards, excuse me. Yes, and those I have. Those interior courtyards are… The west one is 42 feet by 105. And the east one is 42 feet by 109, and we did, I will say, follow the site review criteria for that width.

[114:04] Versus the height. So, just so you know. Okay. Who's next? And, you know, George or ML, if you have your hand up, holler out, because I've abandoned. Zoom on my laptop. That's fine. I just… I don't want to use this for a question, just to follow up on what you just said. When you said you use site review criteria. For the width and the height of that interior courtyard. Can you explain what you meant by that? Yes, I believe that the courtyards… I don't know if it's, like, an open space requirement, but the code requires 20 feet, minimum. of Courtyard, and then… One additional foot? It's written wrong. One additional foot for every, Feet over 35 feet that your… that your building is. So, if our building is 55 feet, we have 20 plus 20.

[115:06] Okay, so you did the… just… just to clarify, so you did the bare minimum of that width. Just to be precise, we did 42, where 40 is required. Okay, great. And just to clarify, that's not a site review criterion, that's a form-based code? No, it's not. That's a site review? We just did it because we felt like it was a, Useful guide as to what those courtyards should be. Okay. So it's not required for us to be that, but we did it anyway. Yeah, I don't think that's in the site review criteria, but it might be in other building code criteria, because the site review criteria is only about height exemptions, and that's… It's in the city's open space, usable open space regulations in Title IX. Okay, thank you. Lord, should you have… George, did you have additional questions? No, not right now. I just wanted to clarify what was said. Alright. And ML, since I can't see.

[116:00] I have questions. Okay, great, go ahead. Thanks for guessing. So, let me see. Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple of questions. So, how much commercial is required in this building type? Have you, The amount of commercial you're providing, how does that relate to what's required in a building type? The building type, and somebody may have to correct me on this, but I believe, only requires… Not necessarily uses, but requires shop front base, which is a base type, at 55th and Arapaho for 30 feet. We have more than that. We… we are anticipating the need for more, shop front bays at this prominent corner. That shopfront base… Does it define uses?

[117:01] I mean, I think the general look and feel of the shot front base Is inherent to a retail use. you wouldn't necessarily put anything else there, but I don't know that it's actually defined or regulated to be a retail. Right, I use the word commercial. So, am I understanding that the major, component of that, commercial storefront is a bank. Correct, it's the, Premier Credit Union that's currently in the eastern lot. So, conceptually, how does that speak to the pedestrian experience? It's a bank. That's correct. I, I, it's a small bank, it's a branch that I don't know… we don't have the bank here, but, They're consolidating their branch and the activity around it.

[118:02] Hasn't been discussed, and how much activity it will be, but it will be an operational bank. And it's part of the agreement that they had with the, property owner. Right. No, I'm just… I'm just trying to understand what the, intent with the pedestrian patterns here might be. So, we've got a bank as our primary storefront. Looking at that production business space, does it require… service, like delivery access and that kind of thing? I mean, how serious of a production space a supported production space is… is that as it is now. Yeah. Sorry, I… did you not want to add?

[119:00] Now, I'm just gonna… how does… how does it actually function if… if somebody is doing… making things there, and it's not, like, the makerspace at the library? you know, some serious industrial making. Does this space accommodate that? Yeah, I don't think it does. The small scale of it, I think, will limit it to uses that are allowed in the production business space list, and honestly, Chandler went over this, but this is a really vague part of the form-based code, and it only applies to East Boulder, and there's a lot of conversation that's been going around about the production business space requirement, and whether or not it's applicable, but regardless, we have it, it's there. It says that you have to provide it based on the amount of commercial in the building. And that means for us, it's a small space. So, like I said, I envision it in more of a bike shop. Makerspace, artist studio, you know, lots of things that it can be.

[120:03] I don't know what it will be. And so does the… for the things that you imagine it to be, excuse me, does… is there adequate service access? Delivery of stuff. Yeah, I thought I might kind of chime in on this line of questioning on the commercial leasing of the building. You know, on the question you asked a moment ago about the pedestrian experience. You know, the Premier Members Credit Union is a retail commercial bank. They have a lot of customers, you know, people do still go to the bank for their banking needs. They're a customer-facing, institution. And so we envision, you know, employees and customers going in and out of this space regularly. The design of that storefront itself, as you can see from the image here, is lots of glass. It'll be an active, pedestrian-oriented type of space.

[121:05] I'll also say this, on the production business space, you know, we've been following along the form-based code conversations and discussions around that. We are appreciative of the intent of trying to keep small artisan production businesses in East Boulder and trying to support that enterprise. And we do, intend to really try to market the… production business space we have to those types of users. I will say, you know, commercial leasing is tough right now, and, you know, we can imagine any number of different types of uses that might go into this space. Frankly, the challenge is actually finding the businesses that are ready to sign a lease and move in. You know, around Boulder, you know, we're driving around today, saw Numerous, relatively new buildings with a lot of retail space that, that, frankly, is mostly vacant, so…

[122:02] You know, we fully intend, you know, we are very excited to have the credit union as a use that will go into this ground floor on day one, activate it with a retail-oriented, existing East Boulder business, and and we will do our best, and work very hard to activate that production business space as well with the type of The type of use that aligns with the… aligns with the, code. Thank you, I appreciate your… your answer. I have a couple of other questions. We had gotten into this a little bit with staff, regarding to the interior courtyards, and, you're drawing, a… 05. shows the solar shadows. But what I'm wondering about is, do those interior courtyards ever get sunshine? Yes, we have performed solar analysis independently, not for this

[123:00] submittal on those courtyards, and they will get sun, mostly in the, you know, when the angle of the sun is highest, but even in the December months, the northern part of those courtyards will be most in sun. Can you pull up that A… 0.05? Yeah, I actually can't. Chandler, are you able to? Yeah, I can pull it up. Although, I would just maybe remind that the internal courtyards are not actually regulated by the form-based code, are not required, there are no design standards that are being asked about tonight. So, this is all just kind of… For fun, I guess? But I will, I will raise those. Well, if they are considered green space, outdoor… Publicly accessible? they're not counted towards the required open space as part of the development. The only thing that the form-based code addresses that are included in these are pervious and semi-pervious coverage.

[124:12] So, ML, I… So the fact that. You can hit some… It's really their only, their only, functional… Criteria. The only thing that the form-based code takes into account, yes. Got that, thank you. Let me see… I think there might have been… No, I can't find my other questions. I think that'll be it then. Thank you so much. Mason, I saw you were ready. Yeah, I only have one remaining question, Unless your answer gives me more. The… when I was looking for more information on the, Let me find the actual language. Jeez, I'm sorry.

[125:01] The flood protection requirements causing the need to raise the first floor? Can you speak more to that? I didn't see much detail in the packet. Yeah, you know, this… a lot of these areas in East Boulder are in the 100-year floodplain. Our project is included in that. So it just means that we, in order to meet flood… Plain requirements, flood reg… regulation requirements for building. We established a base flood. elevation for our site, and that's done by the flood engineer. Any space, any finished floor area has to be 2 feet above. that base flood. On the corner of… sorry, the Arapaho and the 55th Street. is its highest. We were a couple steps into the building, not much at all, but it gets larger as you go towards the north. in terms of the building and how it's… how much it's elevated from the grade. So that's why, I don't know if you noticed in the courtyard renderings, we have that secondary stepped-up level, and that's just a way to keep

[126:06] Have a tiered, experience. And basically, if… If you were to just move the whole building up, you would fall above the 55 feet. Yeah, we would lose housing. Yep. Okay. All my questions. Thank you, I can go next. So you've answered a bunch of my questions, this'll be a shorter list, thank you. Can you pull up that pervious coverage diagram? Either Chandler or Aaron? I'm happy to. Okay, thank you. The one with the colors. Yeah, that one. Okay, so that bright green says pervious at grade 15%. Just eyeballing it, I'm not… I'm not seeing 15%. of the site being that neon green color. Right, it's… I apologize. The… it was meant to just be that green at grade, so all of the green at grade is included in that total. So the… the green in the courtyards, and the green in the internal courtyards, and then the…

[127:10] highlighted green. Okay, so that muted… It's all that 15%. That muted green and the neon green should be the same green. Yeah, okay, thank you. That clears up the efficiency of using a different diagram that had already been made. stuff happens. I appreciate it. That clears it up for me. Can we talk about those green roofs? I… I'm not understanding… so it's a green roof on the fifth floor, and as I understand it, fifth floors have no… I don't know how you get up there to service the HVAC equipment and appurtenances that are up there, but I assume it's not a staircase, it's not an elevator. So you're having some very large areas of green roof. that are not going to be regularly seen or interacted with or maintained. So, what… can you tell me more about what that is? What is that green roof? Yeah, it's, so we've been working… and I will say, it's not all… we have a lot of green roof… we have two types of green roof that we're talking to our consultant about.

[128:07] The ones at the fifth floor will be a tray system, I'm happy to share it with you. And then the ones at the amenity deck, the fourth floor, will be that more typical green roof that people can experience. And my understanding of this requirement is really just a sustainability, heightened stormwater and heat island effect. That… that's the intent of the code, allowing this green roof thing. So, allowing more density, but saying, hey, look, if you do that, you have to provide this at the roof, on the roof, or wherever, And the intent being that there's a stormwater improvement that comes with it, and it's a reduction in heat island. Right. And I'll show you… So it's up on the fifth floor. I'm just trying to figure out what this is, and how you're going to keep it from dying. Oh, well, you have to have irrigation to it, and, you know, it'll be part of the building management system.

[129:01] And people will be up there. As you said, we have to access it to, get up. There's gonna be mechanical on the roof, and all the things on the roof that… that have to be maintained. That… that roof, Green roof will be part of it. So is it… is it turf? Is it native plants? It's not going to be trees and bushes. An image would be amazing. Yeah! I want us. I'm gonna have to, like, go through all the slides to get there. Is that true? What should I do? I need… I need to maybe just escape. Yeah. Okay, here we go. Apologies. I had to share before, though. Go to… Minimize that.

[130:10] Apologies, this is not my computer. Alright. Okay, so, it's coming. these are the two types of green roofs that we'll… that we're looking at. We've been consulting with Green Roofs of Colorado. the… on the left is a tray-type situation. It's a shallow roof garden system that is meant to be on these high rows and be more of a… it looks like people can enjoy them in this case, but they're meant to be a shallow condition, and in this… work well in the situations where you're needing it for that… what we're using it for, which is stormwater quality and, heat island. On the right is more of a built-in place system that's more typical, occupiable green roof area. That is so helpful to see, thank you. I have just a couple more questions, unless somebody else wants to…

[131:02] Tag in on the green roof while we have the images up. Okay, the Mobility Hub, which, yay, Mobility Hub, that was one of the key things for this corner in the East Boulder Sub Community Plan. I'm assuming the reason why the B-Cycle station is not at the mobility hub is just because of space constraints, or is it because of the path? Why did you separate out the B-cycle station? Yeah, it was actually a suggestion from the transportation engineer on this project. He thought it would be better suited along the multi-use path. So that's why it ended up there. Okay, and I know you said at the Mobility Hub there will be signage. Can we assume that there will be some way to point people towards that e-bike station? Absolutely, yeah. Okay. Alright, thank you. And my last question is the big one. I do appreciate you went quickly through your, in your slides around the building to kind of show us the facade variation. I would really love it if you would walk us through, kind of, segment by segment, how you are meeting the code, because I'm still not seeing… so that the way I read the code, it says that, and it's probably just I don't understand, but…

[132:11] You, in addition to having variation by color and material. which I think you've nailed, I think that's fine. It says there are four options, and you have to… it's kind of a pick list, and you have to pick two for every segment to make it different. And that's either by height, or window and door placement, or, the roof style, or kind of a setback. From the street. I think you've nailed it on 55th Street, so you don't have to go over 55th, but I would love to see more about Arapaho and 56th, the Type A, or Type B and Type C frontages, because those are also subject to this regulation. Yeah, absolutely. And in particular, if you want to start with 56th, and show how each of those segments varies by two of those four on the pick list. Yeah, it's perfect, cause that is the one on top. And so you can see this, we've kind of outlined each segment. They're all less than 90 feet, as measured. We typically…

[133:07] followed, A and B in our, in our pick list of four. So, it's the proportion of the recesses and projections in this case. there's a lot of dynamic recesses and projections that occur in a form-based code building because of the requirements of this articulation. The windows are recessed. Any amount of horizontal banding is recessed, and it's all very much, providing for that added layer of horizontal articulation. But if we're walking through, if we're starting on… this set. if my… I don't know if I can point, but we're starting on the left, with the brick. If we go to the next one, it's… it's recessed by, or sorry, it's… It's recessed and projection, so it's stepped back from that brick frontage. How much is it stepped back? I don't know offhand, but…

[134:06] More than 2 feet. About 2 feet. Yeah, probably about 2 feet. Okay. And that's not actually, you know, defined in the code, but it is step back. And it also has a different, base… So there's Juliet balconies in this middle zone? Juliet, I'm sorry, I can't see what you're pointing at. Oh, I'm sorry, I can't point to it. So we're on the top line, the east facade. Is it the yellow? Is it the… So the gray? It's the gray. It's the second zone, we'll call it the second zone. The gray has Juliet balconies, which means, like… bars, like, an inch or two out from the window. Yeah, they're called false balconies, or Juliet balconies. They're allowed on Type C frontages, And they differentiate the first segment. From the second. And then moving on to the third, also.

[135:00] Not having balconies, it has a different window, projection, it also has a different material, and it also is projected out by 2 feet. So the thing that you're saying differentiates the segments is some have Juliet balconies, some segments do, some don't, and some are stepped forward or back about 2 feet. Okay, anything else on the east side that differentiates the segments? Yeah, it's not exactly, visible or too prominent in this case, but we have a parapet height, and so we tried to work within… without getting the parapet height too large. Those segments change in parapet height as you march down the elevation. By how much? By 6 inches. By 6 inches. And the, sorry, the articulation and the banding of the coping is different. The banding and the what? Coping, it's like the… what's coping? The top edge. Top edge, okay.

[136:00] Okay, and the 6-inch parapets, which of the criteria is that? Is that the building height, or is that roof plane type or material? Well, it would be building height, but it's… it would be the third, so it's kind of a bonus. The roof plane… the roof type plane or material. Yeah. Okay. Alright. Thank you. And then for the, south diagram. this is on Arapaho. Could you just quickly… what differentiates the segments on that one? Yes, it's similar, you know, we have… starting from the left, we've got the shop front base on the bottom, so that's already distinguishing itself from the one on the right, that has a, Horizontal banding a blade coverage at that pedestrian scale, and the… Building is stepped back. Significantly at that street front plaza. Marching the… it's, like, step back 4 feet or something. I'm not sure offhand, I wanna say it's 465.

[137:02] So less than 5 feet. Yeah. And then the next one has inset balconies, so there's, inset balconies in the middle zone. So a different window and projection, and they also, I will point out that wherever brick occurs on this building, we have those what I'll call them pilasters. It's articulated kind of columns that, vertically articulate the facade. they're columns, so they stick out from the facade. It's like when… it's like a, integrated column, they call them in architecture schools. So it's a different material on the facade. It's just a prominent piece of brick, essentially. Okay, so a different material on the facade. Okay. Okay, anything else about the… I don't think it's a… Laura, I don't think it's a different material. I think what she's saying is it projects out like a… like a false column, almost. Is that correct?

[138:01] That's correct, George, thanks. How many inches does it project out? 2 inches. About 2 inches. And we do that on the brick. You'll notice, if you get up close to some of our renderings, the brick is extremely articulated in that way. Okay, thank you. In my mind, that's a… I mean, that's not a building projection, or a… that's a… material, but… Oh, I getcha. I get what you're saying. Okay, anything else about that south facade that differentiates the segments? I would say the same, slight variety in parapet height occurs along this facade as well. Okay, thank you so much. That was… I think that was my last question. Can I ask a question on this same sheet? Sure. So, if we're looking at this east diagram. And I'm a person walking along the street? Huh? I would experience the building from… the right… to the left.

[139:07] as the same until I get to the red brick? Is that correct? Because it's all that same grade? Yeah, if you don't pay attention to the… the second floor. I mean, we can look at that rendering. Well, I'm just thinking at eye level, a person walking, they generally aren't looking up, they're looking, you know, around. So the experience will be… one continuous… One continuous building. Yeah, I would disagree with you in that sense, because, you know, in a person's perspective, you would also see that those zones above it are a different element, and it's not necessarily a… A boring experience along that frontage. No, I'm just, I'm just, do you have, A street elevate… an eye level, eye-level person, eye-level elevator.

[140:02] Yeah, let me go back. perspective along their. Yeah. So, eye level, I'm talking about a person 5 foot above, right, grade type of eye level. So, you're the person walking. Yeah, I have something close, let's see what I can. Okay.

[141:00] Okay, hold please. Coming up. Okay, so this… it's not exactly eye-level ML, but it is, Close enough to that vision of what a person would experience walking down that street. I don't think so, but, so that sidewalk where you have those, like, there was those couple of people walking. Yeah. long that you don't have So, so those people walking along there, they would experience that gray-colored brick continuous all the way along at their At their height, is that correct? Yes. Okay. And they're gonna experience some Juliet balconies and different window projections as well. Okay, but the material is the same color and the same material all the way along that pedestrian level there. Correct, correct. Okay. Cool, that was my question. Just following up, thanks.

[142:00] Okay, I'm going to call on myself now. And… I've had to modify My questions, along the way as we… Really struggle with and deal with the idea of form-based code, and, you know, we're so used to site review. Yeah. We're so used to many discretionary things, and lots of… Things that we might be able to influence. So, I have one, and this relates to the, the open space, in 9-14-12. F. It says, Access. All required outdoor spaces shall be accessible From a pedestrian route Associated with a vehicular right-of-way and or Adjacent building entrances or exits. I'm not sure exactly what that's saying, but do you think you comply with that, and why?

[143:08] Because I read that more as accessible from a pedestrian route associated with a vehicular right-of-way as I have a… maybe it's a gated sidewalk, or some sort of controlled access, but it's not… It's not through the building to get to that space. It is associated with, A vehicular right-of-way and a pedestrian route. Sorry. Do you think you comply? Sorry, can… could you just, remind me what code section, That is, and, and I, when I cut and paste… anyway, 9-14-12… Small F. And I have a response to this. Okay.

[144:02] So, that is regulating the required open space for… per the form-based code. And so, in our case, that is the two courtyards along the Type A frontage of Arapaho, sorry. 55th, and the streetscape Plazas along Arapahoe. That is not regulating the interior courtyard. Correct, yeah. The interior courtyard is… Not required by the code. Okay, got you. Okay. And this… and, this is, you know, part of the frustration with The code having code, and the code having intent. So, under intent, I'll just… to clarify my question, under intent, outdoor… which is 9-2- 9-1412A, intent, outdoor spaces are intended to be directly accessible from the street and other public ways. Now, again, we've been… we've discussed intent, and I'm not going to argue that anymore, but that… that… that enters into

[145:12] Some of that thinking. So, Do you have a follow-on? No, okay. Alright. I don't have any other questions. Anyone else? I, I have a, I have a question. Oh, sorry, go ahead, Kurt. And we'll come back to you, George. Yeah, it's… Okay, yeah, I just had a question about the request for a secondary access point, which actually is… Yeah, it kind of violates a number of the requirements in 995. Is that con… Would you be… having the same concerns, or would your transportation engineer be having the same concerns if 56th Street were connected, if the street grid there were complete, and you were able to turn off of 55th onto

[146:14] you know, the extension of Conestoga or Western or something, and get onto 56th, and then access that way? Yeah, here, I have one thing to say. I would say… not as concerned, but however, there are contradicting requirements in the form-based code that… that want us… because the Type A frontage is along 55th Street, and it has to be, so that's the activated street front, that's where the lobby is and the retail, and so it never made a whole lot of sense to us to not have any access from that area. We've worked a lot with transportation to kind of make it the safest possible, but, To take everything into what is kind of the back, Felt like not a good transportation flow, and in the end, transportation agreed with us because of the way we set it up.

[147:04] Do you have something more to add? Yeah, yeah. Thanks, Erin. Yeah, and I know this came up in the staff discussion, too, and just wanted to… chime in here for a moment as well, with a couple of points. One, you know, as is shown in the diagram here right now, as we sit here today, this site has five, curb cuts, points of access. And, you know, we had, as Chandler said, we had a lot of conversation on this topic, going through the process. And the, you know, the… having that secondary access off of 55th is really important from both a functionality standpoint and a safety standpoint. To your question, in keeping with, you know, in accordance with the Stamp Plan and the East Boulder Plan, hopefully someday Conestoga punches through and 56th Street is no longer a dead-end street. But the reality is, it is today, and will be, at least for the foreseeable future, until more projects happen here.

[148:07] And then, even in a scenario where there is a connection, from 56th to 55th. I still think it would be important to have access into our site off of 55th. As was discussed earlier, if the only access were 56, then if you're eastbound on Arapaho Avenue, your only path to enter the building is to overshoot the site. hang a U-turn. Onto a busy street, and then pulling that way. And then, likewise, if you're pulling out of our site. To go east, you have to… go west first, hang U-turn, go back the other way, which is just, frankly, just an unsafe… condition. So, you know, and again, even in a future scenario where 56 punches through, most people coming out of the site are probably going to be headed to Arapahoe, so they're gonna go that way either way.

[149:03] The other thing we were thinking about with this is just being… a good neighbor, frankly, and not wanting a situation where people are pulling onto 56th Street, knowing that going out to Arapahoe is a challenge, and then winding their way through private, through private driveways, which… with the existing condition today is probably what would happen. So, like I said, I mean, a lot of discussion on this item, but, I think collectively, with us and the city, came to the conclusion that having that second access point on the 55th is… is really, really critical. Thank you. George. Yeah, a quick question, and this is kind of a city question, as well as an applicant question. One has to do… has to do with the, The semi-pervious areas, and this exemption that you're looking for.

[150:04] What are you doing as it relates to that 5%? Claudia calculated about 5,800 square feet. As it relates to heat island effect of this massive building and roof. What are you doing to mitigate that 5%? Of, of heat island effect that you're not capturing by not having a semi-pervious or impervious area. Yeah, thanks, George. well, the green roof, we're using that to, justify the impervious, so I won't add that to the heat island effect, but I will point out that the, Tree lawns in yellow in this diagram. are over 7,000 square feet. We're currently not counting them in this equation, we can't. But they would account for that 5% that we're asking for. Well, those would exist either way, wouldn't they? Well, they don't exist today. No, I know, but if this gets redeveloped, they would… they would need to exist. That doesn't really… that doesn't really answer my question. I'm talking about the… the… the exception that you're going for, which is actually more than 5%, right? Because if you do the math on it, it's…

[151:11] I don't know what 5 of 35% is. It's 5%. Well, it's 5% of the site, but it's not 5% of the requirement. It's… it's… it's whatever… it's whatever 5 out of 35 is, is the percentage, as it relates to Heat Island. I would disagree with that because, we're using green roofs to justify the imperviousness at grade, and subsequently pushing it up to the roof, so the way that it was explained to us at staff, by the staff, is that you could kind of count it as a, negation, so your green roof counted for imperviousness. You could take away the imperviousness at grade, and that is because, by nature, it's affecting the heat island impact of the whole site.

[152:04] No, I think I understand that. What I'm talking about is the 5% exemption that you're asking for. What about the heat island that's related to that? I would just say that in terms of, the justifications of exemptions and how they relate to being granted, we still meet the intent of the code, the form-based code, and it's not negatively affecting the project. Has that been… staff, has that been studied, the heat island effect of losing this percentage? No, that's not part of the criteria that we're supposed to look at through the form-based code. Can I just say one more thing, George? But hold on, but isn't that the… I thought that was part of the intent of having these… these areas, not only for drainage, but for Heat Island. I mean, if there was a methodology that was outlined in the code that said how we were supposed to evaluate heat island effect as part of the impervious coverage.

[153:03] Calculations, then yeah, we would do it, but as of now, it's just percentages, and they're allowed to ask for an exception, and the exception criteria are what we have to respond to. Okay, so you don't have a method to look at that. No. No. I think that answered my question. Yeah, and I… can I just say one more thing in relation to that? Sure. The… this… this impervious thing is new to… to myself, I think the staff also has a lot of, challenges with it. There's a goal there. It is to improve stormwater quality and make sure that we have, a proper amount of impervious… or imperviousness on the site. I will say that it's a totally different metric than site review. Like, the ME4, a building in an ME4 district that wasn't going through form-based code. Requires 15% open space on the entire site. And that can be a,

[154:01] Identified or done by courtyards, balconies, I don't want to argue it, because you can't have it both ways, right? If you're going through form-based code. Yeah. There are certain things to require to, versus if you're not going through form-based code, there are other things that are discretionary, so I don't think we should get into an argument about it. No, I agree, thanks. That was it. Okay, last call for any other clarifying questions, for the applicant. Seeing none… We're gonna close that, and we're gonna move on to the public hearing. Thank you, applicant, for answering all our questions. And, do we have anyone in the room? We do have one individual signed up in the room. We have Jonathan Singer. Jonathan, if you want to approach the podium and just give me a moment to… Get this timer set up.

[155:06] I did want to show you that. Oh! Huh? Which one's you? The applicant done with their presentation? Why are we showing that still? Okay. And Jonathan, would you, go ahead and… State your name, your affiliation, and should you have any financial interest, with the project. Absolutely. My name's Jonathan Singer, I'm the Senior Director of Policy Programs here with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce. So Furs Barn is a member of the Boulder Chamber, but I have no direct financial interest in this one way or the other. I wanted to say, first of all, good evening, and if we go a couple more hours, good morning, to the planning board members here. I am speaking in strong support of the efforts here undertaken by Sophos Barn, and the excellent work that Quad Capital has done with staff, and in addition to the excellent questions that the planning board members have asked today.

[156:08] I just want to see the forest through the trees for a second, or maybe the plan through all the different PowerPoints. This is not just about this specific plan, but the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, which I will not use the acronym for. East Boulder. It's a place where I grew up, and it is the city's engine room. It is home to many of our innovation employers, light industrial service providers, and the kind of production and creative businesses that make Boulder's economy dynamic and resilient. But East Boulder's also a district where decades-old zoning no longer reflects the way people live or work, and this application provides the resources and direction needed to translate this thoughtful plan into a real, on-the-ground kind of outcome. There's just a couple pieces that I want to highlight today, and really talk about what the Boulder Chamber is about and what our businesses want.

[157:06] First, it's about modernizing and protecting our industrial areas. We see this as, this plan as doing that. Why? Because we're seeing 70,000 in-commuters right now, and we know our employers Have choices about where they can locate, our employees Don't. Our employees will with this kind of plan. Also, you're creating opportunity for mixed-use districts that support workforce housing In a way that, is practical. This isn't abstract planning. This is a practical intervention in climate, congestion, and affordability. Implementation, doing this actually makes sure that these opportunities are no longer just theory. Third, this is about infrastructure and mobility.

[158:00] Businesses consistently highlight that the success of East Boulder depends on safer multimodal connections, predictable traffic patterns, and these kinds of things that this plan has Provides the means to execute those. And I'll close on this. The community engagement and consensus building behind the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, which I know many of you participated in in one way or another, is a model of how Boulder can plan for the future. From industrial users to arts organizations to entrepreneurs, thousands of voices shape this balanced project. So I urge you to consider this to strengthen our business ecosystem and create a healthier, more connected district for the people who work and live here. Thank you. Thanks, Jonathan. Thank you, Jonathan, and we can move to our online participants. If anybody's online that would like to speak for the public hearing, this is your opportunity, so please go ahead and raise your hand.

[159:02] We do have one raised hand so far, David Insign. David, you'll have 3 minutes to speak. Please begin. Okay, can you hear me? Yes, we hear you. Great. David Ensign, 4020 Evans Drive, Boulder, former planning board member, speaking on behalf of myself, no connection with the project. I was on the planning board in 2022 when the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan was adopted. George, I think you were the only one on this current board who overlapped with me back then. Congratulations on making it to the first major project proposal for this subcommunity. When I found out about this agenda item, I thought it would be a good chance for me to catch up on how the underlying zoning was dealt with. And I was a little surprised that the form-based code was adopted without impacting the existing zoning in the area. I have to admit, I thought there would be some opportunities for creating zones, tuned to the transit-oriented development goals, but I see in the staff memo that the approach was for the form-based code to take precedence.

[160:03] And MU4 is the recommended, is recommended for any rezoning in this area. So, that said, it's great to see a project coming forward that will provide needed housing with appropriate density at this transit hub. As someone who lives south and across Foothills from the East Boulder Subcommittee, I'm a frequent user, of, the services in the area. My primary care physician is right across 55th from the site, and most of my medical needs are taken care of by offices in or adjacent to BCH. I rely on the Premier Members Credit Union for in-person services for the East Coast branch that I've been a member of since 1985. And I have memories of several fun performances at the Boulder Dinner Theater, met frequently with daily camera staff at their old building on Western and Conestoga while on the Editorial advisory board, and have had countless coffees, dining, and shopping experiences in this important part of Boulder. New housing opportunities will bring more excitement and economic vitality to this area, and pave the way for more of the EBSP vision to be realized.

[161:09] It will provide much-needed housing to those who wish to live in Boulder, with excellent connectivity to downtown and other neighborhoods. Staff's analysis that this site should be zoned to MU4 seems very reasonable, so I hope that the key issue will be relatively straightforward for the Board to consider and approve for a recommendation to City Council. With regards to the applicant's request for exemptions to the form-based code, I'm sure you'll have some good discussion. In my time on the planning board, I looked at several form-based code projects in Boulder Junction, and I recall seeing that there can be some valid, real-world reasons for circumstances that lead to applicants asking for minor exceptions. I hope you're able to determine that this project, on balance, will meet the community's vision of mixed-use TOD. Thank you so much. Thank you, David. We have one more raised hand at the moment, Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you'll have 3 minutes. Please go ahead and speak.

[162:07] Lynn Siegel, well, I'm not a supporter of the governor's proposals on Higher density on parking regulations being lifted. And on TODs. And so I guess I'm not for even rezoning this place to ME4. And I'm also… Yeah, I hate to just put the kibosh on everything, but I'm just being honest. This is… this is not… what Boulder needs to be an endless sprawl going east. I don't know where… why you feel that people want to live in these

[163:00] apartments, I… from the time I got out of my single-family home on Mercer Island in Bellingham, I would not live in an apartment. We lived in trailers. Until… and they let us on the first, you know… The youngest ones, until we got a house. I always lived in communal houses. MARPA House is my model for housing in Boulder. When I see these projects going up, and I see the number of units. It really disgusts me, because it doesn't say about how many people are there. It doesn't say what our carrying capacity is. It doesn't say what services those people, each one of those bodies, is going to incorporate, what they're going to cause. You know, it doesn't plan for the South Boulder Rec Center being redone completely. It doesn't… it's not forward-thinking. It's… It's just planting more bodies without a quantification of what those bodies are gonna actually do.

[164:12] you know, I mean, I was talking to someone today up at CU, and the legislative… for… no, not the legislative breakfast, that was different, but the… the… city council and CU thing, and… she said there's 1,600 or 1,400 people in this 400-unit place. Well. So, what does that mean to me? 400 units. if they've… if there's 6 bedrooms to each of those units, how often are those people want to hang around a little 6-bedroom apartment? And these are not spacious. Smaller is not better. You know, these efficiencies, the one at the Olive is $2,450 a month for 297 square feet.

[165:03] And no commercial. You know? And you can call it worker, you know, makerspace. Call it what you want. But it's not gonna fill up. Thank you. That includes your 3 minutes. If anyone else would like to speak to the public hearing, this is your opportunity. To go ahead and raise your hand, otherwise we're gonna move on. to board deliberations. Okay, thank you, Thomas. Yeah. So, we're going to close the public hearing. The board's gonna take a break, and, we will resume… 8.55.

[177:06] Gotcha. Oh, that's Excellent. Alright, we're going to call our meeting back to order, and it is now time for… The, the board to deliberate, and… I'm sure Chandler will… Put up our… Key issues, and We will… I'm gonna suggest, that we kind of take, while Chandler is Getting stuff ready to put up on the screen. that the, I believe it was the third issue, which was the result… in the order he had put them up earlier.

[178:04] The rezoning issue… Was… Yes, okay. Key issues for discussion. Number 03, is the rezoning request consistent with the rezoning criteria? In Section 9-2-19E. Lately, we've been trying to answer all three things all at once. And I'm… I would propose that we separate out the zoning and answer that question first. I don't… and it'll be less… controversial, I'm anticipating. And, then come back to the, the form-based code, consistency and exemption requests. So, is everybody okay with that?

[179:02] As a, as a plan. Get us warmed up on an easy one, and then we can, tackle the other ones. Yeah, hey, Mark, I might suggest just keeping it all together, that way people can talk once and we can get through it, because to your point, I don't think the rezoning is going to be terribly contentious. maybe front-load the rezoning, kind of reverse the questions, but have just… have just one group of answers, rather than going twice through this, because I think we'll spend more time doing it that way. Just… just an opinion. Do… do whatever you want, but that's my perspective on it. I'm not seeing, agreement or dissent here, other than… I'm gonna stick to my original plan here, and, so let's go through one quick round of any Comments on, we'll do just a round of commentary on the rezoning question, preferably, quick and brief.

[180:01] Then we can make a motion, and then come back to the other two. So… Laura. I am fully supportive of the rezoning. It is consistent with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan's intention for this site, and I think it meets the criteria. Mason. Ditto Okay. Kurt. I agree. Okay. Claudia? Here, here. Okay, George, I see you're unmuted. Yeah, same. I mean, I'll get into the other stuff later, but yeah, I agree with what. Okay. ML. Ditto? Okay. Oh, and yes, I, after having, re-read portions of the, East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, the stamp plan, and the tables section of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, it's all very clear that there's kind of… This is… this is what we need to do. So, I would propose that we

[181:04] Complete this issue by going ahead and, there's a separate motion for the zoning. And I see Chandler… Okay. Do I have someone that would like to make this motion? I would love to. Motion to recommend to City Council approval of the application to rezone 2.65 acres of land located at 5501 and 5505 Arapahoe, and adjacent right-of-way from Business Community 1, BC1, to Mixed Use 4, MU4 zoning. and a portion of 55th, excuse me, strike that, 56th Street right-of-way from Industrial General IG to Mixed Use 4 MU4 zoning. I'll second. Great. Laura, would you like to speak to this motion? Well, having listened very carefully to the considered comments of my colleagues, I think this one is self-explanatory.

[182:03] Hey, Mason. Okay. Anyone else have any commentary on the motion? If not, we'll move to a vote, and I'm going to begin with Mason. Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia? Yes. Kirk? Yes. George? Yes. ML? Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. Great. That was… I think that was a record for any motion, like, celebrating someone's birthday, even. It's like, no, this is what… that was a record. Okay, congratulations to us, and… and the applicant. Okay, I, now, I, I would propose… the following. That we, have a round of commentary, each addressing both item 1 and 2. And, I am going to suggest That you, carefully ground your commentary. It's okay to vent for a little bit, but ground your commentary in… the,

[183:10] fulfillment. Of the form-based code, or lack thereof. And be able to, cite any areas where you… think there may be an exception or a problem with that. Again, this is kind of new territory for us, and I understand we are… all have had years of site review, and this is not site review. So, who is ready? To make some commentary and, inform us before we get on to Motion making. Kurt. Sure, I will start. I, feel that the, the application is consistent with the regulations of the form-based code.

[184:07] Given, including the requested exceptions, to the form-based code, if I can list them all. for, for pervious… an impervious area. That one largely based… the move from 65 to 70, I find justified based on the increase in in… fully pervious area, so under… as I understand it, under the form-based code rules, you could go as low as 10% fully pervious, and they're going to 15%, and to me, that is, justification for the change to 75… 70% impervious. The, let's see, the storefront height of 10 feet versus 12 feet, I find,

[185:07] is, justified. The, let's see, the setback, I think that there was a requested change to the, not the setback, but the step back, or whatever, and, And I find that that is, Is appropriate, given the location, Especially, yeah, given the location on the streets, and the, and the, yeah, the configuration of the multi-use path, especially on 55th, which provides some additional space there. I think that that is appropriate. I'm sorry, I don't have… the list…

[186:04] But, so, anyhow, to sum up, I find that it meets the requested, the exceptions, that the requested exceptions to the Format's Code are justified. The one… concern… main concern that I had, as maybe was evidenced by my questions, was about the request for the secondary access on… off of 55th. Which actually is contrary to a number of provisions, as I mentioned, in 995. It's two axes where one is allowed. It's a… an access on an arterial… well, on… not on the lowest, category street. Lowest category street is 56. There's one access there, but one access is on a higher category street, of course. And 995 also says that access… residential access should not be taken off an arterial street, which is what's being proposed. The stamp also says,

[187:11] As redevelopment occurs along 55th Street, access management should be considered, and new driveways or access should only occur on side streets, like Western Avenue and Conestoga Court. Given, however, the street configuration that exists, I can understand the need. For this access, I don't see a good alternative. In an ideal world, I would love to provide… to add some sort of a condition that says that once the street network gets built out, that that access would be required to be closed, because then there would be adequate access off of 55th. Via, you know, western or Conestoga to 56th.

[188:03] And it would really provide the same… the same accessibility that is being proposed currently, but just using the street network. However, I don't think that there's probably a mechanism for that. So… unless… unless we can figure something out like that, I will drop that. So, in sum, with that one proviso, I find that the application meets, the formase code with requested exceptions, and meets… and the requested modifications to the land use code, meet the standards. Thank you, Kurt. George, I see your hand up. Yeah, yeah, I can go. So, I have a few things to say, which is… I think it's an interesting, first look at what form-based code is doing here.

[189:02] And… it feels… Like, even with form-based code as a tool. The developer is still choosing to push the envelope to try to maximize the cube that they have to work with. And so while form-based code is what it is. I don't have much more to comment on than that. I don't find this particularly palatable against site review, but it is what it is, and that's what we have. That being said, I am not supportive of any of the exceptions that the developer has proposed. Relative to the point I was mentioning to the architect, I didn't want to argue that, well, under a site review, they would have different criteria than under the form-based code that they're benefiting from, from height. and density, but I would go the other way, which is I… this project is going to get built

[190:01] with or without these, exceptions getting, even if all of these exceptions were denied, the only exception I am supportive of is of the access, because I really, truly believe that's probably necessary to make this site function safely, those two driveway accesses. But as far as the 5% impervious, as far as the 12-foot ceiling height, which I actually think is important for different uses, and was part of the intent, as far as, you know, mitigating a little bit more heat island effect. And, and, and, and meeting the letter of what was intended through the pervious. I think those… and again, same thing with… I forget the exact term as far as the step-back, exception. I am not supportive of those, and I think the developer could easily retool this project, not lose a whole lot of housing, and come into compliance. And I think that's the right thing to do, especially since it's the first time we're seeing form-based code. So that's,

[191:09] Those are my two perspectives. Thank you. Thank you, George. Laura? Thank you. So first I want to say that I'm super excited to see the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan turn into a reality on the ground, and I recognize the difficulty of being first out of the gate, in working for both staff and for the applicant team. And in regard to this particular project, I want to take a moment to celebrate a few things. I'm especially appreciative of the high degree of housing, including repurposing some underutilized surface parking lots. The open space courtyards and streetscape plazas that are connected to the public realm, which was a very important concept in the East Boulder Sud Community Plan of creating high-quality public spaces. Those courtyards on, 55th Street look especially nice. The mobility hub, again, a really important concept for that 55th Street corner, looks nicely done. And the incorporation of public art and production business space, which, as the applicant noted, some of our other, applicants have not wanted to incorporate that at all, and have tried to get out of the production business space entirely.

[192:17] So I just want to recognize and celebrate those elements of this project. So this is a form-based code project, and I strongly believe that any applicant, that meets the form-based code requirements deserves and should expect a speedy and easy approval process. But the sticky part is that applicants should also expect that they will not be approved if they do not follow the form-based code and their exceptions are not supportable. So, we're going to talk about that, too. I am concerned… I don't think that the project follows the form-based code in one, and actually two very important regards. The first is the building articulation section. The form-based code requires that variation for each 90-foot segment along type A, B, and C frontages, so that's the west, south, and east.

[193:04] And I do think that the project largely accomplished this on the Type A frontage on 55th Street, but not very well currently on the Type B or Type C frontages, and I would argue they fail this requirement in the code. What we saw tonight was not variations in facade that are distinctive, legible, and meet the design quality that was expected in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and the Stamp Plan. but shifts of a few inches or a couple of feet, which I would argue are negligible, or perhaps even imperceptible to a layperson on the ground. I don't… you have to pass a certain amount of reasonableness, right? And, you know, 6 inches, to me, does not qualify as a change in building height, a 6 inch different in parapet on a 55-foot building. So, again, I know that this… if you didn't read the… code closely very, very recently, I'll just remind folks that the requirement is each facade segment shall vary by the type of dominant material, by color, scale, or orientation of that material. That's the baseline, and I think that they've done that. But they also, each segment has to also do two of the following.

[194:14] Vary by the proportion of recesses and projections, and I don't think that means expression lines and a 2-inch shift in material to have a little bit of a projection there. I think that means changing the projection of the building within the frontage setback, and I think that 2 feet is negligible, 4 feet is arguably not It's a little closer, but it's still not a significant or notable change to most people who are going to be driving by, biking by, or walking by. So, proportion of recesses and projections is one of the four ways you could meet this. The second is the location of the entrance and window placement. Juliet balconies are not a change in window placement, so I don't think Juliet balconies meet that criterion.

[195:00] The third is roof type, plane, or material. I don't think that a slight difference in parapet is a difference in roof type, plane, or material. And the last one is building height. They do meet this in the section that is 4 stories. They don't meet it anywhere else, in my opinion. So, for every segment, they have to have a variance in two of those qualities, and I think they fail that test, quite honestly. I, I wish I were not saying that tonight, but that is my honest opinion of, of, of this segment. And we have to remember that this section of the code is the only way that is carrying the weight of what is in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and the stamp area that very much emphasizes… I want to quote a little bit… The stamp says, the goal of building… oh, sorry, no, that's in the code. The stamp says, with regard to step backs, concern was voiced throughout the engagement process of a canyon effect, where large monolithic buildings with little to no roof articulation

[196:01] Constructed on both sides of the street edge would diminish the experience due to a feeling of being closed in. One primary tool in addressing these concerns are step backs, where after a certain height or floor, the upper floors step back from the primary facade. So I do think that's kind of the wedding cake effect that we see probably most prominently along the east, or along the 28th Street frontage as you come into town. That's what's meant by step backs. It also says, along with step-backs, attention should be given to the overall building form and the placement of doors and windows, especially along street fronts, that continue unbroken for a longer distance. The building phase should not extend more than 300 feet along the same plane without some sort of notable change in volume, setback or material along both 55th and Arapaho. Internal to the development, so not along 55th and Arapaho, the building phase should not extend more than 200 feet unbroken to create a greater level of urban texture and variety in the user experience. And I'm not going to quote too many more things, but the East Boulder Side Community Plan and the Stamp both recognized a concept that is very important to me, which is we desperately need increased density

[197:11] And also, that should not come at the expense of design quality and placemaking, because that's what makes these places desirable places to be, to walk around, to have in our city. And… housing, diversity, and affordability and design, quality, and placemaking were two co-equal goals out of six in the East Boulder Tech Community Plan. So again, this form-based code… I'm saying all this to say The form-based code is supposed to carry the weight of all of this. The form-based code is the only way that these things make it into our process. So I'm not inclined to say that very negligible shifts of 6 inches or 2 feet… 2 feet is, like, twice the recess of that doorway in that wall. It's, like, it's nothing. I don't think that that meets either the intent or the letter of the law here. As I would interpret it. So I'm gonna, I'm gonna have to disagree respectfully with staff and the applicant on that one. So I don't think it meets the, form-based code sections about design articulation on frontages.

[198:09] As far as the exceptions, I can support most of the exceptions that the applicant requested. The production business space, I am concerned about lowering that ceiling height, that that will make that space less palatable to the types of businesses that were intended to occupy a production business space. The form-based code literally excludes 12 different categories of potential customers or tenants in that space. Can't be residential, can't be public and institutional, can't be office, can't be medical office, can't be industrial, can't be a restaurant. I could go on. Can't be a financial institution, so the bank cannot expand in there. So you're already limited in who you can rent that to, and lowering that ceiling height, I think that's an experiment. I don't want to make that a precedent that we're okay with that. I think I could go with it for this one time to see how it works and if they can fill that space.

[199:01] The exemption for the street wall plazas along Arapahoe, the code very clearly says that those need to go to the maximum setback, and earlier today, there was an indication that the applicant would be able to do that. Here tonight, we're hearing that instead of doing that, they want to ask for another exception. I'm not super inclined to grant that exception, A, because it's very clear black and white in the code, and I do think that, you know, our criteria for granting exceptions is, does it still meet the intent of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, or is it still generally consistent with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan? And would it not negatively impact the neighborhood experience? And I think it fails on both of those, so I'm not… I think that those streetwall plazas Do need to be set further back, both to make them usable, so that they're not… they don't feel like you're right on the multi-use path with people whizzing by you, make them a little bit more personal and private, and also to help with that building articulation that we talked about in the previous criterion. So I'm not inclined to support that exception.

[200:01] The 70% impervious coverage. I have concerns about… I do think that a 5% shift could be supportable. I am supportive of, you know, increasing the… the… our ability to use the limited land that we have. So I think that the applicant did a good job of convincing me that those green roofs are actually going to be viable and serve the purpose of the semi-pervious coverage, so I'm not going to stick on that… the impervious coverage. I'm fine with the second access point, and I'm fine with the shift in the bike parking standards to have more long-term than short-term. given the uses. I think that the applicant's argument was convincing on that. So my two sticking points are the form-based code standard on frontage articulation, and those setbacks on Arapahoe needing to go back to the maximum setback of 20 feet. Thank you. Thank you, Laura.

[201:00] Ml, I can't see you. If you have your hand up, let me know. I'll put it up. Okay. Unless somebody else has their hand up, they can go. Go ahead. So I don't have much to say. I agree with, George and Laura. Laura, thank you for being so precise and specific about the form-based code requirements, especially on those facades. I found the idea of a 6-inch offset on a parapet. A person can't even see that, you know, so I'm not exactly sure what… what, the point is on some of these things. So… I'm… I'm… supportive of what… what you have articulated, and what George has articulated. I don't have any additional comments on number one or two key issues. Basically, I'm not a fan of form-based code, and this project confirms my dislike for this method of planning. I think it doesn't get at,

[202:13] A lot of the, concerns and values that we want to see as we make buildings in our city. So, my… I guess enthusiasm is… is pretty low, is pretty low for, looking at these form-based, code projects, because I don't think we are… we're gonna, look at this project and look at one we've had a site review on, and, you know. quality of experience is… is not a factor, that we can… apply criteria to… on the form-based code. And ultimately, that's what the experience of our city comes down to, is, you know, what are we experiencing as a person walking, driving.

[203:06] or, inhabiting these buildings, and I… and I… Don't think that we, form base code, Gets us to that level of conversation. But anyway, so those are my comments, and again, thanks, George and Laura, for your thorough comment. Thank you, ML. Claudia Mason? Go ahead. Okay, so starting with the question of meeting the requirements of the form-based code, my answer to this question is yes, with some reluctance, I think, in line with what some of my colleagues are saying. As our questions and discussion about outdoor spaces, the interior courtyards, and impervious surfaces suggested, I think the code itself may have some

[204:07] Some deficiencies in terms of tools to provide high-quality residential spaces, even as we want high-density housing in this area. And so we may not have adequate site-by-site requirements for usable open space. The larger area plan is not providing for public open spaces nearby. And some of what I'm thinking about with projects like this is always trying to reconcile, an urge us towards how to make green and beautiful high-density housing. I know that it can be done. we can find it in other parts of the world, and while this particular project satisfies the form-based code, in my opinion, I don't think this is the pinnacle of what we could be doing. So, I think it does satisfy the code, just a little. thought about how our code is going to actually play out here. In terms of the exceptions that the applicant is asking for, I have some mixed responses to these. In terms of the request for a higher percentage of impervious surface.

[205:06] My response to this request was going to be dependent on how our code treats green roofs, and I really appreciate staff's clarifications here that green roofs are allowed to count as semi-pervious, and then that clarification that we can have up to 25% impervious surface for the project. So the current ratio is 70% impervious, 15% semi-pervious. I think if we insisted on that 65% impervious, the applicant could presumably Just add more semi-pervious green roof. And that presumably has only marginal improvements for water quality. I also think that wouldn't have any secondary benefits for things like open space provision or reduced far, floor area ratio. So I don't think that's worth fighting over in this application, even though I have some concerns about how this kind of coverage is going to play out. On a larger scale.

[206:01] In terms of the production business space wanting a lower ceiling there, I'm leaning no on that exception. If I understand the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan correctly, the intent is to create physical spaces that are conducive to fairly particular types of production activities that we're not likely to have a lot of new spaces produced for, and that higher ceilings are part of that for a lot of the uses that are envisioned. The applicant mentions that a two-story space of that size, could be quite awkward. I think there are configurations in which it works. It can be built out on the interior. So I don't see compliance with this, height requirement in the form-based code as wholly impractical. In this case, and given how important these small production spaces are to the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, I'm not sure that an exception is necessary here. And I would not actually want to make a precedent for this kind of exception, in our first go.

[207:02] with this code. Streetwell plazas on Arapahoe, in terms of how deep those need to be. I don't see a hardship being imposed by the site here that would suggest that we make an exception for shallower ones, but… I also question how usable those spaces are going to be for, kind of. Public gathering spaces, etc, given that they're fronting on a state highway, so that's kind of a toss-up there. And then the two other exceptions being asked for that are not part of form-based code, one was the bike parking. I don't object to changing the ratios. To the level that they're being asked for. And then the… the question about the second access point on 55th, I'm a strong yes on that exception. I think there is a real safety issue involved. for pedestrians, for bikes, and for cars, with any development at that location that takes access solely from 56th Street. I mean, that functionally just means access from Arapaho.

[208:05] And that is not a condition that the applicant has created here, that's a condition that our street grid has created. And I think that absolutely merits relief. And I think the placement of that second access point at the far northern end of the 55th Street frontage is the best choice. for minimizing the impacts to the Taipei street front. So, thanks to everyone who worked on that particular solution. Thank you, Claudia. Mason. I guess I have to go at some point. So, yeah… Just starting with the first. I totally hear what ML is saying, and I did hope for something A little more in line with what the images you see, and the neighborhood plans, and… Things of that nature, not just what George put it as, like, a box pushing edges, like we see in a lot of our projects, so…

[209:05] But however, when I read the… the code, I kind of find myself sitting a little more closer to where, Claudia's landing in that You know, it's… it's pretty… toothless in some sense. And you kind of rely… within form-based code, you give more leeway and put more trust into the folks building these spaces, that they'll create something a little more interesting. In here, laura, I… your analysis was always… was detailed, of course, and… and accurate. So… I find myself struggling a little bit in between Between your comments and Claudia's comments. The, on the requested modifications, so…

[210:02] Bike working ratios, minor and consistent with multiple goals, no issues there. The request for additional impervious coverage and a second access point, I… I'm… Totally feeling what, Kurt and, Claudia are saying there on that. They're justifiable. And I don't think that, on the Impervious, it's really worth the fight. On the shop front height reduction. I agree with what some of my colleagues said, that this was the one that struck me as the hardest to get my head around. And… It's… it's a hard balance between… Like, we all want more housing on this board. I think that's pretty fair to say. But setting the precedent of allowing, that exception on our first go feels like a bad thing to do on my… from my perspective.

[211:03] And then on the Arapaho, You know, this gets to the articulation. comments. I agree with Claudia that they might not be the most usable, but I think as the street gets built out, and we have slower traffic, more people using the bike lanes, things of that nature, you know, we'll see. Maybe they will be more usable. So, also not a huge fan of that exception as well. I think I hit them all. Did I miss one? Thank you, Mason. So, This is a… this is a challenging situation that we have here, I think, for the board. It's been, challenging for staff. Because, you know, form-based code… so, been involved in this for some time, not as extensively as those that were involved in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, but in the development community, before the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan was completed and the form-based code was developed.

[212:11] Form-based code was held out there as a way for developers To be innovative, to be creative, to create beauty in design, if they could only be freed from the capricious planning board clawing away at their designs, a highly prescriptive staff, and the ambiguous site review process. Just… Give us the rules, and we will do great things. And, and this, as the first time out. I have this feeling of disappointment, and I'm not… insulting the applicant. It is a sensation of what could be. And, you know, we… I came into this, with looking at the

[213:02] the flat elevations, and just kind of stunned at those flat elevations, speaking to Laura's comments about articulation. Now, as happens many times in presentations, we get a nice, three-dimensional view, and it's, and, oh, okay, that's… maybe that's not… Maybe that view isn't so bad. But, those, those elevations, and, to speaking to Laura's comments, are… are… really are a great concern, and… And I wouldn't normally do this, but the applicant, opened the door to a comparison to Willville. And I want to say that this site design Does… is a… is a block… Willville is more than a block, but, is a block, and… It does not incorporate

[214:02] an erosion of either the south or the west side of the building. So… What's that? I think you mean East. No. - I'm talking about 55th. South. West. That those, and those two courtyards, what I'm getting to is… And I think the, the perviousness issue speaks to the lack Of the kind of usable open space that has views that I think about quality of life of residents. I think about number of units, because that's more housing for more people, and people that might work at BCH, at you know, cordon Farm, or whoever. But I also think about their lives, and the quality of their lives, and their existence in those units, and in those interior courtyards

[215:00] without a south view, without south access or west access. I think that an opportunity To make those open spaces. not only comply with the form-based code, but to make them… make them superior open spaces has… has been missed, and I'm… I'm disappointed in that. I think that the perviousness question relates to the open… the amount of open space. And again, I understand that the form-based code does not, they are fulfilling the requirement of the form-based code. Which takes me to another issue. The form-based code doesn't require a concept review, and it's like, well, why would it? Because it's just, like, we're designing… we're designing within these, objective… Sets of criteria and numerical values. I think this is a project that would have benefited from a concept review, so that's something I think we… we as a city, need to consider, is whether or not concept review should be part

[216:13] Of, form-based code. So… I am… I came into this feeling one way. I think Laura has articulated a number of concerns that actually, what I want to see us do is to, ensure that We are not operating outside of the requirements of form-based code, or letting personal preferences, drive things. And we are addressing issues that fall within the confines of the form… of the form-based code. So, I'll be curious to see where this goes, but, That's, that's my thought on this. As far as the exceptions go, I also, I have…

[217:06] Become convinced that the, that if you have space, production space, and… I'm very familiar with production spaces. A 10-foot ceiling height. in a production space is… would generally be considered inadequate, and… and it would make it, you know, we talk about, retail spaces, we're talking about all these spaces that are vacant and that sort of thing. I think… I think that will, with the limitations that are in the form… in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan of what type of businesses cannot go in there. Having a 10-foot ceiling. We'll… will just ensure that that… that will not be an activated, space. Because it has to be a production space, and production spaces need higher ceilings.

[218:01] So… Yes, yes. I just want to clarify that that list of things that a production business space cannot be is in the form-based code, so it is regulatory. Right, yeah, okay, thank you. Okay, Yep, Laura? Can I just ask Chandler, or is Chandler still online? Okay, somebody who's driving the presentation, could we please pull up the, The stamp plan? And in particular, some of those reference images. Okay, well, that's happening. I'm going to, suggest that… Okay. we've all had our, bite at the commentary apple. And, now is the time to become more specific and more formal in any sort of

[219:02] Motion-making or proposal-making that, is gonna be put on the floor. Kurt. Just as a process thought, would it make sense to go through the list of exceptions one by one, and just have a yes-no on those? Yes. I would… And… I'm sorry, and just one other process thought is, we often allow the applicant to respond if there's anything that they heard that they want to either tell us we made a factual error, or say, hey, I've heard a concern, and I think we can answer that. I think it's always good to allow that before we get to motion making. Agreed. And… and I want to speak to your point that just because we have a concern, right, that doesn't… that's not carrying the day. It's… is it something that is based in code? That… Is… it's something about… How they comply or do not comply with the code. Right. That is the essence, the gist.

[220:02] the meat of our discussion. Yes, I've had long discussions with community members about what Planning Board can and cannot do, and the discretion we do and do not have, and our authority is rooted entirely on, does this meet the code? And that's it. Chandler, were you able to pull up those references. Yeah, sorry, so am I bringing up exceptions or the stamp? The stamp, please. And then the exceptions. Yeah, and I'll just… I'll just speak to why I'm asking Chandler to pull this up. We're not… we're not seeing your screen, Chandler, if you're sharing. I know. Okay. I gotcha. Here we go. Okay. Okay, can you blow up those reference images on the left? On the left. Yeah. May I speak? So, just one second, if you don't mind. So, this is the kind of thing that was intended to be carried in the form-based code, this kind of building articulation, variation in step-backs, roof heights, building forms. In my opinion, I think that's what the form-based, and I would say my opinion is an educated one.

[221:04] that this is what the form-based code is intended to do, and that's why I'm saying that I don't think that, adding a Juliet balcony should qualify in the code as changing a window placement. And adding a 6-inch parapet should qualify as a change in height, and that having a 2-foot step back should qualify as a variation in facade. I think that that is a precedent. that if we start to say it works in this context, we're going to have a hard time saying it doesn't work in other contexts. So, that's my spiel. Okay, I'm gonna let the applicant respond, and I'm going to suggest that any further discussion of that be centered around a motion. Okay. Thank you. I just want to say that, you know, this form-based code is what we have, and without having the code in front of me to reference things exactly. I believe what I intended to portray when I was going over the building articulation is that you have what you are required, which is the material has to change, and then you can choose two.

[222:04] of the below 4 options. We chose 2, sometimes we chose 3, so that 6-inch parapet height was always the third choice. It was always an additional add-on to what we thought was a projecting element that was changing, or a balcony and window treatment element that was changing. And so, we really do believe we're meeting the code, and so does staff. I just wanted to say that, thanks. Thank you. Hi. Hi. Good evening. I'm Christine Cobb, I'm part of the Quad team that's here tonight, and really appreciate everybody's time and the commentary this evening. There's just a couple clarifications that I wanted to point out. very receptive to, I think, what I heard from everybody, that there's a consensus that there's a need for housing. And just wanted to mention the reason why we reduced the shop base height to 10 feet instead of 12 is to preserve a unit that is above it. If we go to 12 feet, we would lose that unit.

[223:09] And that's all as a factor of the fact that half of the site sits in an area that's a floodplain that we are trying to correct with this development and do the right thing from a sustainability standpoint and regulatory standpoint as well. That's really what was driving the reduction in height for that, is to preserve that unit above it. So I wanted to clarify that. And in a similar vein, Laura, I know you've done a lot of research over the last 24 hours relative to the back and forth with the courtyard dimensions along, Arapaho. It's a similar item, where if we push back another 6 feet, suddenly a 25-foot unit depth on the interior becomes infeasible. And so we would, again, probably lose a stack of 5 units by having to rotate 90 degrees and reprogram the units that are there. So, there's not,

[224:04] I just wanted to provide additional context to the battle that we are trying to, navigate on our side in terms of providing the most amount of housing possible, satisfying, I think, what we've all agreed to is a bit of a labyrinth within the form-based code of how you get there, and at the same time, trying to really provide such a transformative project to what you see today on the site, and the existing uses, and the surrounding adjacencies, to be the first project out there that's doing something incredibly meaningful that we're very excited about, and is… Not without challenges, as we try to be the first person out of the gate here. And then we did have a video that showed briefly that I think does a much better job of showing, sort of, the ins and outs. the extensive amount of landscaping that we're providing, just again, the transformative nature of what is going to happen along Arapahoe, not just with our project, but our project in conjunction with the bus rapid transit that's going to go through there, the multi-use path that's going to serve as connection to the broader bicycle circulation patterns throughout the city.

[225:09] And, it's… I… if there's an opportunity to show that, to better demonstrate the articulation that SOFR has programmed along 55th, Arapaho, and 56th. I'd be happy to do that, if that is helpful to anybody. Anybody? Mason, I see you ready to speak. Yeah, just a quick follow-up question. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. So, the 12-foot… That would reduce the total number of units by 1? Is that what I heard? By 5. By 5. Oh, I'm sorry, by… excuse me, but… The 12-foot ceiling, huh? The shop base, space, yes. Going from 10 feet to 12 feet, because of the constraint we have on the base elevation of the building, removes a unit above it. One… one unit. And then the Arapaho, exception, that's 5 units.

[226:03] Correct, yeah, that's 5 units. And that's really driven by the unit depth that would go to 25 feet instead of what's currently programmed in that area. Yep, I appreciate that. And thank you for that context. Yes, of course. Oh, it is more than 5, I'm sorry. Excuse me? Yes. Oh, okay, brief comment, and then we're going to bring it back up here. Sure, yeah, no, on the… just… just clarifying a couple things. On the… on the Streetwall Plaza. Reduce… moving that setback to that full 20 feet. There's a stack of 3 units at each plaza that would likely drop to 2… And so then times 5 floors, so that's… it's a loss of likely 10-ish units. That's one. And then, you know, on the… this 10-foot ceiling height,

[227:01] I think we're also grappling with the production business space, what type of business actually is going to use a small space like that. Frankly, I think With a smaller… a shorter ceiling where we don't have to take out that unit above gives us greater flexibility in terms of how we could structure a lease for that space. Probably actually more likely to get… be able to do a deal with a tenant. I think it's… let's be realistic about the actual leasing of that space. and then, you know, I just want to also… Just from the perspective of the owner and developer, the, you know, the… There's some commentary about, well, we can make these changes, we can absorb these changes. this is, in a way, a kind of an untested submarket in Boulder. A lot of these changes are Sort of existential to the ability to finance and build the building. So… Just putting that out there. These are not things that we can just sort of

[228:00] sort of say, okay, we'll make adjustments and move on. I mean, we'll do our best, and… Really appreciate the fact that we're all kind of working our way through a new code. A new type of development in a different part of the city. But just… you know, there's an element of some of these things will sort of threaten the ability to actually pull off a project here. So, just wanted to mention that as well. Okay, thank you. Alright. Kirk? No, okay, you look like you're anxious to start. Okay. Now, let's… let's do tackle the, exceptions, and then we can talk about Conditions or concerns with compliance. with, the form-based code. So… Mark, are you asking for, like, a straw vote up or down on these?

[229:00] without making a motion, because I think… the motion would be to approve the project and then condition it if we want to. So… Well, I think we can make decisions on The board's conclusions on the exceptions. As a… as a, as an item. before… We address the other… the other issues. So you're saying before we go to motion-making, let's do, like, a test vote on whether we're supportive of these things? I agree that that makes sense, so that we can better crash and… craft a motion and be efficient without having a bunch of motions that end up getting shot down and… in the… in the record as a denial of that motion. I would much rather do a straw vote. Okay. We can… We can, do a… show of… unless Hela's going to… is a… is a not-a-five show of hand sort of thing before we actually make a motion.

[230:02] Does that… Yeah, like a straw poll? Yeah. I think that's fine, and I just encourage you to base your discussion on whether or not the applicant showed that the criteria are met. Right. Agreed. Thank you. Okay, with that, knowledge, let's just take the, first one, which is the production business space standards, the request for, a modification to the… 12-foot ceiling height down to 10. without a lot of debate, is there, let's just do a show of hands, and again, George and ML, you're just gonna have to shout out. Oh, okay, well… I know you can see us, yeah, hopefully you can see us. Okay, alright, now I can see you. Let's have a show of hands if you support the exception… From 12 to 10.

[231:01] Okay. Well, that one would, is going down. Nope. I don't want to give up. That was, 2 in favor of the exception, 5 opposed. Okay. Let's switch back. Thank you, Chandler, for, toggling here for us. The next one is the general building-type standards to allow for 70% impervious coverage, where 65% is the maximum otherwise allowed. And again, taking into consideration the semi-pervious numbers that we've all become familiar with. So, if you are in favor… Of that exception, allowing that exception, let's see your hand. Okay, that is a… One, 6 in favor, 1 opposed.

[232:00] Okay. And… Okay, streetwall Plaza's exception to reduce the depth from… 20 feet to 13.3. you know, I'd like to make a comment here because of what the developer brought into the mix, which was economics and their concern around economics. Because since you voiced that, I want to present an alternative to the board so that, at least we have a different perspective, which is. the changing in zoning is a massive windfall to this property owner and this developer. My gut, very much, is no matter… even if you shave off 10 units off a 300-unit project, you're talking a few percentage points. I do not believe that's going to affect their financing at all. They may disagree with that, but they've also just gotten a massive windfall with what's happened. So, since he brought that into context, I want the alternative. I know that we're not basing our decisions on that, but because that was brought into the mix, I thought it was important to voice. Thanks.

[233:16] Yeah, please go. I would also like to make a comment and say I do appreciate the developer's perspective. We are always going to hear that any change that we suggest that reduces unit counts is unacceptable. We hear that every time. We suggest a change that reduces unit counts. And I know that this board is very much in favor of housing. I'm very much in favor of housing. We're in favor of density. But the standards in the code exist for a reason, which is to ensure that, in addition to density, we also retain design quality, quality of life, environmental quality. Every single thing that is in the code that prevents this from being just a solid block of housing reduces unit counts. So, I… I'll just leave it there.

[234:01] Kurt. Just quickly, I just… I can't imagine what that… these streetwall… streetwall plazas along Arapahoe are going to be used for, and how much difference it would make to have an additional six feet, 9 inches, or whatever. I don't… I don't think… I certainly would never want to sit out there along Rapo. With all the traffic, and the pollution, and the dust, and stuff like that. So, it'll just be a bigger space if it goes to 20 feet. It seems like it'll just be a bigger space for, you know. leaves and… cred to collect, I, I, I don't see a quality improvement. Resulting from requiring the 20 feet, as opposed to the 13.3? Sure. I just want to point out that it's also a building articulation benefit if these go back to 20 feet. It makes that articulation much more real than a 4-foot offset in the building.

[235:06] And I do think that providing places that are quality spaces for people to sit down and rest Has benefits for, you know, pedestrians along the pathway, for parents, with small children, for elderly folks who are walking along the path there. And I do think that having a little bit more space there provides the opportunity to make them a little bit of a more interesting and a little bit of a more, usable space that is not right up onto the bike path. normally, I would concur with you, and at the same time, I have always been, Wary of, opposed to… linear open spaces next to high-volume streets that, are just unpleasant. And, And in this case, I… I don't think that 7 feet

[236:03] makes… makes the difference. My open space concerns with this project are not these open spaces. There are other issues, but, in terms of this particular specific exception, I don't see it as a, As a quality of life enhancement, to… To the residents, and that's my primary concern. Yeah. So, any other comment on this before we have our show of hands? Okay, if… raise your hand if you are in favor… Of allowing the exception, Of the depth to 13 feet. Okay, we have 1, 2, 3… 4 in favor, 3 opposed. Okay. Now, is anyone ready to just take those Oh.

[237:08] Okay. Thank you. Chandler, I guess there are more. Sorry, I thought that we had the 3. Okay. Oop. Would it… would it be helpful for me to put the criteria up for these after you look at them for a second? Because these are Criteria than the exception criteria. Let's look at them for a second, and if we get a request from any board member to see the criteria, I think we've discussed them enough that

[238:05] Okay, do people want to… regard to… let's just stick to the second access point. Does anyone feel the need to, see the code and or, have any, points of discussion about this? Okay, I think this one is pretty clear-cut, so, if you are in favor of the second access point. Let's raise your hand. Okay. That one's. Done? Okay. Okay, request for modification to the bike parking standards. Does anyone need to… feel the need to see the code?

[239:03] Okay. If you are in favor of allowing the modification to the bike parking standards to what the applicant has proposed, raise your hand. Okay. We're unanimous there. So, by my count, we had one Which was the ceiling height, yes? The production space, ceiling height. So… what I would propose is we have a motion That does not include a motion to approve All of the four items that we, that we all agreed upon, or had a majority on. And, we just leave out the, Let me ask you guys this. Do you guys want us to vote that down, or if we just remove the ceiling height in the production space?

[240:01] The exemption request, if it's not included in our motion that we vote for. Is that adequate, or do you want us to vote it down? My recommendation would be to include in your motion a requirement that the final plans show the production business space with. 12 feet of height. Because currently they show 10 feet of height. I see. Okay, then that would also make that a positive. Okay. Fine. So, if we can have those, I, I, I think I can actually… Do this, unless someone else is ready to go. Okay, so Chandler, here's what I would appreciate, if we could have… All those items back up on the screen. Oh, I'm… Email, do you have… The items, or the…

[241:00] the items. All three of the exceptions and the modifications? Okay. Yup. Mark, I think that the, the… Your suggestion that the, 12-foot high That the 12-foot-high exception Should not be included in the motion. was correct, because if we don't take it out of the motion. That means that we are accepting the exception. And we're relying on, a process down the road To, say, oh, right, and it's gotta be 12 feet, because… Well, I would… the mo… I don't want it to be confused. Okay, the motion I would make wouldn't be confusing in the sense that it says. That it is required to have a 12-foot ceiling height.

[242:00] So, so what Hella suggested was that not that we remove it, but that we state in the positive That the production space is required to have a 12-foot ceiling height, And… That's that. You want, you wanna say. coda Say that? It's hard to be a minimum of 12 feet, right? 12-foot minimum. Yeah. Yes. Which, which is a good… Doesn't the code already say that it should be 12 feet? The code does, but the application and the plans that the applicant submitted do not have that. Right. So by stating it positively. Then it's a… it is a clear requirement. I also like the idea of a 12-foot minimum. If you're going to take out the unit above. Then the possibility for even taller ceiling heights, mezzanine, whatever. Mezzanines are always cool in production spaces, so, Anyway, that's a, that's a possibility, but, I'm going to go with Hela's suggestion here. So,

[243:07] If I can interject, I think where you want to start is just with the motion that's recommended. And then just verbally add the… with the change that there be a change to the plan, so… So we don't need to… You don't need all those exceptions. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Brad. So… now, Okay. I'm gonna… should I try to… Yeah. Wait, are… I… Isn't there… Are you modifying the right item, or is there a third item that… no.

[244:05] No. Okay. Alright, okay. Excellent, thank you. Ella, does that look okay? I think that looks great. 3B, just for everyone's awareness, is the condition about final plans is required as part of TechDoc. So, this would be added as… as under the… those. Okay, does someone want to make that? I have a quick question, and it's specifically for Laura, because…

[245:01] I was very moved by what you said in regards to, the, articulation along Arapahoe, irrespective of the exception that we were talking about. I agree with you that, certainly, in looking at the stuff that was pulled up and how you articulated it, that, I do not believe that the design intent meets the form-based code Arapaho. As you so eloquently articulated. So the question is to you, do we want to… do you want to make any other modification to this, or should we discuss that? Because as it stands. At least from my perspective, I can't support this based on that. May I respond? Yeah, please. Thank you for bringing that up, George. I'm glad you asked. So, as a matter of process, what I would suggest is that we go ahead and put this motion on the table and let it be seconded, and then I would propose to,

[246:09] I would propose a condition, an amendment to the motion. About the building articulation, and I would love, before actually putting something like that on the floor, to be able to do a straw poll to see if there's board support for even going in that direction, because I think crafting that amendment would be difficult. And complex. So, I'm happy if you want to go ahead and put this on the floor, and then ask, are there any amendments, and then talk about that, or we can talk about that now if you'd like, but I do think that we should talk about potentially an amendment. S-so. Yes, I think… I think this is important to do, because this motion, should it be adopted now, would obviate your… your concerns. It says.

[247:00] So, but I would also, ask you to be To be as specific as possible, rather than kind of… Chew on it. For you to, put forward in a specific way as possible, something for us to discuss. Right. So, what I would propose is, either now or after this motion is on the floor and you're asking for amendments. That is part of the discussion. we pull up the code section that I think this doesn't meet. and talk through that, and then see if there's general agreement that it does not meet the code section before we talk about the fix, because if there's… if there is not general agreement with me and George that it doesn't meet the code section, we don't need to go through the trouble of crafting a language. Okay. So, let's… make a motion. And as we have up there now.

[248:01] Well, I… I think we would need to do it before… I'm sorry, I'm now… I don't know, Hela, if you agree, but I think we would have to do it before emotion's on the floor, because once emotion's on the floor. you have to either vote it up or down, or amend it. No. Is there space for more discussion? We have to amend, yes. But we can debate the amendment. Before we amend. Yeah. Before it's on the floor. Okay, alright. Yep. You could also do a straw poll discussion, like you just did, for this particular item. So… Fine. let's do a strong… again, this, this requires, Laura, as, as the… I'll try to be concise. Okay, I, you know me well. Yeah, and I know that, I know that we do better when we know what it is we're debating. Yeah. Okay. Chandler, could we please pull up the section from the form-based code? that talks about design articulation, and that is… or, sorry, facade articulation. I probably have the code citation here somewhere in my.

[249:08] Yep, the requirements? The requirements for facade articulation in the form-based code. 9-14-30. Thank you, Kurt, for that citation. Yes, yes. somewhere. But I have a lot of notes. Okay… Oh, you're so good. Let's… let's put it up here, and then if you think we've said something incorrect, or something needs correcting, I… I would be supportive of… We will… we will give you a chance in a minute. Oh, sorry, hold on. So… Okay. Oh, there we go. Okay, can everybody see this? Is it big enough? Do we need to blow it up? Okay, so Section C here… Says, building articulation, Building facade variety.

[250:04] All buildings 120 feet in width or greater along any type A, B, or C frontage shall fulfill the following requirements. So that's every facade except the north facade is A, B, or C. It says, increments varied in segments of less than or equal to 90 feet. I think they've done that, no argument from me. The requirement is that each of those 90-foot segments shall vary by the type of dominant material, by color, scale, or orientation of that material. That's the baseline. And I think they've done that. And by at least two of the following. So, one, the proportion of recesses and projections within the frontage setback. And the applicant has argued that on some of the facades, a 2-foot recess, or a 2-foot projection, especially on that 56th Street facade, is sufficient to meet this criteria. That, to me, feels… does not pass a standard of reasonableness, that 2 feet is enough of a recess and a projection to pass this standard.

[251:08] B, the location of the entrance and window placement. I did not hear the applicant talk about changing window placement, I just heard them talk about Juliet balconies, which is, like, a material or an adornment on the windows. It's not a difference in window placement. C, roof type, plane, or material. This is a flat roof. There's no change in roof type. plane or material, as far as I can tell, except for, like, a 6-foot parapet in some sections, which the applicant has said is not what they're relying on here. And D, building height. The only segments that vary by building height are the ones towards the back. There are a lot of segments that are just uniform, 55 feet. I really, really honestly do not see how every segment meets two of these A, B, C, or D. To me, setting a precedent that a 6 foot inch difference, or sorry, a 6 inch difference in height is enough to meet this requirement.

[252:02] Doesn't pass the reasonable test. two-foot projection. So that's… That's why I'm saying I don't think it meets this on… certainly not on the 56th Street. arguably not on Arapahoe either, because it does have the forward and back projection, but it has a uniform height. The window placement… I guess the window placement is different with the, on the segment that has the shop front base, but not the other segments. And the roof type is the same. So I don't even think it meets this on Arapaho. I do think they meet it on 55th Street, and they meet it well, so I'm not talking about that. So if I were to propose a condition. I don't know exactly how to craft it, but it would have something to do with the significance of the change that we're talking about. I don't think we want to set a precedent that 6 inches or 2 feet is… I mean, the buildings we're going to get… in the future, in this whole area, are going to be looking to this as the first out of the gate, what is acceptable? And, as George said, people are going to push the limits, and if we say 2 feet and projection difference is acceptable, we're going to see a lot more of that, so…

[253:07] Okay, thank you, Laura. Let's give the applicant a moment to respond to that, and then… . We'll go back. I don't understand. Why are we giving the applicant another moment to respond? I mean, it's a… aren't we deliberating as a board? We've already heard from the applicant on this. With all due respect, I think the code is being read incorrectly, and there's no definition of that 2-foot dimension anywhere. In fact, they talk about material transitions as 8-inch minimum. So, I really just… I think we do meet A and B, and I'd really like the chance to, at least show the video. The material projections, we are meeting, we are changing windows as they relate to units marching down the street. There is changes in articulation of the building. Whether or not it steps back. 5 feet, or 2 feet, or 20 feet, that's not in the form-based code.

[254:02] And I get what you're trying to do, Laura, I really do, but we have a code that we're following, and that's what we… presented, and that's what staff approved. So, I… I don't know how… the… you can check the box with what your… the motion might be. I just don't know what the outcome would… would be in the end. Okay, thank you. George, I, I, I understand your concern, and I do harken back To, a number of different occasions where we have, let an applicant respond to help. Yeah, we just, we just heard the same thing. Honestly, Mark, we just heard the same thing. George! I was speaking. Can you just hold on a second? Thank you. What I was saying was, I'm hearkening back to a number of occasions while this is not exactly in our procedures where In one way or another, we have…

[255:02] both either improved emotion or a condition with some applicant input. So. The applicant has made their input, I've noted your concern. And I'm ready to do a little straw poll now, or hear any other Board members, thoughts. Yeah, and thank you, being my turn to speak, I'll just say that we just heard the same thing from the applicant that we heard from them the last time. So I didn't find it useful, but thank you. Thank you, George. does anyone else have any… even… we're in a situation that I don't like, and that is where we don't have emotion, and I'm… We don't have wording, and we're debating. But, if anyone else has a comment about Laura's concerns, let's make it now, and then I propose a quick straw vote, and we can…

[256:02] Maybe end this, or start crafting something formal and, something really to debate. No, just a second, I'm gonna let Kurt go, and then Claudia. Yeah, just, very quickly, some of the most beautiful buildings I've ever seen have had really subtle changes in the facade. bricks that are… that protrude just, you know, by an inch or something, and it's… it's… it's very minor, but it really, is… is classical design, in my opinion. Given that we don't have an actual dimension here, which I think is a failing of, clearly. of the formist goat, but given that we don't, I think we could point to lots and lots of amazing buildings that were built in the last, you know, 200 years that have very, very subtle variations in their… the facade, and yet, are… are fantastic buildings, and so I don't… I'm… I'm uncomfortable trying to impose

[257:10] a particular… Design standard here, just kind of off the cuff. Claudia. So, echoing Kurt, but purely based in the code and not on aesthetic considerations, I think it is very difficult based on what we have here in the code, first of all, to identify a clear deficiency. Okay, this is a subjective determination we're talking about, but it is even more difficult to consider how we would craft a condition that would correct such a deficiency in the absence of those kinds of measurements, and so I'm really not comfortable conditioning, Any kind of corrections based on this section of the code? Laura. Briefly. So, what I would propose is, when we do this draw poll, just to say, do we agree that this condition is not met? And if

[258:03] we don't agree on that, then that's done. But if we do agree that it's not met, then I would want to ask Hela how to craft a remedy, because I'm a little bit at a loss here, too. Of how to do it. Yeah, I'll simply say, one, I concur with Claudia and Kurt. 2. In this situation, staff has been clear, That they think the applicant is meeting the criteria, and I… I put the burden on us as a board, as an individual board member. That… to… craft a motion, and then support and argue for that motion. And I think it is, It is not… The role of staff. If they've already made a position to craft emotion. I just want to disagree with that, and I want to say, I think it is our obligation, if we think it does not meet the code.

[259:04] it is our obligation to propose a condition, and I think it is our obligation to work with staff to try to make sure that that condition is implementable and understandable. So I don't see this as being different. Let's, let's do this. Let's do a quick straw poll. whether or not The question is… Do you, would you support At least exploring the, An amendment to the main motion, that would… I would like to reframe it, please, Mark, since I'm the one pushing this. I would like to know whether people agree that this segment of the code has not been met in this application. Okay, great, that's simpler. Okay, we're gonna, we're gonna… Count hands. Mason. nut. Not, yeah.

[260:00] Okay, well, well, okay. Yeah, I'm sorry. You know what, let's have a show of hands. If you feel as Laura contends that the code has not been met. Okay, that is 3 in favor, 4 opposed. Okay. That goes down. Alright, we are back to… Any other… any other proposed amendments to the… to… The main motion, which we have not yet… we have not yet moved. I have a proposal. Okay. I may interject, and it relates to the… exception for the Streetwall Plaza. Chandler, would it be possible for you to put on the screen some potential additional motion language, since the exception has not been captured in the application materials? That's true.

[261:00] No findings have been made, in the memo. I'm proposing to include that. Some language in the motion. Okay. Do those things. Alright. Would you like me to add it to the motion that I have, Hela, the language that you sent before? Yeah, you could show it that way, or separately on the screen, whatever is easiest. Okay, give me one sec, I'm gonna stop sharing for, just a minute. Oh, okay. Okay.

[262:00] Yeah, it'll be a second motion, and… Just a heads up, it is… it is long. Okay, so this is the first motion. Well, I guess I can delete the… We can delete the zoning motion, this is already passed, so… Yep. Now, looking at this… and this. Okay. And it, yeah, and it wouldn't be… why don't you… Should I add this to the other 3B? I could add this to the first motion. Yes, exactly. Okay. Well, we… we've already… do we need to, Just put a paragraph in between, just to… The first one. Oh, okay, that one, okay, yeah.

[263:07] That's about as big as I can make it. Okay. Oh. And… Yeah. Oops. Does this… this look okay, Ella? I would add… Before this new paragraph also… And the following sentence. I don't think your mic is on if you're trying to… Yeah, it's because I'm turning around. Before the second paragraph, I would also add with the following sentence added to condition 3B. So, basically, you're adding two sentences to condition 3B.

[264:08] And… So, say this twice. Copy that and move it. In front of them. Yep. And maybe put a… just a paragraph to make it easier to read. Before the last sentence that kind of starts in the middle of the paragraph. Yep. Thank you. Could we just say what the following sentence is added to condition 3B, and then put an AND in between, or do you think we need both?

[265:01] That would work, yep. Okay. Okay. I don't know if everybody can read that. I'm struggling with my own eyesight. Could you put it in presenter view, Chandler? Oh, yep, sorry. notes view, that might help. Yep. And maybe I'll just read it and explain what I'm trying…

[266:01] what I'm… proposing you do. The first sentence that we would add to Condition 3B is, which is about the final site plans. It would require… the final site plans shall note an exception for the streetscape Plaza along Arapaho Avenue to allow them to extend from the right-of-way to where their northern boundary is shown on the applicant's plans dated October 10th, 2025. Where otherwise the streetscape plaza would have to extend to the 20-foot maximum setback. An addendum to written statement. to the written statement shall be filed with these final plans describing how the standards applicable to the exception are met. And those are… this would meet some requirements that typically apply when an exception is requested. The plans have to show it, and the written statement has to address it. And then there also hasn't been a finding in the materials provided to you that are in writing about how the exception criteria are met, and that's what this second sentence is proposed to address.

[267:06] And finding additionally that the proposed streetscape Plaza exception is generally consistent with the goals and intents of the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan and the Stamp Plan, in that the proposal assists in the creation of a mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhood, rich with amenities and services. And that this exception will not create any adverse impacts on residents of the development or surrounding properties beyond what is ordinarily expected through implementation of the standards within Chapter 914, because the project creates interesting variety in the Raparo Avenue street wall. Hello. I'm… I'm… There are, a lot of… subjective, descriptive terms in here that I am not used to seeing, In a motion to adopt

[268:01] an application. Why is all of this in this particular item? To what effect? And the subjective description, I think you're referring to the second sentence there with the findings? Yeah. Those are… what I'm proposing is that you adopt… so generally, the main motion language says we're adopting the staff memo as findings of fact. But, with Laura's questions that came in, it had been identified that the streetscape Plaza should really be going 20 feet up to, the maximum front frontage setback. But the plans didn't show that. So then the applicant requested that that be approved as an exception, and a majority of you supported that, but there haven't been any written findings about that. So I'm proposing to incorporate those findings into the motion language, so we have that captured.

[269:02] Versus just saying, We allowed the exception of a… of… 13 feet versus 20 feet. Yeah, and the reason is that the code states that your decision shall state how the application meets the criteria. Okay. So… Okay. And those, if I may, those are the two findings you have to make to make an exception, that it's consistent with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and the Stamp Plan, and that it is not going to have adverse impacts in the ways, etc, etc. Yes, thank you, Laura. Okay. I'm gonna make this motion. Motion to approve form-based code review application number LUR2025-00027, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact. Including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

[270:07] With the following sentences added to the condition, 3B. Final plans shall show the production business space with a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 12 feet and The final site plans shall note an exception for the streetscape plazas along Arapaho Avenue to allow them to extend from the right-of-way to where their northern boundary is shown on the applicant's plans dated October 10th, 2025. Where, otherwise, the streetscape plazas would have to extend to the 20-foot maximum setback. an addendum to… The. The. Written statement, shall be filled, filed, with the…

[271:00] Filed with the final plans describing how the standards applicable to the exception are met, and finding additionally that the proposed Streetscape Plaza exception is generally consistent with the goals and intents of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and Stamp Plan, in that the proposal assists in the creation of a mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhood Rich with amenities and services, and that this exception will not create any adverse impacts on residents of the development or surrounding properties beyond what is ordinarily expected through implementation of the standards within Chapter 9-14, form-based code, BRC 1981, because the projects Project. Project creates interesting variety in the Arapaho Avenue street wall.

[272:04] Period. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. I'll speak to my motion. And I'll simply say that, I thought that… we, as a board, did a fine job discussing and debating the exceptions, and I think we have given, this… It's due… Study, and and we have all have… came here tonight with concerns about The way, this project fulfilled or didn't fulfill the form-based code, and I think this is like a… kind of like a bank stress test. This is the first time out.

[273:00] And, we dis… like anything that you… you develop, and then you go prototype it, or make your first one, and you're like, oh, I should have thought of that, I should have thought of these other things. So, I think there are shortcomings in the form-based code that have been highlighted This evening. And… simultaneously. the form-based code that we have is what we have, and and I think we have to acknowledge That the applicant has, to a very, very high degree, with a couple of exceptions that we have adopted. fulfilled. that requirement. Whether we like the looks or not, etc, is not particularly relevant, and that may be disappointing, but, we have the code we have, and we have the project we have, and so I would encourage us to,

[274:00] Move forward with this based on it meeting the criteria of the form-based code. And who sec- Claudia, you second anything else? Okay, any other debate on this motion? Okay, Mason, I'm looking at you. Yes. Laura? Regretfully, no. I wish this project… Could have come back to us in a slightly different form. Claudia? Yes. Kurt. Yes. George. I'm also a no, and similarly, regretfully, because I, I just don't think it… For all the reasons stated before, I, I, no. Okay? ML. I'm gonna go no as well. I think this highlights the shortcomings of form-based code. And I'm a yes. So, we… We have adopted that motion on a 4-3 vote.

[275:07] Okay. Can I just say one thing? I want to say thank you all, and I also want to say that I do hope that in the end, this project, for those of you that aren't encouraged by it, you get proven wrong. In the end. We hope so. You change your mind. Thank you. Okay. Before we move on to the next item. Can we have a brief discussion about, this concept that I think we all agree with, which is that this project we have the code that we have, and that this process was our first test of it, and it may have shown up some weaknesses in the form-based code. I would love to enumerate some of those, just briefly, and highlight to staff that really hope that these get addressed before we start seeing a lot more projects that we have difficulty with through the form-based code. I would love to have a brief discussion of that before we move on to the next item. Let's have a little show of hands, if it is 10.35, and and…

[276:06] Let's see what the board's appetite is for this discussion at this moment. So, if you're in favor of having a discussion. now about this topic versus at a subsequent date, raise your hand. Okay, I've got 3. So… We're not going to have that discussion. Oh, George. I'm sorry, George is a 4. Okay. Well, here we go. So, let's try to set a, a 10… 10-15 minute, limit on this, and, I'm gonna pull a timer down and… We're gonna…

[277:02] We're gonna do that, okay? So, Laura, lead us off. I will just summarize briefly that I think several things came up that I would love to see staff revisit in the form-based code. One, the definition of a production business space, it does not seem to be defined, except in the negative of what uses are not allowable. And ceiling heights. Two, staff knows the pervious, semi-pervious, and impervious, definitions need some work, and how they relate to each other, although the intent seemed to be clarified tonight. The articulation section. it troubles me to think that a 6-inch variation could qualify, and I do want to read one other section from The East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, which this code is intended to implement. In the description of neighborhood TOD, which this parcel is a part of, it says, building facades should have a high level of articulation and transparency, a high level of articulation and transparency. Especially facing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, although, Kurt, I appreciate your point about subtle changes. And it says, varied roof lines and architectural detail are important design considerations to align with the community vision for this area.

[278:13] the way the code is written now, as Claudia pointed out, almost any variation could be argued to meet the code, and I really think that that does not do justice to the way this is supposed to implement the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. And the stamp. It feels like a bait and switch. This is not… the vision that was sold to the community of what these areas were going to look and feel like. It was not intended to be large, massive, block-covering buildings, okay? So, I get that we got what we got tonight, but I think the form-based code is showing some weakness in that, and I also think that the building massing We didn't talk about that tonight, because I do agree it met the letter of the law on the massing, but the idea that you could take all of the massing variation, that 30%, the code requires that if your building is a certain size, 30% of the roofline needs to be a floor lower. They did that by putting all of it in the back, where you barely see it.

[279:08] And I don't think that that meets the intent, which is… stated in the code, 91431, The goals of the building massing standards are to ensure an appropriate perceived scale of buildings from public waves, breaking up large buildings in a simple way to ensure a human-scaled place and provide a high level of permeability to all blocks, especially given, as we clarified tonight, there is no limit on the length of how long these buildings can be currently in East Boulder, except if they're over, like, 400 and some feet on two opposing block faces, you have to have a mid-block passageway, which could just be a tunnel. It just says a passageway, a paseo. So, I think this is showing… I'm sorry, I went through that very quickly to try to honor the fact that other people want to talk, but… There's a lot of cracks in this code, and I don't want to fault staff for that. It's very difficult to build something perfectly from scratch, and this has been a wonderful test case where a very motivated applicant has pushed the boundaries and shown us where some of these limitations may lie, so…

[280:10] That's what I want to say. Thank you, Laura. George. Yeah, I'll be brief. I thought Laura articulated that really well. I would just add one thing, which is around, kind of, the commentary around bait and switch, right? I thought it was really interesting this evening to bring up that imagery from the stamp. And see how different it was than what we're getting. And I think that's where the rubber hits the road. Something was not articulated well enough Within that form-based code. to get us to some level of imagery that even remotely matched that, because my gut is, is if we would have taken those elevations, especially the ones along Arapaho, and if you were to have

[281:01] put that in that packet for the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan. people would not have accepted that. And I think that's… I think that's where it… where it really is sort of shocking contrast of, one, what was aspirational and what was trying to achieve, and the fact that tonight we got a big cube. a big, beautiful cube, but a big cube. So that, that's what I would add to Laura's, much more articulate, Anybody else? Mason? I wanted to ask a question to staff, is that appropriate? Sure. How quickly can we get something like that done? You know, to be very honest about it… To be very honest, I don't know that the question that we would want to bring forward is an answer about how quickly, but whether we would really support that. I could have a long discussion with you right now about what the right scale of code writing would be.

[282:09] And I think, you know, we recognize that there are always going to be levels of interpretation. You are a quasi-judicial board, meaning that you make judgment about words that are on paper, and you can disagree about those words. So, we will talk about it as staff, and we will… we appreciate that. Obviously, at the end of the day, Planning Board can bring forward whatever request that they make. But I… I don't want to just take that in and say, well, you know, yeah, let's move forward with that, so… Yeah, because tonight… and sorry, this is a little tangential, which I realize I'm wasting your all's time, I'm sorry. I voted for a project that I didn't think reflected what the aim was of form-based code, what the aim was of all the work that we've done on the community plans, and I know what you're saying, that we have subjective

[283:00] ability on this, but, you know, this is… I don't know how many times I've been told the opposite. Right? It's got to be supported by… like, I look at the code, and I think about the legal, sort of, interpretation of this, and I think, like, a big, beautiful box fits into that, so I have to vote for it. Like, I don't feel like there's really that much objectivity. Again, we will talk about it as staff. I think this is a good discussion for a… A broader, Dis… discussion. Yeah. Because we're just… we're gonna get more of that. That's what's gonna happen, otherwise. Kurt? Just quickly, looking at the stamp, yeah, those reference images, of course, are beautiful, as reference images almost always are. Whenever we get a project, the reference images are amazing, and then we don't quite get what they show. But to the right of them.

[284:00] On the… this page in the stamp, page 15, of the stamp, there's a rendering of this exact location. And I feel like what we got is so much better than that rendering, because it's a thin shell, it's a donut that is, I mean, kind of interesting, not that interesting, and then the entire core is this vast parking area. It's horrendous. And so… I actually think… compared to what is being shown in the stamp for this exact location, I think we're way ahead. I'll just leave it there. just to disagree a little bit, like, there's… in the Arapaho, there were 4 tenants. of design that were supposed to be included, and I didn't see any of those in this project, and that was partially because of the way that the form-based code's written. I agree with you that that rendering, you know, versus this, we can have a disagreement on aesthetics, but I didn't see those four tenets.

[285:04] In tonight's project. ML. Thank you. So, just back to the, Intent of this conversation here to, lay out some of the things we saw as shortcomings of the form-based code. I would say that we need to look a little closer as to, the exceptions and the requirements we place on the projects to go for exceptions, because, again. We're out of the gate here, and we're already, not holding to… The intent of form-based code is to allow innovation. not to allow maximization of profit, or allow any other agendas. It's like innovation. Innovation has to do with something that is… we're getting more than we thought we might be getting.

[286:03] Right? We're getting more. And so, I would… I would like, us… as… as a… view into the form-based code and how it might evolve as we move forward. Look into where we're making exceptions and how we're making exceptions, and I think refer back to… the point of this is that we're creating an opportunity for people to do innovative work. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, ML, I concur with you, and in fact, I had written down the… and what I said earlier about form-based code being the opportunity for developers and designers and architects to innovate, to create. to make more beautiful. And they're always saying, gee, cut us loose, and we'll do great things. And cut them loose we did, and we got a maximization of

[287:12] of height. and unit count. So, and I think, I think… as I look at the form-based code and spent more time with it, I think the interjection of bits of subjectivity into the code. That… that by making it so… Checkbox and numerically oriented That… and trying to actually make it even more so, that articulations need to be 6 inches, not 2 inches, or whatever it might be. that that is actually the fool's errand to try to make it even more specific and, and, prescriptive. Rather.

[288:01] The interjection of a little subjectivity About, about beauty, about excellence in design, about… The living condition for the residents, if it's a… if it's a residential, property, and making… enhancing their lives, interjecting that subjectivity And then, tacking on a concept review. And still allowing developers to freely design within a form-based code with a little subjectivity could go a long way towards ending up with a better product. Anyone else? I was gonna disagree with you until you said tacking on a concept review. Because… Yeah. If we were to add numerics, I would just want minimums. Right. Not, like, prescriptive, but just at least this. Type thing. Right. But I feel like what… what… well, I'll just speak for me. I was disappointed in…

[289:06] in the overall design. I was disappointed in the open space. I was disappointed in those courtyards. I was disappointed in the long block faces. I was disappointed in many, many ways. And yet, it. Yet. almost completely fulfilled the form-based code. So, it's like, how do I address those disappointments? And those disappointments are about living quality and aesthetics. So one thing about the form-based code is that it addresses the form of the building and not the use. But it is the same form-based code for a general building, whether that general building is an office building, or a residential building, or any other kind of building that could be a general building. And I think you're talking about… When there are residents involved, you want to see some different things than you'd want to see in an office building, potentially.

[290:00] And the form-based code does not allow for that. I just want to make that point. That's part of the point of the form-based code, is you're regulating the form. Not the office, but then that handicaps you from requiring some quality-of-life stuff for residents. Good point. Okay, let's conclude this item. Yes? Okay. Couple people here hurt us on this, so… alright. Okay. It is 1050, and we have this council letter. and yet we still have a few days. I would… okay, and I forget what is on our agenda for the 11th. The 18th? The 18th. Nothing. The letter is the only thing that we earmarked for the agenda. Okay. Would this be a perfect application for a one-hour virtual meeting and…

[291:01] With all due respect. Yeah, I mean, if you want to do it online, as long as Thomas feels like we can host it online and we advertise it appropriately, then… Yeah, I have no issue with, Hosting it online, the same would be… Are we talking about the 16th? 18th. 16th or 18th. 16th is a Tuesday. I'm sorry, it's the 16th, I'm thinking at Council. Okay. We haven't published notice for that meeting yet, so we would be… Okay, yeah, so if you want to do it, if the board wants to do it hybrid, we could do that. I'm sorry, remotely? Remotely, okay, virtually remotely. on the… 16th. It is… Are people good with that? I'm good with it being remote. I wouldn't want to put a time cap on it, because we're going to be wordsmithing, so I think it's going to go as long as it's going to go for us to get to the letter we want to send to Council. Sure, we may want to add, tweaking form-based code to it. What?

[292:02] That… that could be. Yeah. Okay, so… Hello. If it's moved to the 16th and it's the only item, I suspect you won't need legal support for that. Or would you prefer to have one of us here for that? Wait, I'm, I'm sorry. Could you say that again? Do you need legal support for a discussion of the letter on the 16th, I think it is? No, I'd love it. We want to do all sorts of illegal things on our letter. Do you need planning support? I would be supportive of Pella taking the evening off. Yes. I, I, I think, Just some adult supervision, let us… let us craft a way, and we'll be alright. Okay, thank you. If you change your mind, let us know. Brad and Charles can draw straws for who has to actually attend.

[293:01] Okay. So, I just want to say. we talked… I think you're moving in the direction of just moving this discussion entirely to the next meeting and not having it tonight. There is one item that we may want to discuss tonight, though, which is… I think Claudia was going to propose removing one of the items, and so we don't have draft language for that, but if we do want to keep it, we're going to need to make draft language for that. So, I don't know if… can we talk about that briefly, of whether we want to drop one item out of the letter? Okay. Which one was that? So, I, in my original list of things, and then I was nominated to draft. something about landscaping standards for cooling and shading, and after consideration of how specific that could be, what kind of a work plan item that would be, and what Council's ask for us actually was for this one-year letter, I felt that that would actually not get much traction, and I would prefer to focus our efforts as a board on some of the other priorities we identified. So, I have not drafted that section. If there is consensus on keeping it in there, I would look for some support on

[294:08] doing that, but I think that was in the second tier of priorities that we identified. So, I'm curious if folks… how folks feel about just letting that go. I'd also add that our draft, as it stands with the five… with the top five recommendations, is at… It's a half a page over what we're being asked for. Just a point of consideration. I don't… I think… I think cutting is, is a great thing. Okay? Alright, I don't see any objection to that. Okay. Yeah, and I was kind of serious with my suggestion around the form-based code thing. I mean, to Thomas' point, right? Hopefully, we're going to winnow this down. We might even eject one or two more items, depending on… as we think about it and talk about it, but. if you and Laura want to Draft an item and make a proposal to sub it instead of something else.

[295:04] another priority. That's something we can, deal with in our next meeting. Okay. Sounds good. Okay? Matters. I'm still working off the tryptophan, so I don't have anything more. Okay. Alright, so, any matters from the board? Oh, just a quick one from me, just a quick apology to you, Mark. I didn't mean to interrupt you, I think part of the… it got a little heated, so apologies. I did not mean to do that, so thanks for calling me out on that. I appreciate that, and, you know, microphones and everything else. So, anyway, I appreciate that, George, thanks. Okay, I think, nothing else, we will adjourn. Thanks, all. Thanks, everyone.

[296:02] Good night, folks!