February 3, 2026 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:01] Okay, we are… We are good to go. Welcome, everyone, to the February 3rd, 2026 City of Boulder Planning Board Meeting. I'm going to… Call us to order, and I'm going to do something unusual based off of my watching of our last meeting on YouTube. and it noting speaker by number. So I'm going to call… I'm going to ask each of you to, starting with Kurt, to just say your name, that you're present, and then Kurt, you would be speaker number two. And then we'll go around, and then we'll go online. And it's one of these questions of AI and transcription, automated transcription, that I just want to do a little experiment, and some boards call roll every time, so we're going to do it tonight. So, I'm Mark McIntyre. I'm Curt Nordbeck, present. Speaker number… Speaker number 2.

[1:04] Quiet. I'm Claudia Hansen-Theme, speaker number 3. I'm Laura Kaplan, speaker number 4. ML. ML Robles, speaker number 5. Mason. Mason Roberts, speaker number 6. And George. And George Boone, speaker number 7. Great, thank you all very much. Who knows? But it'll be a… it'll be an interesting experiment when this gets posted to YouTube. The second item on our agenda tonight is public participation. This is for any member of the public, either in the room or online, to discuss, any issue other than our, public hearing item, for later in the evening. And, Vivian, I believe, is going to walk us through the, City of Boulder's rules for public participation.

[2:08] That's right. Good evening, everybody. My name is Vivian Castro-Woldridge, and I will just read through these, rules of participation before the open comment. 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. And we have a lot more information about this vision and general community engagement info on our website. Next slide, please And I'll just share some examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code, and other guidelines that support this 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.

[3:04] 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, in open comment or the one public hearing later, in the meeting identify themselves by their first and last name. So leading with an introduction is very welcome. You let us know if you're joining us online that you would like to speak by raising your virtual hand, and you can find that at the bottom of your screen on Zoom. You can also look for the, emotions reactions button, and find the virtual hand that way, and we will call on you. So those are the rules, and the next part of the meeting is open comment, where you can, speak to planning board members about anything not related to the one public hearing item, which is later in the meeting. And each, member of the public who wishes to speak in person or online would have 3 minutes each.

[4:09] Is there anyone, in the room, Thomas, there, who would like to participate in open comment? Thank you, Vivian. We don't have anybody signed up in person for open comments, so we can move to our online participants. Okay, great. We'll start with Lynn Siegel, and if you're joining us online and would like to speak, please, also raise your virtual hand. Go ahead, Lynn, you have 3 minutes. ideas? Go ahead, Lynn. Public hearing is, I need to know, so I don't speak on it. Chair, can you please, share the public hearing item? Sure. Give me one second here while I… The public hearing item is the concept plan review and comment request for a redevelopment of 3550 and 3580 Frontier Avenue.

[5:05] Wonderful, thank you. Okay, we'll start the clock now, Larry. I'll just clarify for Lynn, that's the Pearl Arts District over there on Frontier and Pearl. Oh, Sanitas, right, yeah. Okay. Thank you both. Okay, the clock will start now. Go ahead, Lynn. Thanks. Was that you, Laura? Lauren? Laura. Sounded like you. Sorry, I guess I'm talking to an echo chamber here. There needs to be more iteration between Parties, because… Talking to yourself doesn't really go anymore. But the way the, you know, public comment happens. I mean, if a person wants to give part of their time to give someone else to have a response, then you're having to even listen to less of them, so that should be a plus if you don't like

[6:04] You know, wasting your time listening to public comment. But, it just seems like… Fair is fair. If I wanted to discuss something with ML, or ask her a question or something, and she wants to answer it, like, why not? Why should it be just me? I mean… And I know you're thinking, but you're not saying anything, and you're not reacting. It's kind of like… I'm talking to the wall. N… Who wants to talk to a wall? I don't know anyone that wants to do that. With Sundance coming here. there's just this huge flurry of activity, and you know, we've got the Colorado River. That's really getting high demand. And there's gonna be problems this week on, you know, the dis… The disposal of different sections of the river.

[7:03] And… yet… we can't build fast enough. At the same time, My retrofit. Gaza, they're spent so much money. on… futile… things, like legal hours, and I've watched through many of them. You know, I know you don't have anything to do with this, but you do. Indirectly, because this economy is dependent entirely on this planning board, and on what gets built in Boulder. And… So, the economy of Boulder is a huge, you know, priority of yours, and this Sundance Euphoria I don't buy it. And… You know, for example, someone wants to rent out their house. Well, what are they gonna do? They're gonna go to some other city and rent someone else's house. It's just a travel thing, then. I haven't traveled in… in decades.

[8:12] I can't afford to travel, I live in Boulder! Because… Every time at Planning Board, I come and I complain about all the development subsidies. Again. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you for being here. I don't see any other hands raised, so I will hand it back over to you, Chair. Great, thank you, Vivian. The next item on our agenda is item 3, approval of minutes. We have 4 sets of minutes to approve tonight, and thanks to the hard work of both Thomas and Board Member Kaplan, these are edited and, I hope, ready for approval. So, the first set of minutes is the February 20… February 2025,

[9:07] February 25th, 2025. Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes. Does anyone have any comments or changes regarding this set of minutes as they were amended? And delivered today. Mason. Yeah, so, on the first set, February 25th, it says I'm absent. I checked my calendar, and I don't see any evidence of that, and I'm in the minutes… at 219.48, as agreeing with Mark and Laura, if you can read that section there on page… 7 of the PDF. So I… I'm pretty sure I was there. But that also changes, like, vote counts and stuff like that. We can just make to the… to the attendees list at the top. Yeah, it would also go down, like, I was looking at the vote counts, and it says 6-0, and if I was there, then you change those to 7-0, etc.

[10:12] was, I don't… I don't have them open in front of me. were all 7 of us, if Mason was present, then were there all 7 of us present? Okay. So, Thomas, do you have that note? recorded and make those changes? Yes. Or do we want to… Would you prefer to delay this again, or… Go ahead and approve with mason's suggested changes. That's… actually, I was asking you as board secretary. Do you want to… approved? Well, it sounds like we might need to review. the vote counts. I believe that the vote counts are accurate, but there's probably a member who wasn't there, and it's just the attendee list needs corrected. Okay.

[11:07] So, we're going to table the February 25th. meeting minutes. Until the, until our next meeting. Okay, 3B, the April 15th, 2025 Draft Planning Board meeting minutes are scheduled for approval. Any comments or changes to the minutes as they were submitted today? Laura. I just wanted to comment. I know that, at least for me, my focus for this meeting was editing the. January 20th. 2026 minutes because they were… they're more timely, and we had delayed the others because they're, you know, kind of backlog minutes and not… not as urgent. I just wanted to ask, is there anyone who wants more time on either the April 15th or the May 6th minutes? I think we can grant that if somebody wants it, but if not, we can go ahead and approve tonight.

[12:02] If everybody's comfortable, then I'm comfortable. Okay. I think everyone's comfortable. So, do I have, is there any, any comment or change to April 15th, 2025 minutes? Okay, seeing none, I'd entertain a motion. I move to approve the April 15th, 2025 Planning Board meeting minutes. Suck. Okay, moved and seconded. We'll go down, and I'm gonna start tonight with the online folks, Mason, and then ML, and then George. So, Mason? Yes. ML. Yes. George. Yes. Laura. Yes. Claudia? Yes. Kurt? Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. We move on to 3C, the May 6, 2025 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes. Any comments, changes?

[13:01] Okay, seeing none, let's do it again. I moved. to approve the May 6th, 2025 draft planning board meeting minutes. Second. Hey. Moved and seconded, mason. Mason, you were muted. Oh, yes. Okay, alright, ML? Yes. And George? Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia? Yes. Kirk? Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay? Great. Now… 3D, the January 20th, 2026 draft planning board meeting minutes. Laura did, Yeoman's work. on editing these, and we all contributed after the fact to approving Laura's edits. Is there any more discussion or, concerns or changes? Kurt. Thomas, I just had one very minor, timestamp correction to Laura's.

[14:03] excellent minutes. Did you get that? I changed it to the time that you indicated. Great, thank you. Okay. any, Any other comments or concerns? Laura. I just want to really commend our Board Secretary, Thomas, for the job he did putting the draft minutes together. I was happy to contribute to some of the complexity of the discussion, and the minutes in that regard, but I definitely want to compliment Thomas on the great job he's been doing with our minutes. I sat… second, that compliment. Thank you for the recognition and collaboration. Appreciate it. Great. Do I have a motion to approve? I move to approve the January 20th, 2026 draft planning board meeting minutes. I'll second. Okay, Mason. Yes. ML? Yes. George.

[15:00] Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia? Yes. Kurt? Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, that, closes out, Agenda Item 3, approval of minutes. We have, no call-up items, and we move on. to agenda item. Our… Agenda Item 5, which is public hearing items. Agenda item 5A, I'm going to read this, and then we'll have, I'll explain things in just a moment. So this agenda Item 5A, Concept plan and review, and comment requests for a proposed redevelopment of $35.50 and $38.50. Frontier Avenue. As an urban neighborhood anchored by a 2,500-person capacity events venue, And rehearsal space, a hotel. Approximately 500 apartments, 30,000 square feet of commercial uses, such as restaurants, coffee shops, and retail, and structured parking.

[16:04] The proposal would involve a rezoning and height modification. Reviewed under case number LUR2025-00086. And so, like our concept reviews, go. We will have a staff presentation of approximately 15 minutes. Followed by clarifying questions. From the board. We'll then hear from the applicant. The applicant has requested 20 minutes for their presentation, and, we have granted that. And, then, again, clarifying questions, for the applicant. Followed by the public hearing. And, then we'll close the public hearing, and the board will provide commentary. The board does not vote, the board does not make any final

[17:00] resolution on this. This is a concept review. However, it is quasi-judicial. And being so, I'm going to ask, the board if anyone has any, conflicts of interest, potential conflicts of interest, or ex parte communications that they would like to discuss. Okay? Oh, Claudia. So I. September 2023, I did sit down with, I believe, a member of the applicant team, became aware that they owned this property in the TVAP area, but there was not any concrete proposal for what was happening at that point. Okay, thank you. Claudia? And I need to discuss that, I know the applicant, Mr. Aiseman, from, serving together on the board of Better Boulder. We've served together for about

[18:01] two years, he, left his position on the Board of Better Boulder in the fall of last year, of fall of 2025. The applicant and I never… have never discussed this property specifically. We've discussed policy issues, and Better Boulder, as an organization, does not, take positions on projects. We discuss policy and advocate for policy changes, etc, but we do not, advocate for any particular, for or against any particular project. So I think I can be fair and impartial, even though it's a concept review. I think I can be a fair and impartial, person in this regard. However, if any board member has questions or anything, I'm happy to answer any. Okay. Okay, all right. Yeah, oh, I'm sorry. You were shaking your head no. Well, I was shaking my head no, but I was.

[19:01] Well, since you prompted me to disclose that Mr. Eisenman and I had conversations about West Pearl Street about a year ago, but there was zero discussion about this project, and so I feel that I can be fair and impartial about this one in this context. Great. Thank you, and if I can ask one follow-up question to Claudia. Claudia, do you feel like you can be fair and impartial? in reviewing this concept plan review and base your comments, based on the evidence that's presented here today? Yes, absolutely. Thanks. Okay. Great. And… and also, I will just, If there are members of the public, either online or in the room tonight, before you speak during the public comment period, I would ask that you note any financial relationship or any other sort of relationship with the applicant or the applicant team. When you begin your speaking. Okay, so now we're going to, turn it over to staff, and I believe Shannon's going to take it away.

[20:08] Okay, thank you. Alright, great. Thank you so much. Good to be here tonight with you. My name is Shannon Moeller. I'm City Planner with the City of Boulder, planning to. department, and I'll take you through staff's presentation tonight. So I'll touch briefly on the purpose of a concept plan, the public notification, the site and surrounding context, summary of the project, and some key issues for discussion. So, the purpose of a concept plan is to review the general development plan for a site and help identify some key issues in advance of a more detailed site review submittal. The applicant will receive comments from the board, staff, and the public. So I was… as was mentioned, there's no formal action being taken tonight on the project.

[21:02] The property was posted, and notification sent to property owners within 600 feet. Staff did receive some written comments, that were included in the board's packet. These were primarily in support of the proposal, and also received some feedback on pedestrian and transportation improvements. So, moving to the project location, the site is about 10.8 acres. It's just south of Pearl Parkway, west of Foothills, and north of the BNSF Railway. It includes the properties at 3550 and 3850 Frontier, which include two large warehouse-style buildings constructed in the late 1960s. These currently have a mix of uses, like Sunita's Brewing, Black Lab Sports, Boulder Pickleball, and Las Fortiva Warehouse. The sites, located just west of some… or, excuse me, just east of some redeveloped properties that are in the TVAP Phase 1 area, such as the 3100 Pearl Apartments and the REV mixed-Use Development at 3000 Pearl Parkway.

[22:11] And Caddy Corner to the northwest of this site is the Boulder Junction Transit Depot. To the east across Foothills Parkway is the Pearl East Business Park, primarily office buildings developed in the 1980s and 1990s. To the south, across the BNSF Railway, are a mix of office and industrial buildings, and same to the north, across Pearl Parkway, there's a mix of uses, like the Junkyard Social Club, and various office and industrial uses. And just to the northeast, across Frontier Avenue, are two one-story industrial buildings. In terms of floodplain, here you can see these properties are currently impacted by the 100- and 500-year floodplains, the high hazard zone and conveyance zone of the Boulder Slough.

[23:02] The City and the applicant are pursuing a regional infrastructure project to relieve the floodplain constraints in this area that would allow for redevelopment to occur. These properties generally slope from northwest to southeast, and there are some mountain views to the west and southwest. The site's been fully developed for many decades and doesn't include any identified wetlands, wildlife habitats, or other protected areas. Here you can see the BBCP land use designation on these properties is MUTOD, Mixed Use TOD. Which is described as pairing existing or planned transit facilities with residential and commercial development opportunities. It's areas located at mobility hubs. Or along key transit corridors. Uses consist predominantly of attached residential with supporting uses, like office, retail, service, commercial, light industrial, and the uses should be vertically and horizontally integrated.

[24:05] In terms of zoning, the properties are currently zoned, Industrial Service 1 and 2, which are service industrial areas, primarily for a wide range of repair and service uses and small-scale manufacturing. The property is located within the Transit Village Area Plan Phase 2 amendment area, which we'll talk about next, and so redevelopment here must be consistent with the area plan updates that were recently adopted in 2023. So this or a similar redevelopment proposal would require a rezoning application, since the existing form intensity and use standards in IS1 and IS2 don't accommodate the type of development that would be consistent with the MUTOD land use and the TBAP2 plan. So moving to TBAP Phase 2, again, this property is located within the boundary of the recently adopted TBAP Phase 2 amendment.

[25:03] TBAP describes the City's vision for the Transit Village area and guides development in the area. It was first adopted in 2007 due to expected changes in the area, like the development of the bus facility at Pearl Parkway and 30th, and the future rail stop towards the end of Bluff Street. For the Phase 2 amendment, which is this area on the east of the railway, recommendations included ensuring land use designations enable a mix of housing types. Encouraging local and small businesses, encouraging things like makerspaces, workshops, breweries, and creative spaces, and introducing flexibility into the land use to transform the area to a transit-oriented neighborhood. So here you can see the TBAP land use plan designates these properties mixed-use TOD, consistent with the BBCP. Tvap Phase 2 also created place types, and it assigned the regional TOD place type to this property. The place types were included in TBAP2 to provide greater refinement of the land use designations and describe the intent and performance expectations for evolving neighborhoods.

[26:15] So, the regional TOD place type intends to integrate retail and housing options into light industrial areas and prioritize creativity in new and redevelopment. It includes these standards over on the left for things like uses, FAR range, open space, building character, and different characteristics like that. Phase 2 also included an urban design framework, seen here. The urban design framework describes the overall pattern of activity nodes, outdoor spaces, and Paseo and Greenway spaces. Shown here, the subject property, are identified to incorporate one activity node, one major outdoor space, and several paseos, or enhanced pedestrian connections.

[27:05] The activity nodes are intended to provide focused retail and dining and other activities that capitalize on high pedestrian traffic. And the outdoor spaces are publicly accessible gathering spaces that support a livable, mixed-use environment. The south space, identified with the 6 on the subject property, is intended to serve as a southern anchor and provide space for activities like festivals and events. In terms of transportation connections, this site is served by an existing multi-use path along Pearl Parkway, as shown on the TMP on the left. The site is included in the TVAP Transportation Connections Plan. This was to help improve transportation connections in Phase 2 to ensure TVAP is walkable and pedestrian-friendly. The plan included connection descriptions that provide an explanation of each connection.

[28:01] The subject property is located adjacent or near items 36, 37, and 57. They're labeled in the little tiny labels there on the TVAP connections plan. These are intended to provide new multi-use path connections in the area. The site's also located, within walking distance to some bus stops and bus routes. It's about a 1 8th mile walking distance over to the Boulder Junction Depot, and… which that area provides regional and local transit routes throughout Boulder and the Front Range. So moving to the proposed project tonight, so the proposal provides redevelopment of the site. It would include a 2,500% capacity events venue and rehearsal space, a hotel, approximately 500 apartments. 30,000 square feet of commercial uses, like restaurants, coffee shops and retail, and structured parking. Buildings would range from 2 to 5 stories, and would require height modification up to 55 feet in height.

[29:04] And the rezoning would be requested to bring the existing zoning into conformance with the BVCP and TBAP land uses. The applicant team has provided a number of renderings in the submittal packet. Here are just a few, showing some of the buildings and spaces, to help visualize the project. In terms of the required processes, those are listed on this slide. So there would be a demolition review for structures greater than 50 years old, the rezoning review for the proposed rezoning, the floodplain development permit for bringing the site, out of the floodplain. The proposal would require the site review, which might include modification requests to height or other items. Use reviews may be required for some of the uses, depending on the zoning district that is proposed. And then the project would go into, the technical document review, subdivision, and building permits.

[30:08] So staff identified, these four key issues for discussion tonight. So the first one is if the proposed concept plan's generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the BVCP and with the Transit Village Area Plan. So, as mentioned earlier, both plans designate the property as MUTOD, and TVAP2 also establishes the regional TOD place type, and it creates that urban design framework and the connections plan that we looked at. Overall, staff found the proposed developments generally consistent with the BBCP land use designation, and with the TVAP Phase 2 amendment plan. It provides features like the compact development pattern, a mix of land uses, higher density development, and a walkable design that meets several BBCP policies.

[31:00] Staff's recommending that the proposal better address a couple of BBCP policies at the time of a site review, primarily related to providing additional detail and coordination on a few items as it gets further along in the design process. For mobility and transportation connections, transportation staff provided guidance in the staff comments about coordination on the multi-use paths identified in the TMP and TVAP connections plan. And also recommended ensuring infrastructure, or provided guidance on infrastructure improvements, like the street sections, pedestrian connections, and the proposed transit hub to make sure those are appropriately designed. And then, staff had some feedback on the design of the buildings and open spaces, which we will touch on in the next slide. So the second key issue was general feedback on the conceptual site plan and the building design.

[32:00] As it relates to the site review criteria. So in terms of the site design. Staff, again, generally, encouraged continued coordination to address this transportation planning items as the project is further developed. Staff appreciated the proposal making efficient use of the land through providing that structured parking and alternatives to the automobile, items like the proposed transit plaza and a focus on complete streets. In terms of open space, staff also appreciated the intention to use space wisely to provide stormwater management in the same areas as, open space. But we do recognize there are challenges to providing both a high-quality open space in the same space as a stormwater management facility and other infrastructure. So, we recommend careful attention to the design of the open spaces at the time of site review. Steph also recommended, in terms of landscaping, to make sure to provide adequate space and detail to ensure long-term viability of plant life.

[33:05] In terms of the building design, staff appreciated the buildings are positioned towards street, and recommended that buildings provide a variety of roof forms and heights, as called for in the site review criteria. Because the proposal would require a height modification, staff recommends addressing the review factors that come into play with that request, which includes items like the building length and articulation, views and gathering spaces. So, the application materials indicate that the performing arts venue specifically is intended to be an iconic structure that might have some eccentricities that don't, address the site review criteria as we might typically see for other building types. For Key Issue 3, staff, identified, a request for feedback on a preferred approach for rezoning the property from the existing IS1 and IS2 to a new zoning district.

[34:05] Like we talked about, the property is, again, in TVAP, so redevelop needs to be consistent with the area plan updates that were adopted in 2023. Since the current zoning is inconsistent with the land use map designation of MUTOD, this or any similar redevelopment proposal would be looking at a rezoning, since the form, intensity, and use standards in the current zoning district wouldn't accommodate a redevelopment that is consistent with TBAP. Staff looked at some of the higher intensity zoning districts that, can accommodate elements called for by the comp plan and the area plan. Here on this slide, and in the memo, you can see a summary of the MU4, and the BR1 zoning districts, looking at the types of allowed uses, intensity, inform, and bulk that they would accommodate. So while each zoning district here could accommodate some aspects of the intent of TBAP, there's no single existing zoning district that's designed to accommodate all the uses, the maximum floor area ratio.

[35:13] and the form and bulk standards that allow for the type of pedestrian-oriented design that's described in TBAP. So feedback from the planning board on an approach to a potential rezoning would be helpful to help guide the project. Staff identified, these three options to consider. These include the first one, just looking at an existing zoning district. The second one would be considering a flex zoning district, which can be created by combining form… formidable use and intensity standards from other zoning districts, or a third option would be a rezoning to a wholly new zoning district that could be created by ordinance to implement the TVAP vision for this area.

[36:00] So next steps would be following tonight's hearing, the application, would go to City Council that can vote to call up the item for additional feedback if they so choose, and then the applicant could proceed with, applications. And that concludes the staff presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Great. Shannon, thank you very much. And, okay, we will open it up now to clarifying questions from board members to staff. Anybody… and I'm gonna… Look online here… Is anybody ready? Kurt? Thanks, Shannon, for that. I have a couple of transportation-related questions. One is about the multi-use path that the TMP shows on the west side of Foothills. And, that is on then the east side of the subject property. And staff, I think, was outlining an alternative to building that, and I didn't fully understand what staff was proposing.

[37:15] And why? Could you clarify more on that? Yes, let me try to pull up that. I lied really quick. There it is. Yeah, so I think, transportation staff identified that this, if you can see my little… arrow here, where it's running along this edge here, that this, this multi-use path here would kind of dead end, and so staff felt that it would make more sense and be more appropriate to instead look at connecting this multi-use path up here out to Pearl Parkway, was the suggestion.

[38:12] Okay, so just to follow up, the northern portion would be adjacent to this other property that's to the east that's not part of this redevelopment, and so presumably this applicant wouldn't be building That section… But the south section… Well, I can't tell if it would… if it's intended to be on private property or on, I guess that's CDOT right away. They're along foothills. Yeah, my understanding of the leg going south is that's intended to be, attached to Foothills, like a ramp, so I believe it's attached to the actual elevated Foothills Parkway, if I'm understanding correctly. Cuz.

[39:00] And then you said that, well, if… someone were to build that southern section, it would dead end, which certainly would be true in the short run, but if we look on the right-hand side of that picture, 57 indicates a bridge, or… some sort of a connection there. So, certainly the long-term intent would be to connect through. They're still right. Yeah, I think… I think staff was more looking at, yeah, in the short term, what would be the best for the expected traffic and things like that for this property, but yes, long-term correct, yeah. Okay. But I'm still uncertain, even if we said, okay, we won't require that. southern leg from the… Sort of the middle of that access ramp. Down to the… to the railroad tracks. We can't require the section going north from there, because… That's not on this property.

[40:06] So… I don't fully understand what is intended there. Yeah, I think transportation staff was really focused on, like, what would be the most, like, help this property the most in terms of the expected traffic, cyclists, and things like that. So, I think that was where the suggestion was coming from. Was that that would be the most logical to kind of deal with the expected traffic. Absolutely. Can I colloquy? I was a little confused by this, too, so I'm glad that you're asking about it, Kurt, and maybe the applicant can also shed some light on this, but it sounded like in the packet they… staff did think that this would get built and would impact Traffic at that intersection of, Pearl Parkway. Would this actually get built with this project if we go by staff's recommendation, or it would just be a future designation to be developed when that other parcel develops to the northeast of the subject site?

[41:16] Because I'm confused, because it sounded like they thought that it really would help alleviate, potentially, some of the traffic issues caused by the mobility hub. So maybe that's… can the applicant… can you just signal, is that something you're prepared to talk about? This… yeah, okay, so maybe we'll leave that for the applicant. what's… Should we… go ahead. Didn't want to interrupt you, but… Okay, and then another one, really also about multi-use connections off the site. So there was a letter from BNSF that was written As, as public comment, so it came to the city.

[42:03] And BNF said… City planning documents show a grade-separated connection at Frontier Avenue. Suggest reviewing need for pedestrian bridge to venue. At-grade connections will not be considered. Do you know what they're talking about? I can't say for sure. I think they may be talking about the previous version of the TBAP connections plan that used to show an at-grade connection across the railway south of this property heading south. I believe. That was removed with the new TBAP update. Right. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. But it does sound like they potentially would be open to a bridge, which is… Interesting. So, okay.

[43:00] Those are all my questions for now. Thanks. I see ML has her hand up. Oh, you did. Now you don't. Do you? Okay, great. You go, ML. ML, did you hear me? You're, you're, you're up. Oh, yes, I was talking away. Oh, okay. Sorry. Well, we didn't hear a thing, so start over. Okay, thank you, Shannon. I always appreciate the, the clarity, of these presentations, so I appreciate that. I've got a couple, actually, one thing. Through a number of questions. I'm kind of confused. The… I think the TVAP? Has a form-based code associated with this site, is that correct?

[44:02] There's a form base code for TVAP Part 1, so on the west side of the… Railway, so not for this area. Oh! TVAP2 doesn't have form-based code? Yeah, that's correct. Oh, okay, news for me. Not yet, though, right? It's… it coming? It's an option. It's not the only option. Okay, thank you. Charles, can you speak to that a little bit more? Does that mean that the applicant can choose between a form-based code and regular code? No, the applicant wouldn't get to make that choice. I think what we talked about doing after the TVAP2 plan was amended. in 2025, or 2023, whenever we did it, that we would eventually craft a zoning that would implement those changes in Phase 2 for the MUTOD land use designation. It hasn't appeared on any of our work programs yet.

[45:01] But it could involve drafting a new, kind of standard Euclidean zone district. It could involve, form-based code as a potential solution. Or, to Shannon's point in her presentation, they could, take advantage of the flex zone by where they kind of Frankenstein a few different pieces of our existing zoning together to implement it. Okay, so, In the applicant's presentation, they talked about, they have a page that was talking about a regulating plan and design guidelines. And, it… It implied that it would replace TBAP's guidelines for regional TOD, Can you just talk about what ultimately is going to be governing on this site, insofar as review? Criteria? Yeah, as of… as of right now, so…

[46:00] Once a zoning was identified, as of right now, unless it's in… unless a form-based code is created, it would be going through site review, so it would be… just be looked at, basically, like, under the site review criteria. And are the TVAP guidelines for regional TOD in place for this site? Yeah, so we would… if it… for a project in a site review where we have, like, an area plan like TVAP, yes, we'd be looking for it to… to meet those sort of things that are in TBAP. Okay. Perfect. And are you the right person to ask about these, the way this is financed? the Metropolitan District and the Bureau. So my question is, in both, either of those. Is there any, taxpayer burden incurred through those processes?

[47:03] I would defer that to the applicant to speak about the financing. Okay. Unless Brad wants to… and there he is. Oh, good. Thanks, Brett. It was complicated, and I am like… I think the city's involved. Yeah, good evening, Planning Board. Thanks for the question, board member. I think… You all recognize that how something gets paid for, ultimately, is a condition of the developer's responsibility, but the city is involved in Looking at possible public financing opportunities for this area, which could include a urban renewal district. Which allows, in very brief terms, tax increment financing, that is, taxes that come into the district, then get plowed back into this, location. And or a metropolitan district, which is a type of limited services, tax authority, quasi-judicial, or quasi-governmental entity.

[48:07] That could be created in the area that can pay for the bonding of infrastructure and that type of thing. And all of that, financial responsibility would lie on the property owners inside that district, is that correct? Yeah, and those will have their own hearings if they were to be created, and their own mechanisms. That is a, you know, those are tools that can precipitate development. And they're used throughout the state. Great. Thank you for that clarification, and those are all my questions. Thank you. Great, thank you, ML. Laura? Thank you again, Shannon. I second ML's comments. Your presentations are always very thorough and clear. Thank you so much. A few questions. The ordinance that we recently adopted with, TDM requirements, 8713, I think it is.

[49:03] Would that apply to this property? I know it doesn't take effect until April 1st, 2026, And so the fact that they got their concept in review before that, does that mean it doesn't apply, or it does apply? Is it only at the stage of site review application that we judge whether it applies? Yeah, the concept… the concept review application date does not matter for that. We would look at when the site review application is filed and whether or not those new standards would apply. Okay. So if they file their site review application after that April deadline, then it would apply. Okay, thank you. That's correct. Thanks, Hela. I do want to make one qualification to that, If the property was zoned to MU4, we have a separate section in the code that imposes transportation demand management requirements and trip reduction requirements for properties within

[50:01] the MU4 district, and those apply today, and are not planned to change by April 4th. Okay. Thank you. April 1st. Did you want to call a queen? Oh, no. No, I'm gonna… Carry on. The chair is temporarily exiting the room, and so if my questions run out before he comes back, then I will, temporarily chair as vice chair. Okay, next question. The HOP extension to this site that has been proposed by the applicant, where does that stand? There were some different comments about that in the packet, and I think some of those were old comments, and some were newer comments. Do you have any kind of update on the discussion about the HOP extension? I don't have an update. I think the applicant could speak to where the conversations are with that when they come up, yeah. Okay, thank you. Also in the TVAP, it talks about needing additional transmission pipe for sewer, I think. And water lines to network the area. Maybe it's water, not sewer.

[51:03] And it said that those improvements can be timed with redevelopment. And it says that that is, it would extend 1,700 feet from the Pearl Parkway and 30th Street intersection to the intersection of Pearl Parkway and Frontier, so I assume that that implicates this property. Is that waterline development anticipated to occur with this development? I believe so, but… If the applicant wants to fill us in a little bit more on that. Okay, that's on page 51 of the TWAP, if anybody's interested in looking that up. Just curious about that. we like to make sure that things don't… don't get missed. It's a complicated process. The zoning. You know, in the presentation, you mentioned that MU4 is probably the closest zoning district that we have now. I want to make sure I understand all of the ways in which the proposal does not, or, you know, there are some concerns about how it might fit in MU4.

[52:00] I did see the thing for… about some use reviews would be needed, and the limit in MU4 for FAR is 2.0, where the applicant is proposing 2.2. Are there other major concerns about MU4 that I'm… did not list? I think that would… that would be the main one, would be just the, the FAR doesn't… Quite. reach to what this application is showing. I think the uses, I think… We're largely covered, but may require. Use Review and the form in bulk. is trying to get at those pedestrian-oriented type of standards, so I think… It was close. It's close. Okay, great, thank you. Just a couple more questions. I walked the property, and there are some trees along the edge of the railroad, tracks. Do those trees belong to the applicant or to the railroad district?

[53:01] I don't know if I saw a tree planned for this. They may be in the railroad right-of-way, it's… it's like an 80-foot wide… right-of-way strip, so the applicant may be able to speak more to the specific tree locations. I will ask the. applicant, because there's some trees that are out there now. And just a couple questions. So, you talked a little bit about the Metropolitan District, and my understanding with that is that that's not something that Planning Board gets involved in. We might want to understand it, but we don't have any authority over that. I see you shaking your head yes, that that's basically correct. Sign code, is that basically the same, that those are more questions for Council and potential code modifications or exemptions at the Council level, rather than at Planning Board level? Or do we have something to say about sign code? If we processed any modifications to the sign code, it would probably have to be through ordinance or a code change, so you guys will get an opportunity to consider those.

[54:04] Okay, but it's not something that happens at site review. It could happen concurrently with site review, it could happen subsequently, it could happen in advance of it, but, but either way, you guys would have an opportunity to consider the changes. Okay, thank you. And then, I'm trying to… I want to understand how the timing of this project coincides or doesn't coincide with Sundance. I just want to make sure… I'll ask the applicants some questions about their phasing and their timing, but am I correct that Boulder's deal with Sundance is for 10 years, starting in 2027, so 2027 to 2036? Okay, I see a yes, that that's correct. Last question. The flex zoning concept. I think I understand it in concept. Are there any examples in Boulder where this flex zoning has been done before? We have one example, I can never remember… oh, no, I do remember where it is, but I'll have to look up the address, but we have one example that was maybe 15 years ago when we first put it on the books, yeah. It's up in North Boulder.

[55:06] I can look it up real quick. That would be great, thank you. Those are all of my questions. Thank you, Laura. Claudia, are you ready? Sure, I have a lot, and maybe I'll ask all of them, and maybe not. But I thought I would start with, some questions about the rezoning process. There, where Laura left off. And I was curious if we have precedence for doing a rezoning through special ordinance as kind of the other path that's being suggested here. I think there have been some special ordinances that have been passed. Those are not rezonings of a property to a different zone, but they have waived certain standards.

[56:07] And those… the examples that I can think… can think of were for circumstances where… The proposal would support, important Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Purposes and goals, such as affordable housing. I remember that we once processed a special ordinance to allow for a food kitchen to be established, where there were some issues, not a food kitchen, a food pantry. Where there were some issues with some zoning standards that couldn't be met, but Buller was going to be without a food pantry for a while, if it wasn't approved. So, we've done it in support of important goals, such as… Okay. And so then, if the city were to go that direction of doing a special ordinance to solve the zoning problem, would would the approach there and the intent be to craft something specific for this site, or would it have precedent and implications for the other MUTOD zones?

[57:08] Or, not zones, but land use areas on our… On our area plan maps. I think a special ordinance would be specific to the site. Okay. And then I also had some questions about the process for height modification, because that's another aspect of this proposal that really did not seem to Fit anything in our code. do we have pathways and precedents for considering a height modification for a special purpose building? I think there was a reference in the memo to something at the hospital, but I'm not familiar with what that is. Yeah, I think what that was… I'm trying to describe is, for a height modification, we have a list of… Situations where a building can be eligible.

[58:00] And for a two-story. Story Building, the way it's written right now. for a building to be up to 55 feet, there isn't really a pathway right now. So. I think that was sort of identified as. It's just kind of a hole in the code where we could… Do a code amendment to. Enable that as… as a situation that then someone could ask for the height modification. Okay, so that is something that is on a somewhat parallel but separate track to this… Yeah. Particular land use proposal. Okay. And I assume we would also see that if it is proposed as a code amendment. Okay. And so I found the, form-based code approval that we had from about 15 years ago. It's at 3015 Calmia. It's called Harper Hollow. It's a 60-unit project on 10 acres. And it's kind of sandwiched between the Calvary Bible Church and Northfield Commons at the intersection of Calmea and Paonia.

[59:07] And Charles, do you know why they needed a flex district? I… to maximize the amount of units that were put in there, which I think was part of the planning that was done for Northfield Commons out there. And I think it was an opportunity for them to, ratchet up the density with, an intensity district, and then change the form and bulk standards to get things like attached homes, duplexes. We didn't have a lot of those regulations on the books back then, so that was a way for them to accomplish a different mix of unit types. Can I ask one more question? All right, changing gears a little bit. I had a question about public versus private streets, in this proposal, and in particular, there was a comment from transportation staff in the memo that… That said, the, the public portion of Frontier

[60:03] Would need some sort of turnaround that is independent of whatever private streets. were designed into this, site plan. So, I was curious… it made me wonder about this bigger question of what is required for transportation and access infrastructure on the site, and what is somehow discretionary, right? Like, we have that stub of frontier, which is public right-of-way. The applicant is proposing private streets. What do they have to do? Yeah, I was just rereading that comment from transportation staff as well, where it talks about… Staff does not support vacating all of the right-of-way on Frontier, but they could look at cleaning it up.

[61:03] And then… Like, I guess my question is, are there certain functions or movements that have to be fully accommodated on public right-of-way? Versus are there things that can happen on… private streets. Yes, there… there are. I'm… not… an expert on the difference, the differentiation there, so… I apologize. This may not be the time for a definitive answer, but I'm… churning through some ideas. Okay, thank you. Great, thank you, Claudia. Let me go back online. George, do you have any questions for staff? Thanks. Okay, ML, I see your hand up. I'm gonna go ahead and call on me, and then we'll come back to you. Okay.

[62:06] So… Following on to this, the DCS question, it seems as though we're, being presented again with a, with another project that The vision of the project, can't be fulfilled. without private… Street forms, that don't comply with the DCS. And the DCS Seems to be a project that kind of moves along, reforming the DCS. So my question is, given the kind of long time frame of this project. is it possible that we can… Revise our DCS, So that at the time. In several years when this project comes forward for site review, we can actually have

[63:01] what I advocate for is public streets rather than private streets, but that comply with the DCS. So, is this… is this something… is the DCS going to be updated in a way that… in a time frame, that would make it applicable to this project? I'm happy to answer that. So, Brad Mueller again, Planning Director. So, no one would be more eager than us to have the DCS updated. It has a number of things that have been identified, but… Part of the challenge has been its piecemeal approach, and more recently, it's been anticipated to do that as a more comprehensive look at that. That's being sponsored by another department. Whether that were the case or not, a decision has been made that that can't be started this year just because of workload and other priorities. So the earliest it would start would be 2027, and it likely is a long project, so the short answer to your question is no. Yeah. Okay.

[64:01] Alright. Yeah. The… in a, in a similar… way. I'm looking at… Let's see here… it is… the, original PDF page 162, so that means in the new PDF in the package, probably 163 or 164. Anyway, it's a page, height variations above 55 feet for mechanical pertinences. It's easy for me to say. So… Roof lines and roof forms and screening have been something we've discussed. Would a zoning Would a new zone potentially allow for Can we specify that a new… in a new zone, that it have different, criteria or allowances for roof forms?

[65:07] Roof forms and, and, and mechanical screening. Well, whatever is… Described in the code would need to meet the city charter, so we would have to look at at that language. I'm not proposing a change to the charter which limits height to 55 feet, but we have screening and, and maybe, is screening. and the way we deal with screening, define it, calculate its height, calculate roof forms, whether they be pitched or not, or, etc. My question is, is… Is that all in the charter? Associated with the 55-foot height limit? Or is that, in fact, code. That talks about screening and how tall screening can be, because screening, to my experience, can be very tall.

[66:05] And bar exceed 55 feet, and we've looked at, you know, different biomed buildings and stuff with lots of things. exceeding that. My question is, Does a new zone Can a new zone allow for different types of mechanical screening or definitions of what the maximum height Is of a reform. When I looked at the city charter on this question, the city charter mentions the rooftop apartances, I believe, if I recall correctly, carried above the roof level are one of the items that are excluded. So, the way that the code is worded currently, it's intended to match up with that, and it's intended to allow for things like those rooftop appurtenances, with the minimal amount of… of…

[67:07] you know, increasing the apparent height of the building. So… It would probably take. A little more analysis to… to look at the wording there and see what could be… What… what would be involved with something like that? Okay. I, I think that's the end of my questions for staff and ML. Yeah, I just have a… a short question. Do we… No… what the… I'm sure we do, what the proposed BBCP land use will be for this site, and Do we see any conflicts with, what is being proposed? Yeah, so the BBCP land use, right now is the MUTOD, so that.

[68:04] consistent, like, with TBAP, so those are going hand-in-hand. So, I don't think there's any problems. About the new land use? as the BBCP is updated? The map is updated. Do we know if that land use is changing there? It sounds like it's gonna stay the same. Well, easy peasy. Great. Thank you. Okay, last call for… additional… Questions for staff? Okay, unless I'm missing some… Mason, did you have… Did we, I just want to make sure I didn't miss you. You're good. Okay, thank you. Alright, so now we're going to go to the applicant presentation, the applicant will have 20 minutes. I want to, as I've been doing lately, encourage the applicant. I'm sure you heard lots of questions that you're super anxious to, answer, and so forth.

[69:13] Get through your presentation, use your 20 minutes for that, and we will have lots and lots of questions for you, and you can answer those at that time, but Don't, shortchange your presentation. Trying to answer some of our questions. Turn your mic on. And, there you go. Thank you very much. I really appreciate the extra time provided to us. Those 5 minutes are very appreciated, so thanks to the. chair and the board for doing that. My name is Daniel Eisenman. I am the Director of the development of Conscience Bay. We're a Boulder-based real estate firm that was founded in 2012. We own, develop, and operate a diverse portfolio of real estate assets in Boulder, Denver metro area, as well as working ranches in the Western Slope.

[70:14] We are a long-term holder, and we invest in our communities. And this asset is really meaningful to us, because this is where we're going to live for the rest of our lives. I've been in Boulder 24 years. I'm here to present once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation project called the Pearl Arts District, and we seek your feedback so that we can incorporate it in the next design phases of this project. So, I want to say that this is a story of collaboration and ongoing partnership with the city staff, a true example of what public partnerships can look like. And, anyway, thanks, thanks to you guys for, For everything that has happened. So, at Conscience Bay, we create places where people, for people through thoughtful, sustainable, and inspiring experiential development.

[71:01] Our work aims at the heart of people, where we bring them to linger, stroll, and appreciate everything that is unique about our community. This project strives to do that. So, what is the Pearl Arts District? It is a place where the Flatirons watch over vibrant streets. Where culture breathes, community thrives, and transit connects. A neighborhood rooted in Boulder's spirit, crowned by a beacon of creativity. A world-class performing arts center. So, the site is located at the intersection of Pearl Parkway and Foothills Parkway, and part of the Transit Village Area Plan Phase 2 that was adopted in 23. The Parallel Arts District will be in walking distance to the mass transit, including the existing Boulder Junction Transit Station and the future train station coming in 2029, with the rest of the Front Range, connecting the rest of the Front Range and making this a true transit-oriented development. The site currently houses two tin warehouses and a sea of asphalt ready to be realized in the plan of TBAP.

[72:01] So, Conscience Bay acquired the property in 2012 and has steadily advanced its redevelopment, including the securement of an approved FEMA clomer to remove 35 properties from the floodplain, and it also supports Steve adoption, partnering with the City of Boulder, and collaborating with Sunnest to understand their needs. Sorry, this is not moving. So, the project at a glance, we have a 2,500% capacity venue. Along with a rooftop performance space and an outdoor performance park. This venue will have roughly about 180 annual events. 120 of those events will be promoted, and 60 of those events will hopefully be used by the community and the local arts community. Additionally, we're building a dedicated 8,500 square foot rehearsal space for the local arts community. And, as we were designing this project, Sundance landed in Boulder, and we think that this project is gonna be the future for Sundance. Granted, we're going to be delivering sometime in 2031 for this venue, so we're a little late to the party.

[73:12] Most important for the project, which is the daily life, we have 30,000 square feet of food and beverage, 500 TOD homes, and a 150-room hotel. So, the 10.83 acres is organized into 4 distinct parcels to support clarity and use of the phase development. The venue and parking garage anchored at the eastern edge along Foothills Parkway, establishing access, defining the side edge, and concealing service functions from the public view. Buildings are conceived as 360-degree objects without a traditional front, front, or back, reinforcing the project's role as a gateway and arrival experience for future rail passengers. Facades are carefully articulated and scaled to break down the mass and create a comfortable pedestrian-oriented environment. New connections along Pearl Parkway, supported by a flexible ring road, repair gaps in urban connectivity and improve circulation across the site. A linear park weaves through the development, functioning as both green infrastructure and active animated public realm that connects the entire site.

[74:15] So let's talk a little bit about phasing. Phase 0 is a flood mitigation project delivered in partnership with the City of Boulder, replacing an undersized culvert with a 5 million trestle bridge beneath the BNSF rail line. The Public Benefit Project will remove, as I mentioned, 35 downstream properties from the 100-year floodplain, and require a FEMA letter of map revision. To be completed. Completion of this phase is a critical milestone, as the project construction cannot begin until this is achieved. Phase 1 will be the demolition of the existing warehouses, and the construction of all the horizontal and public realm infrastructure to get pad-ready sites for the vertical buildings. Phase 2 is the first of the vertical sections of the project. Parcel 4 will contain the venue, the rehearsal space for the arts community, and the garage.

[75:06] Parcel 3 will contain a 150-room hotel and residential mixed-use along with the carousel, which I'm going to talk a little later about. Parcel 3 is the next multifamily mixed-use building on Parcel 2 that will be built. And then lastly, Parcel 4 includes the final building on Parcel 1, currently envisioned as multifamily, with the flexibility to accommodate alternative uses, given its anticipated 10 years plus delivery horizon. Overall build-out for this project is expected to be over 10 to 15 years. To allow flexibility for unforeseen economic conditions, and extend that 20-year vesting period is being requested. So, talk a little bit about the ground-level activation and placemaking on the site. The design begins with a focus on the ground floor experience and the unique energy of each space. Activity is concentrated on the east side of the site around the venue, while the west side transitions to a more passive neighborhood-scale environment.

[76:07] At the heart of the project is the carousel, anchored by two neighborhood restaurants that create a lively and welcoming center of gravity. We're also placing a lot of attention to how art and placemaking permeates throughout the site and is woven. From artist-designed playgrounds and colorful carousel to murals by local artists on walls and crosswalks. A Saturday morning art market, and a curated sculpture park, art is present at every scale, ensuring the project is defined by creativity, expression, and a strong sense of place. The project applies best practices in sustainable, all-electric design. We are also exploring geothermal viability through a Colorado Office of Energy grant. This will require a policy change on allowing borings under public easements. The project delivers substantial community and economic benefit, $2.8 billion for the City of Boulder, and $1.6 billion for Colorado over 30 years, while creating thousands of jobs during construction, and 390 permanent jobs.

[77:11] Beyond the economic benefits of the project, this district provides dedicated performance and rehearsal space, flood protection infrastructure to support the… infrastructure to support Sundance growth, and more than 500 transit-oriented homes. So I want to talk a little bit about the day in the life of a project, and this is how we think of development and design projects. So, it's 7 AM, it's sunrise, a warm light washes over the Flatirons in the Pearl Arts District. A resident opens her terrace to Cool Mountaineer. At street level, the coffee shop opens, fresh pastry scent permeates the air as the train passes by. At 8 AM on the Foothills Parkway, a commuter catches the marquee. Big head taught in the monsters, three nights only. She smiles, already imagining the crowds, the lights, the music, and the energy to come.

[78:02] By 11am, the plaza fills as the day warms and the activity builds. The Paseo comes alive with a Saturday morning art market. Artists, music, and local flavors weaving through the space. By 1PM, children gather around the artist's design carousel. Alive with color and sound, restaurant terraces fill as people enjoy the sun, with espresso, paint, and conversation blending into the lively neighborhood atmosphere. Parents relax beneath the trees, balloons in hand, cafe tables as buskers feel the air beneath the depolite. At 3pm, duffel bags over their shoulders, performers head to the rehearsal space at the Pearl Arts District. It hums with music, art, and connection. Inside the rehearsal space, creation never pauses. Dancers sleep, actors run lines, and musicians chase the perfect note. It's 4pm. Presidents and visitors from Boulder Junction and the train station walk to the district with the excitement for their concert.

[79:02] Others arrive using the new mobility hub, where shuttles, buses, and ride-hailing services like Uber, Lyft come to deliver and pick up people. Some use the B-cycle station and Lime scooters to arrive. It's 5.30 PM, sunset washes the foothills as Boulder moves to day tonight. The rooftop park comes alive with music, conversation, and clinking glasses from 35 feet up. Guests take in sweeping views of the Flatirons. At 7pm, the venue comes alive. And an anticipation ripples across the plaza. Lines wrap the block as people queue in to get into the venue. It's showtime. The lights dim, the first note hits, and the district comes alive. Music, art, laughter, and connection carry the Pearl Arts District into the night. So I'm gonna call my colleague, Carly from Farron Pierce, who's gonna talk to us at site connectivity and circulation. Great. Thank you, Daniel. The site offers a unique opportunity for. multimodal transportation access. With nearby rail, bus, connection to a robust off-street multi-use path network, there are a number of different ways to.

[80:06] access the site conveniently and comfortably without using a vehicle. This integrated multi-metal infrastructure is mirrored on-site with slow-speed shared streets, as well as a bicycle and pedestrian circulation system that's low stress. The facilities on the site are supplemented by transportation demand management strategies, in order to make sure that people who live, work, play, are attending event venues have custom TDM approaches to incentivize multimodal travel. Bike parking is one of those premier strategies. We propose to exceed the short-term bike parking requirement posed by the city, and supplement that short-term bike parking with bike valet on event days that will be staffed in a way to be able to accommodate that high-demand peaky use for event-goers. The site design, mix of land uses, location, and TDM strategies all come together to manage vehicle traffic. However, for those that are traveling to the site or within the site on a vehicle, we've submitted a preliminary traffic study and look forward to honing that with board and city feedback. This analysis allows us to understand queuing impacts and be able to meet the level of service standards, as well as design and construction standards for public roadways.

[81:17] The site provides two access points from Pearl Parkway, a signalized intersection on Frontier, and a three-quarter movement on, on New Street. We also have a number of TNC pickup drop-offs and short-term flex loading zones for private vehicles as well. We're proposing a mobility hub on the southwest corner of Frontier and Pearl Parkway that you can see here. This is a gateway to the site, and for some, a gateway to the City of Boulder, that first initial experience at the city. So it's a great way to create a sense of place and to provide a connection between modes, a seamless interaction between being a pedestrian and a TNC user, being a bicycle rider, and a transit user. So we look forward to working with stakeholders, City of Boulder, the HOP, RTD, VIA, B-Cycle, Lime, a number of different providers who will be having access to this mobility hub.

[82:08] We also received the city comment to remove on-street parking on Pearl, have responded to that by removing on-street parking, and are now proposing a potential frontage road on Pearl Parkway, similar to what's west of the tracks. We look forward to honing this design based on feedback, and see it as a great opportunity to improve circulation and business access to the site. We're also re-envisioning Pearl Parkway. We know that there's a speed limit reduction proposed on Pearl. In order to do that, we need to reduce the design speed. So this revised cross-section brings a sense of place to the corridor. It changes it from a road that moves vehicles through Pearl Parkway to moving people to the site. And we've changed the design of the road to be able to mirror that urban form change that the site is bringing. And lastly, the Ring Road has a shared street approach, so this is a one-office environment with really low vehicle speeds in order to accommodate comfortable bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and brings a sense of place to the environment as well.

[83:07] I'll pass it along to Danica from Trestle. Good evening, I'm Danica Powell with Trestle Strategy Group, very excited to be here tonight. As Shannon outlined were, great, feedback requests. We also personally request. Feedback on these, 5 bullet points. Shannon did a great job explaining the TBAP process, Phase 2, the land use, and the alignment of our project with the mixed-use TOD land use designation in both the Comp Plan and the TBAP Phase 2. This project is very much in alignment with the land use strategy of both of those plans. Including the regional TOD place type and the urban design framework. This is, identified as a southern anchor for the entire TBAP district. and Boulder Junction and meets, has quite a few, you know, the activity nodes, outdoor spaces, and pedestrian and mobility connections that we've been talking about.

[84:07] Where we have a challenge, and I think this is where we want to really dig in a little bit here tonight, is we don't have a zone district. The original implementation plan of TBAP, I was just looking it up on Be Heard Boulder, talked about code implementation, zone district implementation, or form-based code. right after the plan was adopted in 2023. Understandably, there's work plan issues, and it hasn't made it on the work plan, but we want to move forward. And we need a path to do that, and happy to, again, talk about this a little bit more in the Q&A, but this is something we would like guidance on, so that we can chart our path forward through the rest of the entitlement process. In addition, the phasing and vesting strategy here is unique. As Daniel described, it is a 20-year vesting period with, significant infrastructure and flood improvements in Phase 0.

[85:02] Phase 1… And Phase 2, we, we… so we're bringing all of it in together in one site review, full design, site review level, design on phase one… on phase one and two, and we propose a more massing study and architectural guidelines, footprints, etc. for the future phases to allow flexibility and bring site review amendments to you in the future. Once we know what those buildings are going to be. Pass it back up to Daniel to wrap us up. So, let's talk a little bit about height and massing. I want to discuss a little bit the interior of the venue and the consequences of its facade. Due to the interior functions of the program, the venue is inherently has extended facade lengths where windows will not be possible, and not as much modulation on the facade as well. Most of the fenestration will occur on the venue entrance, and to some degree, in the back along the dressing rooms.

[86:03] I want to point out that the form-based code does provide precedent for civic buildings with iconic designs where building length maximum is not required. Currently, there isn't a path to request a height modification for 2- or 3-story buildings over 35 feet. The code only allows height modification requests for 4th and 5th stories. The venue will be two stories and over 35 feet, so we look forward to promptly addressing the nuances of the code with respect to height of this building, with this building type, and I know staff is working on some solution associated with this. Also, given the complexity of this arts and entertainment district, a creative and comprehensive signage strategy will be required for both the venue and the broader district, and happy to respond to some questions associated with this as well. So, this view depicts the fenestration along the west facade, including the electronic marquee and the proposed facade screen resembling the opening of a stage curtain. So we are placing a lot of love into this event center to make it iconic.

[87:08] I also want to talk a little bit about the rest of the building setbacks. Each block is broken into smaller fingers to avoid long, continuous facades, with widths ranging between 60 and 72 feet, and articulated through setbacks and material changes. Parking garages are internally screened by the perimeter residential and active uses. This view emphasizes the varied articulations and roof caps of each finger, breaking down the messing and creating the feel of smaller, more intimate buildings instead of long, continuous facades. Activated storefronts and residential stoops combined with building brakes, integrated balconies, roof variations, and setbacks create a rich and enjoyable pedestrian experience. So, varied rooflines that architecturally conceal mechanical equipment introduce a new architectural language for the city. Modest non-habitable height increases above Boulder's 55-foot limit are proposed at selected building ends to articulate the roofline, reduce massing, and echo the flat irons.

[88:11] These roof forms screen mechanical equipment and avoid monolithic flat roofs, and are intended to be considered mechanical appurtenances, rather than low architectural screens allowed under the code. High-quality materials are used creatively throughout the project, with color, texture, pattern, and warmth woven consistently through the site. The venue and rehearsal building introduced a new material palette. Diophanous facades, expressive ribbon stairs, vibrant colors, inoperable windows that blur the boundary between indoors and outdoors. So, I know we covered a lot of ground here in a short amount of time, and I really want to thank you for your time and giving us an opportunity to respond to any questions. We're here to, for you guys, and we look forward to digging a little bit more into the Q&A aspects of the project.

[89:04] And we finished our presentation with 52 seconds, to spare, so… . We definitely get a point on that one, that's good. Okay, thank you, to the applicant. Okay, it is now time for clarifying questions from the board. I know we have a bunch, And to, in the name of efficiency, who's ready? Laura? Okay, I have a bunch, so feel free to move me along, Mark, and you can come back to me if I have too many. Thank you to the applicant team for your presentation. Really informative, thank you. So let's go back to that proposed multi-use path that Kurt was asking about, and the question of would that connection actually be built with that, this project? Is that your understanding? Yes, we have actually thought about this, because that caught our attention as well in the presentation, and I want to point out that, I think, as Kurt mentioned, we don't own the property adjacent to the proposed connection, so we're not sure how to handle this.

[90:14] Additionally, talking to our civil engineer, there were some concerns with the ramping associated with Pearl Parkway and the safety of a bicycle path adjacent to it, so I don't know how to actually make this happen. I know that the city has had some contact with CDOT, and some of these conversations have happened, but we did not look at, doing this ourselves, so we're happy to dig into it. Kurt, did you want a colloquy? Oh, no. Okay, thank you. Thank you. The other question that was deferred from earlier, the trees that are along that rail line, are those on your property, or are those railroad properties? property. Some of those trees straddle between our property and BNSFs. We don't have a survey of those trees, but I will tell you that there's a series of Electric pole lines that travel throughout the south of the property that are gonna have to be buried.

[91:05] My guess is that as a result of that, those trees are going to have to be taken down, which is really unfortunate for us, because we love those trees. Thank you for that. I had some questions about the open spaces. I know you didn't have time to do this in your presentation, but I would love it if you would give us a walkthrough Of all of the open spaces. Some are described as a pet area, or a performance park, or a carousel, or a play yard. Can you just walk us through all of the open spaces on the property, and what you're thinking the uses would be, and tell us when those would be built. I really, really appreciate that question, because I wanted to dig into it. And I'm going to go back, to the phasing section. Those will be built as part of the horizontal infrastructure. Of, of the site. So this is phase one of the project. And since we're hopefully relying on a metro district, we're going to issue bonds to bill all of this in one phase. So, more specifically about the contents of this park.

[92:09] We are really trying to create a set of connected spaces and open experiences, throughout the site, and roughly we have about 30% open space. So, things that you would see as people come into the site, we have a sculptural moment that we're thinking along Pearl Parkway to welcome people. We have a pedestrian and multi-use path that could be taken directly from the public multi-use path into the project that connects people that's all the way to the back of the site. Along this portion of the site, we have a stormwater project that needs to be taken care of, and we're utilizing as much as possible of whatever's left over to create a series of connected parks, particularly Sculpture Park. There'll be a series of sculptures that connect throughout.

[93:00] We are actually considering a little cultural exchange with one of our sister cities. We've talked to our sister city, Yamagata, to maybe do a little cultural exchange folly, that would be part of the site. We are really, thinking about what the heart of the project will be, the emotional heart of the project, and we're considering this busk of trees. Actually, our designers call her the busker busk. We're gonna have buskers underneath the trees. The art carousel, which is located right here, and it's flanked by the two restaurants. The Saturday Art Market, and this paseo is actually a… acts as a fire lane, but also will have some live-work units on the ground floor. Additionally, we have a large playground located over here, and you can see it depicted. It's going to be one of the best playgrounds in the city of Boulder. And, additionally, we are considering a series of murals, along the parking garage and the event center. You know, those are being done by our local muralist in town.

[94:02] So, the transit plaza, which Carly talked about, will be the entry to our project, and we think that pedestrians will migrate through the Paseo and into this part of the project to come to the event center, or they will be walking along Frontier directly to the event center. Additionally, we have a rooftop park on top of the parking garage and the rehearsal space for the arts community, which is going to be another quasi-public space for people to enjoy the views 35 feet up in the air. Any additional questions on this? A few, yes. So you said a quasi-public space, that rooftop, by the… over the performing… the rehearsal space, excuse me. That rooftop would be available to who, exactly? That rooftop. will be available to anybody that wants to be a patron of the rooftop, essentially, where we're going to have a tenant that is gonna be out there, not that dissimilar from, say, the Rayback. So that's kind of the public use, I would say a public use, it's a commercial use that would exist.

[95:09] Okay, so customers of some kind of, commercial use up there. That's correct. Okay, so it's not associated with the performance space or the performance venue? It is associated, adjacent to the performance venue, and it is on top of the rehearsal space. Okay. So, like, they would need to, like, buy a drink at the bar or something to hang out up there. Not necessarily. I think the. Public area, and let me show this, and a lot of these things have not been vetted out since they're going to be so tenant-dependent, but… The intent that a person could make their way up, the ribbon stair, and then enter some sort of playground, and then, decide to consume a beverage, just like you would do in the… maybe at the Rayback Collective. You can be in the public realm of the Rayback without actually, getting a drink. Additionally, we have planned for a potential, stage, on the roof as well, so there could be some events that, related to the arts community below, or private events, or, concerts for that matter.

[96:10] Okay, alright, thank you, very helpful. Back to your previous diagram, I did have a question about, shadows. Shadows. Previous diagram, looking up for… Which one? This one? That one, yes. So the Paseo currently looks like it's showing in shadow, and the other, there's, like, an events plaza that is kind of in the north or the northeast portion of the site, by that, I guess that's the rehearsed… that's the venue itself, that's a performance venue, and then there's an events plaza out front. That also looks like it might be shady for a lot of the year. Have you done, like, a solar analysis on how much sun can be expected in those two portions, especially the Paseo and the Events Plaza?

[97:00] Yeah, we have done some shade analysis, and in fact, the orientation of the sun is… goes along the south of the property, so… they'll get as much sun throughout the day as possible, given the orientation. So, granted, this drawing depicts… I don't know what time of the day, to be honest, but some parts of the day will have, in some parts of the year will have shade. I think that'll be a question I would have at site review, is, you know, on the… in the winter, how much sun are these areas gonna get, given that they're, sort of more north-oriented. Thank you for that. I have just a couple more, do you want me to keep going, or pass it off? That's a good, good, good time to pause. I'll… I'll pause. Okay, I'm not seeing a hand up online. Claudia, are you ready? It's great. Sure, I have a few. And continuing with, site design, a couple of questions. I'm glad that Laura asked about the open spaces. I had a question about how you envision this project interfacing with that rail corridor.

[98:08] That is an active railroad. Looping around the back there. And… How are you accounting for that in the planning? So, the back of the property, inevitably, is going to be the rail, right? We can't control that. Yep. We have a stormwater project that needs to occur on the side, so this visual depicts what we're thinking will happen. So, this is the edge of our property right here. This is, a portion of the… I would say, the heart of the project where the carousel and pavilion will be. So, in portions of the back of the site, the street meanders. In this case, it becomes a much wider sidewalk with trees. And, you know, landscape, it's gonna be a curbless plaza, there'll be street furniture, FF&E, art, and things of that nature. As the project, moves on from other, I'm gonna go back here…

[99:06] So, for example, in this case, you know, you can see the multi-use path that extends all the way into the back of the project over here. In some cases… you know, from a resident standpoint, we're gonna try a lot of landscaping as well, and shielding, from there. And there'll have to be some protection as well for, make sure that people are not crossing the rail, per BNSF standards. So that's basically it. It's gonna be, just a collection of park and, playgrounds and, sculptures and trees and landscaping. Okay, so one of the things we've talked about as a board in other proposals recently is, the difference between ground-level open spaces and then a more above-ground rooftop, like I'm seeing here, actually, in this

[100:01] diagram that you have, right? And I see that you've got these kind of elevated courtyards in some of these preliminary designs. Yeah, what's my question about that, actually? Is that… is that deliberate to… to deal with some of this transportation infrastructure on the backside? Can it be brought down to ground level and still maintain that functionality? not. It cannot be brought down to ground level because the parking structure exists right underneath, and we have townhome units lining up on the ground floor, as well, of these parcels. I want to mention that the water table is really high, the bedrock is really high, and putting underground parking is practically infeasible for the site. We really tried. We wanted to do something along those lines of what you talked about, but that became unfeasible. Okay, yeah, and… I did have a question about parking, too. You know, we're no longer having parking minimums, but how much parking are you trying to put under these buildings?

[101:02] We are not sure, to be completely honest. We are trying to go with industry standards and what our equity and our lenders are going to require from us from a parking standpoint. That decision will be a balance between that and what we want to build and future-proof this project. Trust me, I want to build the least amount of parking on this project, so… Okay. That conversation is ongoing, and I'm hopeful to build the least amount of. Okay, and then one more piece of this that I'd like to understand better, there's this loop road that kind of parallels the railroad track, right, around the back. what is the kind of minimum necessary use of that road. I assume there's some emergency access back there that you have to have? What else has to happen on that? Well, when you have a district of this size, and you have attendees coming to an event center, there's a lot of congestion that could occur, so… I think one entry point is, is, not feasible for the project, and Carly can comment a little bit more on the…

[102:04] On the traffic numbers, but, it is emergency vehicle access, it is additional choices, that people can take to address to the site. As well as the opportunity, and we are still starting this, and I'm gonna bite my tongue here, but, we want to be able to close the street over here. So we want to find a way, this is what we're calling it a festival… We're not seeing your… So, I'm talking about, in between the hotel. and the arts venue, and the rehearsal art space. So wherever it says, event plaza and Art Moment, is that clear where that is? Yes. So our goal is to be able to close that for events, at some point. And we are looking at other methods of, of, of getting people in and out of the site, including using our paseo for, temporary, sort of exiting on the site, or going underneath the building, right,

[103:04] I would say right in front of the playground, almost, and connecting to Frontier. Okay, so you do anticipate fairly regular vehicle traffic of some kind on that loop road? Yeah, and I do want. I want to mention that the Transit Plaza is designed to pick up and drop off as many people as possible and contain them there, but people usually get in an Uber and a Lyft, and they say, I want to be dropped off in this other area. So, we want to make sure that we provide other, other, other locations, to be able to be dropped off. I mean, we want to make sure that, people are not driving to the site. We want to make sure that, they, they're bringing, they come with alternative methods of transportation as well. Okay. Go ahead. Just a colloquy on that, all of these buildings have some parking associated with them, is that correct? Like, internal parking? Not necessarily. I would say that we have a large parking garage associated with the event center on the…

[104:05] East side of the property, and that'll be our workhorse for the whole site. And especially during event day. I think parcel 3, which is the second from the east to the west. We'll have some parking dedicated to the hotel and the residence, although we don't know how much in Parcel 2 as well. What we're considering is not doing any parking on Parcel 1, but that'll be so far away in the future that I don't know what to tell you, if it's gonna have parking or not. I'm sorry, I'm a little confused about the different parcels, but Parcel 1 is the little building that's the furthest kind of northwest. Yeah, this is. Okay. But parcels 2 and 3, don't those have some internal parking? Like, that's what's under those rooftop terraces? That is correct. And where are the parking garage entrances? Are they on that Wunerf, or are they somewhere else? No, the entrances are located, what it's called, I believe, Private Drive.

[105:03] And you can access those garages. Unfortunately, you can't see my cursor. I wish you could. But if you can see the private drive on… off of Pearl Parkway, there's an entrance to Parcel 2 over there for that garage. Parcel 3 garage, if you can look at, next to the purple in the hotel, right below, there's an entrance, next to it, underneath the podium, and that entrance connects all the way to the back of, of, Frontier Parkway. And in fact, you know what? We have. So kind of on the northeast side of those two buildings? Yes. Okay, so not on the Woonerf. I think that… that goes to Claudia's question about how much traffic would be on that. Curve at the southern edge of the parcel. Southwest. Yeah, we want to be able to distribute cars immediately, as quickly as possible, into the site. I believe that people coming to the hotel will be accessing from Frontier, where it says the little S and PEEP, which is service and parking, for the hotel.

[106:05] That is so useful, thank you, I missed those in the diagram, thank you. Okay, actually, I saw ML's hand up. And I'll go ahead, and then I'll go to you, Kurt. Thank you. I have, kind of a little bit of a different question. You have a diagram in here somewhere that, shows Stormwater ponds? We do have it, but it's not included in our presentation, but it was submitted. It's in the packet, yeah. So you don't have any underground parking. I think that that's excellent. And… and I guess my question had… had more to do with those ponds, and it looked like

[107:01] they were underneath buildings, so I wasn't quite sure how… On-site distribution of stormwater. was with that logic. That's okay. You don't have underground parking, and I think that answers a big part of my question. I'll just move on to my second question. So, looking at your phasing, it… My understanding is that the easternmost part of the site is… Well, after the storm. So, first is installing that, that storm… And… Storm Control, and all of the site… Landscaping? Is that correct? That is correct. So, this graphic depicts what's on phase one of the project, which is essentially the demolition of the existing warehouses.

[108:02] Okay. And then we will build all the underground infrastructure and all the public realm components, including the landscaping, lights, traffic, signalization, signage. The playground, basically everything that conforms the project, everything that you see here. Okay, so, all of the existing structures will be gone day one. That is correct. Okay, and then it'll look like a park. That is correct. It'll look like an empty park for a little while. We are hopeful to begin construction of Parcel 4 and Parcel 3 right thereafter. It's not our goal to have an empty site, right? We want to be able to make sure to get to vertical development as quickly as possible. Yeah, but I appreciate that the, landscape will be part of the initial phase. Great, that's my question, thanks. Kirk, and then we'll go back to you, George.

[109:00] Great, thank you. I wanted to follow up on the thread that Claudia and Laura were following, which is about the access, it sounds like, getting people, especially to and from the venue. At, like, right before and right after events is a key Challenge. Given that, Why… why aren't you putting the venue right on Pearl? Why are you pushing it so far away from Pearl? Wouldn't it make sense to have it Right, accessible off of Pearl? So, we did some initial studies. By the way, that's a great question, and we asked ourselves countless times, and we moved it around on the site, and honestly, we landed on the east side of the site for multiple reasons. Number one, the servicing needs of the venue are serious. We're gonna have a lot of semi-trucks moving in and out of the site, and we wanted to conceal that away from the public eye, and the best place to do that is in the back of the site, since, remember, the Foothills Parkway is elevated 35, 40 feet up in the air, so that conceals all the servicing.

[110:13] Additionally, if you think about somebody coming out of the venue, and wanting to exit along Pearl Parkway, most of the traffic and waiting is constrained within our site. So we don't want to burden the rest of the, the rest of Pearl Parkway in the neighborhood. If we were to put the parking garage and the venue closer to Pearl Parkway, all that, congestion would be closer to Pearl Parkway, so this allows us to keep it as far as possible on the site. Great, okay, thank you, that's very helpful. I have another question, which really also follows up on the question about the open space, another sort of big picture site design question. Did you look at, instead of pushing the open space out to the edges, and particularly along…

[111:05] The… the railroad tracks. centralizing some of it to provide more of a central open space that would be, and this is sort of following on where Claudia was going, I think, a little more protected from the railroad tracks. I mean, I've been at Sanitas when railroad train… the freight train comes through, and it's loud, right? And it seems like it's not an ideal place for, you know, kids to be playing out there. I mean, it's not unsafe, it's just really loud. So did you look at, like, the possibility of pushing the buildings, extending the buildings more out towards the edges, and enlarging maybe along the Paseo or one of these other places for more open space there? We did look at it, and gosh, I think we did about…

[112:02] Probably 25 iterations of this master plan. A number of things became evident. Number one is the train is our reality. There's nothing I can do about it. It's gonna come. Actually, the freight train only passes by twice a day, for the most part, and it passes by quickly. In the future, there's gonna be passenger rail, which light rail is a lot, it's not as loud as freight rail, so we're not as concerned about it. Second, putting buildings up against the rail seemed like the wrong thing to do, and putting residents right up against the rail. We really wanted to… you know, create a buffer space between the rail and our residents, which are the people that are gonna live here. I think we're in an urban setting. the train is part of daily life, and if you ask somebody that lives next to a train track, they'll say it just goes away. It's part of, sort of, the everyday noise, so… I think, also, if you look at the location of the parking garage and the venue, we put the parking garage right there to shield the venue and the vibration coming from the train, because we were concerned as well about that. So, yes, we did look at it and landed in this setting.

[113:16] Great, thank you. One more question, which is about the… let's see, it is called a private pedestrian path along the railroad tracks, right? And I'm just wondering what that really means. Will… is it… how private is it? Will it be gated, for example, or will it be… accessible to anybody who wants to, you know, somebody going to the venue, for example. Will bikes be allowed? Will scooters be allowed? What… What do you have in mind there? . It is intended to be private, but it is open to the public at all times. Realize that we have a district that will be active, 17 hours a day.

[114:03] So it's not like I can close a certain part of the district, for access, and in fact, I want people to come to the site and actually… you know, address the site from the back and actually not from the front. I want to send people to… through this park. So, it is intended to be open to the public. Is it going to have a public easement or an access easement? I am not sure at this stage. We have not studied that. But bikes will be allowed on it, and pedestrians will be allowed on it. It is not intended to be gated. Okay, great, that's helpful. And you mentioned the public access easement possibility. I assume that the private streets would have public access easements in the Paseo? . True. They're definitely gonna have emergency vehicle easements, so that's a given. We're gonna have to have all sorts of access easements for utilities and whatnot, and we're gonna study that, but yes, most likely they'll be publicly accessible at all times.

[115:00] Okay, but you're not quite completely sure at this point. We're not completely sure, we're not quite there yet, to be honest. I think we'll… that's gonna be a whole study that we're gonna have to do. And I was looking at Willville's, access easement plan, and, you know, it was… just patches all over the place, and so, as you know, that requires a lot of study. I don't have a particular answer at this stage. Yeah. And you, I think Mark referred to the private streets. You are, as other developments have done, you are specifically doing private streets because the DCS basically doesn't allow you to do the kind of streets that you want to do as public streets? Or is there another reason? No, that is correct. It's, because we can't get to the type of street that we want to create and the type of environment that we want to create, so if, you guys would hurry up and update the DCS, you know, in collaboration with us, on time, because realize that, We want to be back here probably in about a year with site review, so there really isn't much time to address a lot of the things that need to be addressed from a code standpoint before we get back to site review.

[116:07] Thank you. Okay, George. Yeah, I've got, three quick questions for you. The first one has to do with phasing. I understand the overall phasing plan. I guess the question is in regards to the Paseo. And how the Paseo functions with only one side of it built out, and what is the interruption to the businesses that front the Paseo. When the second parcel gets built out. And have you considered an alternative where you build a… I know that's a difficult thing, to build a portion of the other… of Parcel 2, so that the Paseo is complete. So I'll end there. I wish I could solve that problem. I think that's a real issue. That peso's gonna have to be there on day one, in effect.

[117:07] This graphic, depicts as if the paseo is not getting built on, on this face. It actually is getting built, because we have to provide emergency vehicle access on this face as well. So it will be built, and hopefully we are leased up with a restaurant there before we begin Parcel 2, but You know, George, this is a point in time. There's nothing to say that things accelerate, and Parcel 2 gets built at the same time at Parcel 3. At this point, we don't see it. The absorption of residential in Boulder is not such that you can deliver this much in one phase, so we're being careful with it, but it is a concern, and we'll be very careful with our tenants. We care deeply for our tenants and the success of their… of them, so we'll pay very close attention to this. Yeah, understood. I think that's a challenging area, so,

[118:01] Next question is, anything, for sale on this project, or do you anticipate it all to be rental? There is no product for sale, in this project, everything is rental units. Okay? And then on the question of the roof lines, I believe that roofline issue to be a charter issue. So assuming that it is, or that it won't be permitted, How does that impact your project, and what would you do as an alternative? That's a great question. So, Danica might join us a little bit to talk about the fact that we don't believe it is a charter issue. And, so, our goal here Is to figure out a creative way to conceal mechanical units with architectural shapes. We struggle in the city of Boulder with buildings that just end, and they have no caps. It's sort of like an edge, and it really produces ugly buildings.

[119:05] So, we know that we're pushing the limit, but we believe this is a code interpretation, not a charter issue. The… staff and the legal department, and you guys, to a certain degree, could consider this an app pertinence. And in fact, Stanika, what does the code say about the pertinances? It said that the… I'm reading the charter, and I'm not here to debate it, I'm just… we're looking… I agree with Daniel. I think we've seen a lot of projects with just flat roofs, we're trying to come up with a creative solution, so… It does say the height limit of 55 feet shall not apply to spires, belfries, cupolas, or domes, not used for human occupancy, nor to silos, parapet walls. cornices, blah blah blah, mechanical appurtenances usually carried above the roof, as long as they don't take up more than 25% of the roof area. So we're reinterpreting the idea that you put the mechanical in the middle of the site and put a big wall, 16-foot wall around it, and looking at screening it with these different roof forms. So it's…

[120:04] Just, in my view, a… moving it in a different location on the roof, so that you're not getting… and we actually pulled pictures, we didn't include them, of the big box with the Big mechanical box on top with a big… wall around it. So we're trying to do something different, in that. I understand what you're trying to do. I guess that was my question. If… if… if this is not inter… because I know of no situation where this exists in Boulder, and I've seen plenty of projects that have talked about it. Certainly no one that's proposed it quite like this. So if you didn't… if you… if you weren't permitted to do that, how would your design change? That was my question. Well… It will change. It most likely will change, and we'll have to re, figure out a different strategy, and… honestly, we might end up with some flat… more flat roofs than we want to have, similar to other projects I've done here in the city, so… Got it. Ideally, this is something that we could address, and we could address a systematic, code issue that is not producing, good architectural outcomes.

[121:11] Okay, thanks. Okay, Laura, do you want to go… I haven't gone yet, but if you want to finish up your… whatever is unanswered, then I'll go. Okay, thank you, Mark. I had just a couple more. The bike valet. Can you talk a little bit about that? You're using the bike valet as part of the rationale for a reduction in bike parking? And I'm just not clear on how it works. Like, where is the valet taking those bicycles? Yeah, great question, and I'm gonna have Carly respond to that in a second, but Our goal for the site is to have as many people arrive by bike. And, when you all of a sudden have that many bikes on site, you gotta have a different management system than an inverted U shape.

[122:03] We also believe there's a lot of bicycle theft, and I think Council put it in their priorities as a major thing, and we're concerned about that. So, we're thinking about the customer experience, primarily, as to how is it. And I've attended a number of events in different stadia around the country, even in Vail, at the Ford Amphitheater, where it's so easy. You just come in. There's a person there that receives the bike in a sort of controlled area by several people. You get a ticket, it's just like a code check, essentially. And that location is intended to be on the south side of the parking garage. So, Kylie can talk a little bit more about examples that have worked very well in other parts of the country, so… Okay, and I'll just try to clarify my question, is where are the bicycles physically going when they are valet parked, and is that physical space available to people when there is no valet available? Because I think that you said the valet is only going to be there during events. That is correct.

[123:02] So, the goal right now is that those bicycle spaces are open to the public, and in fact, we're thinking of doing stack racks, similar to this picture. I don't know if you can look at the bike stack racks over here. So, it's the bubble, the upper bubble. So, the intent is that, if you can imagine the whole southern wall of this garage being lined up with stack racks, essentially. So. During event, somebody would just give the bike, and the person that's picking up the valet bike would essentially put your bike and locate it in the right location. When there's no event, all those racks are open to the public for use. So, additionally, not everything is going to be parked through Valley, right? There's going to be multiple locations throughout the site for bicycle racks, inverted U-shaped bicycle racks throughout the site. So, Carly, I don't know if you want to add to that. For the sake of time, I think that answers my question. Thank you, thank you.

[124:01] And then, just one last question, following up on what George was talking about. I also had a question about the phasing. I think I read in the packet, when it talked about that Phase 3, that is the hotel parcel. that you might not actually build the residential component of that… no, the Parcel 3, sorry. Parcel 3, yes. Parcel 3. I think it said, you know, the first thing that you're going to build after the horizontal infrastructure and the parks and all of that, which is wonderful that that's all getting done right away. Then you're gonna build the event venue, the rehearsal space, the parking garage, that's your next phase. And then in the subsequent phase, you're definitely doing the hotel, but I think I read that you said you reserve… you want to reserve the right not to build the residential half of that, what's in yellow here on our slide. and wait until the final phase and deliver all of that residential at the same time? Did I read that correctly? That is. a possibility why not keep open, and to be completely honest, residential development is not making any economic sense in the city of Boulder right now.

[125:06] We're very concerned about the cost of construction. We've had 7% rent declines in the City of Boulder in the last 2 years. The inclusionary housing requirements are super stringent. The energy code is very expensive, it's the stringest in the nation. So, there's a lot of things that are playing against us in residential. It's not that we don't want to build it, it's that we want to build it so that it, we can actually not lose money. So, we want to reserve the right. We know that the hotel is doable on Phase 1, we know that the venue is doable on Phase 1, as well as the rehearsal space. But, we want to make sure that we're able to achieve what we need to achieve. I can tell you, most likely, we will… we probably will build it, on… on Parcel 3, along with the hotel. Okay, I'm just trying to understand what I… what I read, and so… and if I understand the phasing correctly. it might take 10 years to get the phases with the event center and the hotel built, and then the last phase that has the bulk of the residential, or possibly all of the residential, might not get built for 20 years, 15 to 20 years. What we're saying.

[126:12] this is the last phase, it's phase 4, which would be only parcel 1. So that would be the last phase, and… That could be in over a decade from now. Well, that is what they call the last bite of the apple in development. We don't know what the economics will be at that point, either. We hope that we can just build it as quickly as possible. Trust me, I don't want to sit on empty land at all. I want to keep building as quickly as possible, but the economics need to be there. I'm sorry, I must be confused. When does Parcel 2 get built? Parcel 2 gets built on Phase 3. So that gets built at the same time as the hotel parcel. So, just to clear… clarify this, Phase 2 will include Parcel 4 and Parcel 3. Phase 2 includes Parcel 4 and Parcel 3. Yes.

[127:02] Phase 3 will include parcel 2, and Phase 4 will be the last parcel on parcel 1. Okay, so the hotel definitely gets built at the same time as the event center. And maybe some of the residential. Okay, thank you. That's right. I think I understand. All right, thank you. Laura, can I just… can I just ask a specific question around that, just because I'm a little confused. Sure, Jordan. on parcel 3, You're envisioning that possibly changing to two phases? It is possible that Parcel 3 will be split in two phases, and that the yellow part of Parcel 3 could be built at the same time as Parcel 2. Okay. Okay. Thank you. My first question is, did you ever consider aligning the parcel numbers with the phase numbers. Trust me.

[128:03] Yes. Oh, okay. Not only that, this has some ripple effects in a giant spreadsheet that I can't even describe once we've changed the nomenclature. So, apologize for the confusion here. Could you go to the, page, your presentation page, that has PED bike, the PED bike? Access. There we go. Okay, so this is… it seems a little different. Maybe my packet was small, I, I, you know, maybe I wasn't reading it right, but… so, the purple line… Is that on the south edge of the Ring Road, or is that… Where, where is that in relation to the, emergency access and, and kind of outer south.

[129:01] road. It is south of the Ring Road, if that answers your question. Yep. So, yes. Okay. And so then, the blue line Is… okay, now I'm seeing what was confusing me before. I see the light blue pedestrian symbol. along that blue line, and I… And then I see a bike symbol, kind of. farther to the north. Is that… Does that signify that where the blue line is running parallel to the purple line, is that ped only there, or is that ped bike just like the purple line? It is intended to be a shared street. with… dedicated sidewalks on the side for pedestrians, but the shared street aspect is, where vehicles and, bicycles can coexist. More like a Woonerf. Okay. So, the blue line is more like a wound roof, the purple line is more like a multi-use path. That's correct. Okay.

[130:06] Alright, I was getting confused there, okay? So… you know, we are not here to comment on or, and this is always the, a struggle we have in site review and concept review is, adjacent properties not owned by the applicant. And… I'll simply ask, Have you had conversations with those folks about connections and stuff? Because this is such a special… place, anyway, has there been any coordination or thought about, coordination with connections, etc, with the sites to the northeast? We have had conversations with our neighbor, which owns that parcel that is, I think it's on the Reynolds company. W.W. Reynolds owns that parcel.

[131:07] We understand that they have no plans for redevelopment. For now, they have some existing leases in place. I don't know until when. That's as far as our conversations, have gone. I can say that they've been supportive of the project, but we have not specifically talked about connections. Okay. Thank you. And then, understanding this is concept review, and you've been talking about how things might phase and change, especially when we're going out beyond 10 years, I mean, yeah. but, as it currently stands. In the packet, it talks about 30,000 square feet of commercial, but I keep getting mixed. Does that include parking? Does that not include parking? So, is that 30,000 square feet of straight, ground-level commercial space? That's correct.

[132:04] Correct. And primarily, it'll be food and beverage with some neighborhood services. Okay, that does it for me. Claudia, do you have a… We're done with questions. Thanks, Mark. there's one thing that came up for me that I'd like to ask staff after this conversation. Oh, oh, I'm sorry. Listen. Oh, jeez. You go right ahead. Okay, alright. I'm so sorry, I jumped in there. Mason! All good. Yeah, just a couple questions, and I understand… You know, when I was reviewing the packet and reading through all the material, I went back to the neighborhood plan quite a bit. To try to understand what the city and our citizens were envisioning for this area. And I kept reading… About wanting to have… Industrial…

[133:04] In… in this area. Have you considered including any light industrial in this project? We did. In fact, I'm gonna show you an image, which is right here. The base of this building has a flex space with a little bit higher ceiling. That could be a workshop of some sorts. It could be, basically, that kind of space that, has a little bit of the light industrial, but… The goal is to turn this into a more of a mixed-use TOD development, not necessarily a light industrial site, which we're going away from. What's… that's what we currently have, an industrial site. Yeah, for sure. And I heard you mention, Live Work. How much of this plan do you expect to be lift-work? We were thinking that the Paseo would be lined up with live-work units, and

[134:01] the measurement of success for me, I keep telling my designers, is… if 2 or 3 signs appear on these storefronts, that it actually turns into a live-work, and but the goal is that they're treated as storefronts, that people can decide to turn it into a storefront, or this is their living room. So, the goal would be that this, this whole paceo would be live-work. Makes sense. Have you thought deeply about your TDM yet? I know we talked a lot about access points and what to do during the event with valet parking and things of that nature, but I'm thinking more about the residential aspect of the TDM. I don't think I've heard a ton. Yeah, we have a draft transmission demand management plan that we're just internally workshopping that goes through each of the different user types, so we have all of the strategies in a table, and then columns with who would be applicable to residents, visitors, employees, or event goers. So on the residential TDM side, obviously EcoPasses, considering B-Cycle memberships, information

[135:05] as one moves in, kind of like an onboarding for new residents of their transportation options, so that full suite of TDM strategies to make sure that new residents are aware of their options and have adequate bike parking, so that's going to be an important part of it. And for my last question, you know, Based on your comments. The one… the one thing that concerns me about this project is it… It's clear that this is… The goal is to have a mixed-use TOD. But I'm hearing that residential is delayed, potentially not coming. etc. Can you speak more to that? Am I… am I overemphasizing that, or… Is that real? I think you're overemphasizing it. The residential will come. It's just depending on the phase, and my goal,

[136:00] who's talking Mason? My goal is to build it as quickly as possible, because we're gonna own the site, we're gonna own these buildings. And we need to start producing income, we need to provide the residential as well to make that happen, and the residents on site. So, it is our goal to build it as quickly as possible. You know, if economic conditions, get better, we might build it all on phase one. You know? And this might be a question for staff, but I'm wondering what kind of requirements should we expect to see in the, for the phases? It sounds like you need flexibility there, but I'm wondering… Like, how much flexibility is in those documents, or is it pretty stringent as to what is expected in each phase and the timing? I can't really see what's going on. Did I… did my question make sense? If staff wants to answer, I'm happy to add commentary myself.

[137:05] Can you repeat the question, please? Yeah, I'm thinking about how, when the documents are signed, I'm sure it'll include some details around the phasing. Will there be certain requirements about What each phase will entail, and what's approved to be built during those phases? Yeah, there'll be a very detailed phasing plan that, We'll specify the amounts of years per phase from each phase, so, yeah, I think it'll be a very detailed phasing plan. That'll be adopted, with the approval. with site review. Correct. Thank you. Okay, Claudia, you had a… My question is actually a follow-up on that, Mason, or very related, and that was… How, if at all, can we consider proposed phasing in a site review process? Like, what in our criteria allows us to consider a phasing?

[138:04] Well, I'll start, and I know Hela will follow. The code has some, guidance, I would say, on the terms of phasing, so they're typically 3-year phases. We have done extended phasing periods in the past. I don't know if there's anything that you want to add to that, but… Yeah, the site review criteria don't really speak to phasing, but the development… there's a… actually, there's a separate section in the code that talks about development progress, and it generally establishes a general requirement, but that that can be modified through a phasing plan that's implemented. or that's approved through the development agreement, the way we have historically applied that is that we actually condition the phases within the site review approval. So you might remember seeing conditions that either require compliance with the phasing plan that was described.

[139:03] in the applicant materials, or conditions that establish the phasing in more detail. And… I think one of the things… we recently amended the code, so I don't have the… standards, memorized as well as I used to, but I think we still have a 3-year requirement that each phase has to be started Within 3… Each phase has kind of a 3-year time period. There's some flexibility in… how we establish when a new phase starts. And one of the things that we always try to make sure is that we're clear what is part of each phase, and that each phase can stand on its own. So, there's always a possibility that the next phases are not going to be built. So we think about what would this look like if Phase 2, 3, or 4, or all of them are not going to be built? What's constructed within a phase, does that by itself meet the code?

[140:00] Okay, so am I understanding correctly, though, that that kind of conditioning comes from staff? I guess what I'm hearing in some of the questions and comments here is that there may be discomfort with the proposed phasing amongst members of this board, and so my question is, is that even something that Planning Board can… Consider in an approval and conditioning process. I would think… I would think so within the parameter of the requirements of the code that talk about phasing plans. Okay. Can I follow up on that? Please. So, do we have any mechanism for enforcing, for instance, if Phase 2 is supposed to start within 3 years. If it doesn't, for whatever reason, is there any enforcement mechanism, or what happens? We're gonna file some extensions, but once we run out of those administrative remedies, they'd basically have to go back to Planning Board and either get a new phasing plan adopted, or you guys would have to start thinking through some additional, conditions of approval, or potentially even losing the development approval.

[141:14] Yeah, if a phase is not constructed within a certain time period, the rest of the development approval expires. Okay, so the enforcement basically is… That they would have to go back to site review? Okay. And or potentially lose some faces. Or something like that. Okay, thanks. Okay, last call for questions from the board. I do have a question for… Yeah, yeah, thank you. So around that, so the developer is requesting This, 20-year duration for vested rights. Where else has the city provided such a long duration of vested rights?

[142:15] And I'm asking staff, sorry. Yeah, we're… we're just trying to think about it. I know that Ball Aerospace had a pretty long, phasing plan, I would have to look that up. That's the only example that's coming to mind, top of mind right now. And those vested rights that are being requested. Is that for the entire site, or a specific phase? And Canva… if that… if it's for a… or if it's not for a specific phase, can that… be something… That can be broken apart as far as the vested rights that we provide.

[143:06] I guess I'm… I'm not absolutely sure when the applicant talks about vesting periods, if they're seeking vested rights for 20 years under the statutory vested rights. Standards, or if that's just a phasing plan that's proposed. I think this graphic is trying to explain… there's… it's both, so we have 4 phases, and then over a 20-year vesting period. And I… I will… I think IBM had a significant longer vesting period. I know Ball Aerospace, and I think there's some other examples on larger projects, but we would definitely want to work with staff on this. Yeah, and to create vested rights, which means that a project can be developed without becoming subject to new standards that are adopted in the code. The standard vesting rights period is 3 years. Anything longer than that has to be approved by ordinance. So there's a lot of discretion in what the city is…

[144:02] Agrees to or not. Is it… there's 3 years, but is there… following the 3 years, is there an administrative extension that staff can provide, or is it… or does it go immediately to… Ordinance. For the vested rights, it immediately requires an ordinance to go beyond 3 years. And so, Danica, you spoke up, so what are you guys asking for? I see the page here. What is being asked? The, the… Request is for extended vesting period of 20 years to complete all of these phases. One of the key drivers that puts us in a pinch on these sites like this is that you can't bring in part of the site in site review. There is a requirement in the code that says if there's common ownership, you have to bring in the whole site. So we're bringing in the whole site.

[145:02] We know… when we come to site review, we're gonna know exactly what we're doing with those buildings that are detailed on this graphic. There is some question about… we don't know down to the cornice and the brick… which way the bricks are gonna lie. on these future phases, so we're asking for an approach that would allow us to approve all of this. We've discussed this with the planning director, where we would come in for future site review amendments to get the design approved for those buildings that are shown in more blocky fashion, but the whole project would receive an approval for the square footage, the massing, some of the key elements. It is kind of like a PUD, which we don't have in the city anymore, but it's a way to plan this all out from the beginning, and then come back with very specific… design on those… again, those phases that are shown in more blocky format. That is what we wanted to discuss. So, what is this graphic saying at the bottom, where it says Phase 1, 5 years following, Phase 2, 5 years following, and then Phase 3 and 4, 10 years following those other phases?

[146:10] What is that trying to do? a different vesting. Instead of the three years, we would start Phase 2 5 years following completion. Or we would, I think, complete it 5 years following completion of Phase 1, is that correct? So we'd start Phase 1, we'd finish it, and we'd have 5 years to complete Phase 2, and etc. So, so then a question, for the applicant. why not, since you have a Phase 3 and Phase 4, and you've clearly articulated that Phase 4 is the last bite at the apple. Why not break those apart, rather than trying to… Combine those to push them out as far as 10 years. Well, that'll be completely market dependent, and product dependent, and focus of each one of these buildings, which…

[147:05] We don't know. I mean, for example, Parcel 2 could be a senior living project, right? And Parcel 1 could be more smaller units, dedicated for, younger generation kind of, kind of products, so… We don't know at this stage what we don't know. What we're saying is that we want to plan the whole site Through the square footage, right-size all our infrastructure to support this level of development. And at the time, when we are ready to execute on these buildings on the later phases that are shown here in blue, we would come from a site review amendment, and then this body would basically review what's being submitted. So, that gives sort of a balanced check position for you guys. On a future basis. I guess my question was, everything you articulated in the presentation was around Phase 3 being built after Phase 2, or maybe simultaneously, but certainly Phase 4 is sort of the last phase, so why not break those apart as far as the 10 years? Why not do another 5 years for Phase 3 and 4 to give the…

[148:12] City and planning certain assurances that, these things are actually going to happen. We can certainly consider that. I will tell you that from our end, it's not in our best interest to sit on empty land. That is very costly for us, we're paying taxes on it, we're not generating the revenue that we need for the district, we're not generating the vibrancy. So, it is in our best interest to get these parcels built. And if it's not us, and something is going wrong over here, we probably would sell those parcels to a third party to get them built. So eventually, the market will… the market forces will dictate, and those parcels will be built. Okay, thanks. Okay, last, last, final call for questions.

[149:02] And again, if you're online, and I'm not seeing you, I'm looking… I just… Can I provide one clarifying comment? Sure. On the… I think the MU4s… Oh, yeah. Would be a very Danica move. Mu4 zoning, I think we talked earlier, and when you were asking staff, it's not just the FAR that we don't fit, it's the entertainment venues aren't an allowed use, and, there's a 15,000 square foot floor plate, so… It's really interesting, BR1 accommodates the uses and the size and scale of the buildings, but not the setbacks. MU4 accommodates, some of the more TOD aspects, the reduced setbacks, and the more TOD aspects of the project, but doesn't accommodate the uses. And that's where we started talking about flex zoning, kind of creating this Frankenstein, which, then we started to be, like. we need a new zone district, so I just wanted to clarify that they're not… both of them have very distinct qualities, and aren't perfect fits, so that… just wanted to clarify that.

[150:07] Great, thanks. Kirk. Just to follow up on that, yeah, I actually had a question. About that, did you consider the possibility of asking, since it sounded like you were asking for a special ordinance anyhow, did you consider asking for an ordinance that would just change MU4, for example? in the ways to allow it to work for you. Changing the FAR, changing the allowed uses, and changing the maximum. size. Is that something that would work, I guess? honestly seems like maybe one of the easiest paths, instead of waiting for a form-based code to be adopted or creating new zone districts. An example of where that happened, I think, when you asked staff was Diagonal Plaza. So that was an area where we did a special ordinance because we had open space standards that were driving really large units and a low density, and so there was a special ordinance. And then after that, the code changed to kind of catch up with

[151:04] And you're probably familiar with what some of the open space standards, what kind of outcomes it was driving. So that would be an example of adapting a zone district and changing some of the elements of that to, meet the goals, and in this case, we'd be meeting the goals of the TBAP. Okay. That's going to end the, Q&A with, the applicant, and if you could turn off the mic on the podium there, thank you. Okay, we're now going to open the public hearing, and some board members may want to break, I know I do, but we're going to… I think the public hearing is going to be relatively short, so we'll do that, and then… let the speakers have their say, and then we'll take a break, and then go on to, our commentary. So… Thomas, if you would help us manage the public hearing. And again, this is, we're gonna have a 3-minute time limit, and the, the subject is only agenda… this agenda item, agenda item 5A, this concept review.

[152:16] Thank you, Mark. And, to begin with, we do have one individual signed up to speak in person. We have Jan Burton. Jan, you'll have, 3 minutes to speak if you want to step up to the podium and give your comment. That's you. That's… Yeah. Okay, And just, turn on the mic, and again, do you… and just say if you have any, financial or other interest. Board. Thank you for your service. I am a resident of Boulder, and I have no financial relationship. with the applicant. However, I do sit on the Create Builder Board. Which has been mentioned in their proposal. You may or may not be aware, but over the last 10 years, there has been a very consistent effort by community members to build a performing arts center.

[153:09] And at some point, there was a committee that raised a lot of money, and it's been kind of a big effort and a big need in the community. Ultimately, it kind of culminated in a study that was, brought forward by Create Boulder. And that study was a 3-day thing where we brought in all the arts leaders and a number of architects and venue creators, et cetera, et cetera. And ultimately, they decided that our arts organizations didn't have the scale yet. And we, as a community, didn't have the money to be able to afford and build a performing arts center. Now, Conscious May attended the presentation done by our experts and listened to the community's needs. Ever since, They have been working to include Boulder's art community in this development.

[154:04] A performing arts facility will not happen if this doesn't happen. I'm very convinced of that. It would cost $100 million. We would never put it together. Performing and rehearsal space is critical. It's a critical need for our arts organizations to be able to grow. In addition to what Sundance is bringing, don't exclude the other arts organizations and their needs. Conscious Bay has listened, and they included $8,500, or sorry, 8,500 square feet of space for affordable community space. Conscious Bay's owners live here. Their kids go to school here, they serve on local non-profit boards, they really do care about the community. This is a well-designed project. With housing, transit, community, affordability, everything we ask for.

[155:04] If Boulder has lost its cool factor, and I believe it has. This project could bring it back, and that could impact the phasing of the housing. I know it will surprise you to hear that Boulder is not known for its expeditious planning process. That arduous process costs real money and puts good projects at risk of happening. Let's use this project to change our reputation. I would hope that the Planning Board would support this project unanimously to Council. And I would hope that staff will begin to look to change the zoning to match the land use, support height limits, look at pooling use reviews, and assign staff expedited timelines. Please take a look at it, and I thank you very much for your time. Thank you, and could you state your name for us, for the record? Oh, sorry, Jan Burton. Great, thank you. And that concludes our, in-person participants, so we're gonna move to…

[156:04] Anybody online that would like to speak to the public hearing, if you're here with us at… Would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand. We have one raised hand so far, we have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you'll have 3 minutes to speak, and please go ahead when you're ready. Good Lord, I always wait, because I expect there's gonna be 50 people speaking. Where is everybody? This is Sundance, this is huge! This development! is unspeakable! Not okay. Not helpful to Boulder. You know, this… good point, Georgie. The 20-year, expansion thing, you know, like, whatever that was? I was mostly on the phone dealing with my own thing of my retrofit in my place, so I'm sorry I missed a lot of stuff.

[157:03] But, you know, I know enough to know. Sundance is not helping Boulder! It's not! It's… 20 years, it's 2036, right? 2036, we're gonna be… 10 years, 10 years, right? And then they're done. And what have they done meantime? They've brought people from all over the world to visit here. And then they bring their friends here, and then they come back here to live, and to drive up our housing costs. That we're already exploited. We already have an economic crisis, right, with our budget. That's what Sundance is doing for us. It's not bringing in all this sales tax Panacea. No, it's not. This is not something we need in Boulder. When my dad came here in 1949, it was too many people!

[158:03] I'm sorry that my voice is elevated. Do I have to whisper to tell you? This is not okay. This is not benefiting me. This is not benefiting other folks in Boulder. This is hurting us. It means more LIHTC funds. It means more expulsion of low-income people to the outskirts. This means more weather vanes. Little cities out in the middle of nowhere. That kind of expansion, along with the hyperbole from Jared Polis, and the transit-oriented development, and the density pressures from the State House. You know, this is not helpful for Boulder. So… If this is not an indictment, you know, of this Sundance project, you know, and I'm sorry, in open comment, you should have stopped me, because I ended up stop… talking about Sundance, didn't I? Because I didn't realize, oh yeah, it's Anitas tonight, it is Sundance, so you shouldn't have let me speak in open comment, but you know what?

[159:12] Sundance is everywhere. It's everywhere in Boulder. It's behind everything. It's another panacea like South Boulder campus. Stop! Thank you, thanks for joining us tonight. We have no other raised hands so far, but if there's anybody else in the audience that Would like to speak to the public hearing, this is your opportunity. Otherwise, I'm gonna pass it back to the chair. Okay, thank you, Thomas. Thank you to those who spoke. That closes the public hearing, and we've been going at it for almost 3 hours. It's 8.40. We're going to have a break and come back at 8.50.

[170:22] So, now we move on to, Board commentary, and again, no votes tonight, and the applicant gets the treat of trying to decipher 7 different people's, views on something with, so, but staff helps us by giving us, The, the four key issues. And Shannon's gonna put that up on our screen. And, again, as of, as of late, We've, rather than…

[171:02] doing 4 rounds of seven, we've just done, one round where each board member, addresses the issues. And, and if you can address an issue in, brevity, that's great. And, save your remarks for where you think you, want to have the most impact, and provide the most information to the applicant. knowing that, does… has anyone… Feel prepared to start, both with their commentary and addressing the, the key issues. Oh, Mason! Okay. Yeah. And I, again, I appreciate Mason, I'm not forgetting about you, I just… different ways of… just different screens in my… On my laptop here. So, anyway, I'm glad you're going first, and have at it.

[172:05] Yeah, so, most of my comments revolve around The first and second points. So… I agree with the applicant that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I think that was the quote that they used. And, that's why it's extremely important to anchor this project on the BBCP and the TVAP. The MUTOD framework is very clear that the goal of that, use is to transform existing, and I'm quoting now, transform existing, desperate uses into a mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhood rich with amenities and services. At a concept level, what matters most to me is whether the project is structured to function as a neighborhood, not just as a collection of individual uses that may or may not fully materialize over time.

[173:01] I understand the realities of phasing and market conditions that they spoke a lot to tonight. That said, I do have concerns about a scenario where the initial phase delivers the entertainment and hotel components, while the residential elements that are central to the MUTOD vision are deferred or uncertain. From a neighborhood planning perspective, housing is not just one use among many, it is the foundation that allows transit-oriented development, local serving amenities, and strong TDM strategies to actually work. Relatedly, I'm encouraged by the applicant's commitments related to parking supply and their focus on a strong TDM strategy. As this move forward, I would strongly encourage staff to… and the applicant to treat TDM as foundational infrastructure, rather than as a mitigation measure added later in the process. Let's see here… so that's… My thoughts around number 1 and number two.

[174:04] Number 3, I… I don't really have a preferred approach. I'll be looking to… to hear more comments from staff around the solutions that they have. It looks like we're gonna go oh, sorry, I… to that new zoning district, the flex district, I'm not as concerned about this. I'm sure they'll come up with a smart solution. And I don't really have any other key issues. Thank you, Mason and Elora. Thank you. Mine will be long, so apologies in advance. So, this is a concept review, and of course, I love the overall concept. What's not to love about a project in an MUTOD area That fills the need for a performing arts venue, a practice space, adds needed hotel space, creates a walkable mixed-use neighborhood with varied housing units. In an extremely connected part of town, near future rail service, which is ripe for redevelopment and has this beautiful parks spine.

[175:11] Gorgeous, I love it all. The concept checks a lot of boxes. I did review the TVAP and TVAP2, and I agree with staff that the proposal is generally consistent with those plans, as well as the BBCP, so kudos on that. And, I also read the applicant statement with great interest. I appreciated the vision of creating, and I'm gonna lift some choice quotes here. A real Boulder neighborhood with a world-class performing arts and events venue, exceptional placemaking, an energized streetscape, and great urban design and architecture. I really look forward to seeing the final design. So here in Concept Review, we also look at the details that have been provided and give you input, especially to help you foresee anything that's not going to be smooth sailing for you if you bring it back to us in site review. So I'm going to try to address that here. I do want to say that we do this dispassionately based on our reading of the code. It does not depend on our personal feelings about how cool the project is, and it is very cool, or our personal opinions about the applicant team. All projects are special, and based on site-specific context.

[176:14] And also, all projects are not special in terms of our consistent application of the code. So here's, here's, some specific things that have been requested. This project team is asking for a lot of exemptions or flexibility. A non-comprehensive list includes partnership on a flood project, the ability to do metro district financing, which, as an aside, staff has told me previously, is not typically supported within city boundaries, maybe that is changing. Changes or exceptions to the sign code, extension of the hop, and some curb-cut exceptions for Mobility Hub, among other things. A new… potentially a new flex zoning district or special ordinance, since none of the city's current zones will accommodate every feature that they have laid out tonight. And many concessions in terms of our planning code and site review criteria, including

[177:02] Which we have not talked about all of these, but exemption from our normal community benefit cash in lieu, an extremely flexible interpretation of the criteria for height benefit, such as the courtyard requirement. The proposal to do roof lines that add detailing above the height limit, and a phasing plan that puts the applicant's most desired structures in place up front while not guaranteeing housing outcomes, which, as Mason pointed out, are central to the MU-TOD district in both the TVAP and in our land use code. And then related to that, a suggestion for a site review that leaves many of the details to be determined later. Some of this is not the purview of Planning Boards, such as the flood project, Metro District, or HOP extension, or this just came up tonight, boring geothermal under utilities, which I think I heard the applicant say would need, a code exception. So I'm not going to further comment on those. Those are up to staff and council, but I will comment on the other topics I mentioned, kind of one at a time. First, I want to say that I thought staff did a stellar job commenting on this project, and I generally support all of staff's comments, although I will defer to my more knowledgeable colleagues, especially those here in the room, who I think will have things to say about the transportation elements of the project, which is not my area of expertise.

[178:17] Sign code, just very briefly. I'm not inclined to modify the sign code for this particular project, but of course I would consider any proposal in front of us. I think to justify that, you'd have to explain why why this merits an exemption from the sign code that applies to every other building in Boulder. The Mobility Hub, it sounds like staff is working with the applicant on this, and if the team can work out a solution that they feel benefits mobility without unacceptable impacts in the form of backed-up streets and dangerous intersections, I will gladly support that. Zoning, this was a big one. It does seem like MU4 is the closest fit, and that it would be obtainable with a few modifications. I don't see the use review issue as being problematic in this location, surrounded as it is by major thoroughfares, the railroad tracks, and industrial buildings.

[179:09] And staff says that the square footage limit that Danica brought up can be modified in site review. The major hurdle seems to be the 2.0 FAR. But I do think that if the applicant addresses some of the other concerns raised by staff in the materials and those discussed here tonight. Such as the usability of open space, the building facade lengths, the appropriate courtyards for the height modification, and varied building heights and roof lines, this may naturally bring the FAR down to 2.0 for the MU4 designation. So I would like to see that explored, and that would be my preference. Given that this would be the simplest solution and seem very doable, it is also, consistent, I would note, with what's in the TBAP. So I'm not very amenable to the argument that a zoning modification beyond MU4 is required to comply with the TVAP. I don't particularly support the creation of a new zone for this project, nor do I think we need an ordinance that would basically jump the line of staff work for other things that need updating, like the East Boulder form-based code. Had to get that in there.

[180:10] Height and community benefits. I'm very glad to hear that staff will be bringing forward a code change to create a pathway so that 55-foot-tall buildings don't have to have 4 or 5 stories. It seems completely appropriate for a performing arts center to have fewer stories and still be able to achieve that height, so I'm very supportive of that. However, I am not so sure about saying that being a for-profit performing arts venue is a sufficient community benefit so that they would not have to pay the normal inclusionary housing benefit. I don't think that's a precedent that we want to set, and as staff noted in the packet, we have not yet agreed to an alternative benefit package. They can still propose it, anybody can propose it, But I would be a little reluctant. I would want to see that when that commute… that code change is brought forward to allow for those buildings to not be more than 3 stories, that it would include a way for structures like this, not just this structure, but structures like this, to pay into the affordable housing program.

[181:11] And I will say that I personally would be more apt to entertain an alternative benefit proposal if the offer were a permanent, very low-cost performance or rehearsal space for nonprofits, or if one or more of the retail spaces were designated for permanently affordable arts space. That's never been done. That would require some creativity. to figure out the details, but I think that would be very intriguing, and potentially something that we want to have in the city, in addition to always providing for the inclusionary housing benefit. Or in a, as an alternative to providing for inclusionary housing. The interpretation of the extra site review criteria for height. Including, but not limited to the building facade length and courtyard that is not elevated above the first floor. So with reference to that criterion, I am not especially flexible in my interpretation of these things.

[182:04] I would be looking for the applicant to clearly meet the site review requirements. This is always my approach for all site review projects, as I've articulated in the past. I personally generally only consider flexibility if there is some site-specific constraint that cannot be readily overcome. And project economics don't generally do that for me. Open space in general, I do agree with staff that the applicant needs to pay close attention to how open space is used, and I would point out the comment from utilities that structures, including boardwalks, playground equipment, etc, would not be allowed within the detention or water quality pond easement areas. Structures are also not allowed on top of storm sewer lines that would need to be located within the public easements. So, it seems like you have a challenge in front of you for how to share this space with, you know, as staff has pointed out, things that cannot exist. In those required spaces.

[183:00] And staff also had a really good comment about how some of these spaces are quite narrow. I talked about the Paseo potentially being very shady. If that Paseo is basically shaded all winter long, if that's what your analysis shows, then it's really not very usable with the narrow width that you have it right now. Agree with staff comments about the survivability of trees and other landscaping that needs to be paid attention to. Roofline features above 55 feet in height. I understand that the applicant is saying that this is a matter of interpretation in terms of what's allowed to hide rooftop equipment, but as George pointed out, we've never done that before, in the city. So in terms of consistency, I would have a… A pretty hard time approving what the applicant has designed here, I agree with staff's comment that varied rooflines need to be accommodated within the height limit. If we had a 40-foot height limit, people would be coming to us with the same desire to go above it. If we had a 60-foot height limit, people would be coming to us with the same desire to go above it. I think we need to accommodate the buildings

[184:02] within the height limit that was approved by voters in 1971, or try to change it, right? Like, that's an option, but so far, voters have not been willing to change that. The phasing plan, this is my last comment, the phasing plan and the scope of site review, as has been pointed out, I think there's a lot of concern on this board about the idea that the phasing… The vested period is so long, and the phasing period basically doesn't guarantee that we would get any residential, and especially in light of Hela's comment that the board needs to consider each phase could be the last phase, right? And so I would advise the applicant to take that into consideration when you come back for site review. I understand why you want the flexibility, But from long experience with negotiation, I can say that giving one party basically all of the things they most want up front is not a good negotiation strategy for the other party.

[185:00] I would like to see the applicant come back with a proposal that gets us to residential much more quickly. So all of that said, you know, the devil's in the details. I think you have a wonderful, wonderful project. I look forward to being able to approve it at Site Review, and I hope that the comments here are helpful for you to be able to bring us something that we can very easily say yes to. Thank you so much. Thanks, Laura. Who's ready? Kirk? Well, first of all, thank you to my colleagues for their comments. I think I agree with most of what I've heard already. From Mason and Laura, so that's great. I'll go through these, and then… The applicant actually had a bunch of very specific questions that I think they wanted feedback on, so I want to respond to those. So, starting off with key issue number one, I agree with Laura, and I think Mason also said this is a fantastic project. Overall, the concept is wonderful. We… I… it seems like a, thing that…

[186:16] overall is very consistent with MUTOD. land use and with the TVAP. So I'm very happy with that, and I think it will be, a great benefit to the city. In terms of the comp plan, the one main consideration or concern that I have is, regards to the Transportation Master Plan, and that, the connection on the east side… sorry, the west side of Foothills highway, to the south that I asked about, the multi-use path. I do think it's really important that that get constructed, and I think if it's not constructed as part of this project.

[187:00] it won't get constructed. One of the big constraints on this site, as I'm sure you know, is access to the south and west. There's just no way to get across the… the… the… that long expanse of the railroad tracks. I mean, currently there is. When I went there and I was looking around. then I was going to King Soopers, so I did what any reasonably rational person would do, and I… Across the river tracks. But don't tell BNSF that. And that obviously will not be possible after this, because there'll be fencing and so on, but, providing that access to the south, I think, is really important, because otherwise. People who are, walking or biking would have to either go to the east side of Foothills. to get on the existing multi-use path there, or go all the way up to Junction Place. So having something that's a little more intermediate, I think, is really important. There's a reason why that went into the Transportation Master Plan, and I think it should be part of this plan.

[188:08] Key issue number two I will get to, because there's a lot of that in… in the questions from the applicant. In terms of the rezoning, I think that I heard Laura say that her preference would be… to modify MU4, and I certainly agree with that. I… I don't want to see… our zoning code is already so complicated. I don't want to see another zone district, or the flex thing, which… when people are looking, oh, what's allowed in this zone? It's going to be really unclear. So, I would, if it's at all possible, I would say we should modify MU4, in order to make this a success. And that would set, also a precedent for the future.

[189:02] Okay, so then some specific things. So, in terms of the feedback items that were requested, well, the first one was about the zoning, so I talked about that. The phasing and vesting plan, yeah, I agree that that is a really key question, it's a really key concern, and we don't want to end up with With a great event space and no housing. Obviously, you don't want to end up with that either, but, but I think that as a city, we need some… to have some… some… figure out some way to have some control over that. So… I don't… I don't have an answer, but it is definitely going to be a concern as this comes back through site review. In terms of the height exemption, I… I guess… I think maybe I have a slightly different take than Laura on this.

[190:06] It seems to me, as I read the… certainly the charter, that what is being requested is consistent with the charter. It may not be consistent with the code, but that is something that I think would be appropriate to be changed. In terms of the appurtenances and so on. I definitely agree with changing the, To allow for, going to 55 feet for… for… for less than is super complicated. Talk to Voodoo Donuts about that. But, I agree. Certainly the very large sign that's being requested, I think the… The, the, the application talked about, oh, people need to be able to see it from foothills.

[191:04] I'm not sure about that, so I am less, less amenable, I guess, to changes, to the sign code. As I think Laura was. The staff… expressed some serious concerns about the design of the mobility hub, and how it would affect mobility on Pearl Parkway, and the effectiveness of the hop, and I agree that that is a big concern. I think that the mobility hub, as it's currently designed, is not the it's not going to be very successful, and it's actually detrimental to the effectiveness of Pearl Parkway. You talked about, potentially mimicking the, the sort of frontage road, design that's west of the railroad tracks.

[192:02] I think that that also has not been super successful, but I think that that potentially might be better than the mobility hub design. So I think that needs some more work. There was a question about the mid-block crossings. This hasn't come up, but, I support the mid-block crossing. That's east of the railroad tracks. The one right at the railroad tracks, staff… raised, I think, very reasonable concerns about. I think that is not… It would be great to have it there, but it would not be appropriate. The other one, I think, would be very appropriate. However, I think the code requires that you showed in your application that it be a hawk. And what you have in the renderings is not a hawk, it's an RFB. And a hawk is going to be much more prominent, you know, so just…

[193:06] Be aware of that. you asked about reducing speeds on Pearl Street. I think that, yeah, it would be great to reduce the existing speeds, but I agree with staff that what you have designed there is still not… it's not a design speed of 25 miles per hour. It's not going to ensure that people actually travel at 25 miles per hour. Steph pointed out that the DCS allows for 10-foot 10 and 11 foot, lanes. on a street with transit, and 9 and 10 on a street without, and that would help. I mean, you're showing 11 and 11. But the nearer the lanes are, the better. And, putting some… some trees right close, significant trees right along the street will, I think, help.

[194:04] In an ideal world, the traffic counts there are 21,000 per day, which actually is within the threshold that would allow for a 4-3 conversion, but, you guys probably don't want to go there and… Probably the city doesn't want to either. The additional curb cuts, you're showing a 3… Movement, three, three, yeah, three movements allowed at the… West… private street access. That, since it crosses the multi-use path there, I… In my experience, it's very… concerning to have both an exit across the multi-use path, because people tend to queue across the multi-use path, especially when you've got, you know, several thousand people potentially leaving the venue after a concert or something like that. They all want to get out, they're waiting for traffic on Pearl Street.

[195:13] And they potentially are going to block the multi-use path. So I think that that's concerning. Also, the left the left turn in is concerning. We have that design, unfortunately, now at Grandview, at the convention center there, where it's crossing the multi-use path on the east side of Broadway, and So far, No one has been killed there. But it's a… it's a dangerous design, and I think that that is not… it's not something that I would support. There were… there was questions about reducing the bike parking, The… the… reducing the bike parking…

[196:02] From 2 to 1 for studio and 1 bedroom units seems like it might be appropriate not for the larger units. There was also a question about the short-term bike parking placement, and I think that that really depends on the details. Potentially, it would… it would be doable, but, yeah. Would need to see specifically where things are being placed. And I would urge you to think about whether you could further narrow the private streets that you have there. It seems to me that they're largely… I understand that you want to use them as… for access to and from the venue. But in general, people are going to be coming in before an event and going out after an event, and so it seems to me that they could probably be designed successfully as queuing streets. Which would allow them to be narrower. It would, give you more design flexibility.

[197:04] And, and would still be functional, because in general, you wouldn't have large amounts of traffic going in both directions simultaneously. So, I would urge you to think about that. There's an access street… typology in the DCS, which calls for, I think, 26 feet, curb face to curb face. And I think that, or… including parking, and that, or even less, could be successful, in this case. And again, yeah, just… Would allow less, Less impervious surface and more design flexibility. So overall, I, I agree with pretty much all the staff comments about transportation. Except,

[198:01] Yeah, except for the last one, which was comment S about not building the multi-use path on the west side of Foothills. I already talked about that. I think that that covers all my comments. Yeah, if I come up with more, I will let you know. Thank you. Thanks, Kurt. George, I saw your hand up. Yeah, sure. I'm gonna try to make mine pretty quick, and, I want to… basically 2X Laura's comments. So, rather than say what Laura said. just count me down for all of that, because I think she articulated that very well, and I was supportive of basically everything she said. There were a few things

[199:04] That I wanted to underscore, and a few additional things that I wanted to bring up. One of the things that I wanted to underscore was this 55-foot height Charter limit. That's a hard, mandated maximum in Boulder. And while this charter allows for limited appurtenances and associated shielding. Those allowances do not authorize the extension of roof lines, building mass, or the features that would normally be construed as part of the building above 55 feet. The proposed approach extending the roof lines above 55 feet has no precedence in anything that we've done in Boulder. and is inconsistent with long-standing interpretations of the Charter, and has been expressly raised as a concern in prior design review proceedings. I recall even when… I think it was a Conscience Bay project that came in on Walnut with,

[200:07] Huh. With a, science, life sciences building, which is a gorgeous, project, and… and we discussed. this, and how the roof lines needed to fit within… under their specific limits for that particular project, and how they were articulated, and even Conscious Bay acknowledged that that was the case. And so, I think this is a firm, and already, deliberated type of item, and I would, again, echo what Laura said, which is, one, I think these things can shake out through the FAR and design of the project, when you look at it from an MU4 standpoint, but also, if we want to change the height limits in Boulder, put it to a vote, in the charter, but, it's… it's not appropriate, in this project or others based on,

[201:12] past interpretations, and, and how the charter is set up, and what people are expecting. In Boulder. And so, if you want to vary rooflines, I suggest, keeping it within that 50-foot height limit. You have… you have a lot of different flexibility when you do that. the, when it… as it gets to the, I believe the zoning of MU4 is probably the most appropriate, as Laura had said, so I just wanted to echo that, that I think, I'm happy to hear that the… that the number of stories within the Performing Arts Center, can get potentially solved by staff versus the height. I think that's appropriate.

[202:01] I think it's a great project overall. I'm… I'm… it's not necessarily our purview, but I am very concerned about, no-for-sale residential. So that's a… that's a personal comment around, there's a… this is a great Boulder neighborhood, potentially, and it would be great if Boulder citizens could own in this neighborhood in one form or fashion. And finally, as has already been discussed, the phasing, I'm concerned that residential neighborhoods may or may never get built. I'm also concerned that the promise of an active Paseo gets stunted by, the second phase only getting built, and then, the other side of that. I understand the Paseo itself will get built. But, the other side of the commercial and retail uses and how that all comes together may not get built for a decade to come after that. And so, I would encourage the developer to look at

[203:10] ways that you might be able to create that active Paseo corridor in the first phase, and that might take some reimagining of how this thing, gets built, but it sounds like you already have a way to break apart the hotel. And the residential on, the pad of, what I believe was Parcel 3, so I would encourage you to look at that. Outside of that, I think enough has been said in Laura's comments that I would echo, and so thank you, and thanks for presenting an overall great project to us. Okay, ML.

[204:00] Great, thanks. So, I'm gonna… agree with, just about everything that's been said, and so, given all that detail, and I support it, I'm not going to elaborate, I have a few brief comments, on number one. I'll acknowledge that the zoning and phasing brings a lot of complexity, and with it, unknowns. I would be concerned with the project that did not establish all the requirements of the guiding documents in a timely manner. People have talked about, you know, the residential, lingering after the performing arts and hotel. So, I am concerned about that. But I do appreciate the proposed site program, and appreciate the intent of an art district. Number 2… I'll make some general comments here, just about the site plan. I find the landscaping proposal intriguing.

[205:05] I think this component of outdoor interface shows a lot of promise, and I also appreciate the thoughtful, intentional experiences as proposed. Number 3, I'm in agreement that MU4 seems to be the most promising. I don't think we have to invent a special district here. So my primary comment will be around number 4, and I'll make the comment directed to placemaking. So, as I said before, I'm in agreement with the direction of the interstitial spaces. My concerns are about the architecture, which is kind of rare. I generally don't talk about the architecture. But you make a big deal about placemaking, and it being about Boulder. What is shown in your application seem to be a collection of, somewhat forgettable urban buildings. These could be anywhere.

[206:02] Just saying, this could be because of the… all the unknowns. But if you're keen on developing this into a true Boulder place. You're building in and evolving. in an evolving industrial area. So, my suggestions would be for you to look at context. This is a long-time industrial area, and perhaps that should inform specific placemaking. You're also dealing with real water issues. Maybe water management can be expressed in an experientially brilliant way. I saw some hopeful things in the landscape. Maybe translate some of that to the building. And you claim sustainability will be redefined. I see the PV panels plopped on the roof. So you might want to, in fact, create architecture with them as well, because True sustainability is not a one-liner, it's integrated multifunctionality.

[207:02] So these are just a few comments about the buildings themselves, but overall, I think that the intent of the project and the siting and the way you are creating the user experience are all very promising. Clearly, your team has a lot of talent, and I look forward to the development of this proposal. Thank you, Amel. Claudia, you're next. I guess it's my turn. I will say up front, this is a very complex proposal, I acknowledge that, and I'm not going to get into as many details as some of my colleagues. So, forgive me, I may leave out things that are important to you and perhaps to me, but here's what I have. So, with regards to question number one, compatibility with our BBCP and transit Village Area Plan. I do want to say, I think this concept checks almost all of the boxes for compact, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development.

[208:06] That we're looking for in the BBCP, and also in this area of the TVAP. I also want to point out it addresses BBCP economic policies around industry clusters. tourism and support for the arts, we've called out those things in the BBCP as well. And finally, it proposes providing a regional anchor for what our plans indicate should evolve into a new urban center in Boulder. So I think it's… well in line with all of those. I want to say one caution on plan compatibility. At the time of site review, when you come back, if the applicant wants to get quote-unquote credit for providing a mixture of housing types. or housing for a mixture of household types, I would expect to see that better articulated through site and building design elements at site review. I don't know if that's compatible with the phasing plan, as we've been discussing, but I would want to see your analysis of the BVCP match with what is actually being presented.

[209:07] Question 2. On the site plan and building design. I usually focus these comments on site plans, around producing what I perceive to be a high-quality public realm, and so I just want to call out a few things here, that I've been thinking about with this proposal. I appreciate the design elements like the Paseo that keep cars out of the center of this development. I would really urge you to go further there if you can. We talked some about that area along the rail corridor. And if that is intended to be public realm, that there should be design, Circulation should be designed, streetscapes should be designed to discourage traffic through that area, even if you're required to maintain that for emergency access. So, I would suggest things like consider controlling access to that particular road. Don't design parking spaces into it, but just to say we'll be looking for high-quality open space at site review, and that strip looks like it's going to be an important part of it.

[210:16] A strong public realm also should not have empty storefronts, so to the extent that zoning allows, whatever is worked out, with the city. Make sure that there is a proposal that ensures activation at the street level on all of those interior and exterior corridors. And I do hear some of the concerns about the phasing of the Paseo in that regard. Also, as a board, we have discussed at various times the merits of and requirements for ground level versus elevated open spaces. And so we are seeing some of those elevated open spaces in this preliminary design. I think there are potentially site-specific reasons for that. If that's the case, I would encourage you to articulate that at site review, but also look for ways to connect those elevated spaces to ground-level open spaces.

[211:09] a comment on transportation. I think the changes that you're talking about to Pearl Parkway are a huge part of the success of this design, if it goes through. At build-out, this concentration of uses and activity will, I think, despite the best multimodal and TDM planning. they will produce a significant amount of vehicle traffic, all coming to this one site, right? And I think it's really important to look for ways to make that traffic flow safer. To make it less hostile to humans. So, reducing speeds, absolutely. Adding signal control where possible, investing in safe crossings, and really exploring what we can do with transit connections here are important. The, the memo also mentioned some challenges. With queuing at the railroad crossing, as identified in the traffic study, I think that's going to be an issue with any development that kind of satisfies this mixed-use TOD place type in this area, so I think it is something worth working through for this proposal.

[212:15] And then question 3 on the approach to rezoning. So my thoughts on this are… First of all, we approved the second phase of TVAP more than 2 years ago, and we have not in that time developed compatible zoning for mixed-use transit-oriented development, and as staff said, it's not immediately on the horizon. I think the onus in this case is for us to be flexible here, and if I understand the pathways laid out correctly, I think that points towards a special ordinance. I think it is a bit of a mess to do that with a proposal already in the pipeline, I recognize that. There may be pressure to define zoning in a way that makes everything the applicant is asking for possible.

[213:02] There might also be pressure to find fault, right, and to make rules to specifically remedy those faults, and I don't think either of those approaches is something we want to be doing. So I don't know that we, as a planning board, really have any power to push the city to adopt a particular approach here. I would just ask… that we remember what the intent of TVAP was and is, that is, to create active, high-density, mixed-use areas in this connected place of the city. And to really work to find an approach that regulates what matters to that, and that lets go of what does not. I think it is particularly important that whatever we adopt here for zoning rules, whatever pathway we take, there should be enough flexibility to allow for creative and or iconic architecture at that performing arts facility. A city the size of Boulder does not get many opportunities for highly visible community hub buildings.

[214:01] like an event center. Our code doesn't anticipate them. I think that's understandable, right? We don't do that very often, but I think it would be a real loss to try to put a singular structure like that into a highly prescriptive box. And I worry about that, actually, with talking about doing MU4 zoning across that entire site, to be honest. We have a chance to do something different here. So I think then to sum up my comments. It goes something like this. Given the flux in this area, given the kind of in-between state of regulations at the moment, my comments mostly come down to, we should be able to have a performing arts center And a mixed-use village. In one of our highest intensity districts of Boulder. And when our existing codes can't imagine that, we should try to figure out how to make it work. Our code was not built for special-purpose buildings, it was not built for large mixed-use zones. I want to call that out as a barrier to getting innovative development, and not as something that we should continue to dig into in an area that we have clearly, as a city, over the course of two decades, identified for change. So, my suggestion is for flexibility here.

[215:16] Thank you, Claudia, I… she has said… Claudie has said what I want to say, and just with more detail and better. When I look at this project, and I think. about… the vision… the vision that is in our current BVCP. Our current BBCP, and I hope… I hope the next iteration, and I suspect it will, has a lot of aspirational language. About what we want to see. And I think that, we can't punish the good deeds of creative design and creative elements that…

[216:08] Without, Without someone really wanting this, and really caring about this, and seeing a vision, we could end up with another… another well-developed area with significant housing, and it would be completely forgettable. And we would, rely on our minimal other event spaces, either on campus or the dairy or whatever, that don't really fulfill the kind of artistic vision that… the BBCP and our arts organizations and our arts community, desire, and in fact, deserve. and our artists here in town deserve. So, for the first question, I, I fully think it fulfills, as Claudia said, checks all the boxes for the BBCP and, and TVAP plan.

[217:06] And I also want to mention that this board In our last meeting, disapproved. A service area expansion plan study. into Area 3, partly on the basis That we wanted to focus on infill development. Not in Area 3. No, gee, no, we have plenty to do right here. This is infill development. at its… at its best. And, and we also said, gee, we don't want to develop Area 3 with just more of the same. This is not more of the same. This is infill development with a difference. And I'm not a cheerleader here, but, you know, again, we have to acknowledge when something special comes before us, and I think accommodate that.

[218:00] On the site design and building design, consistency with the site review criteria. First of all, this is concept review. This is the most complete set of documentation that I've seen. Ever, at a concept review. Usually, we're, we're struggling, with… Outlines of buildings, and… vagueness and subject to interpretation, and I commend the applicant for coming to us with a wildly detailed concept review. I enjoy the way that they have oriented the buildings to the south. I enjoy the way they have eroded them and created spaces, and understand that those spaces are not at ground level, and they can't be because of the parking, and we just can't have… we can't have all things. We've got to accommodate some things, and when we eliminate parking minimums, then parking gets determined by lenders and,

[219:07] You know, tax increment, financing, and so forth, and so we put the open spaces where they're best used and most accessible, and that's above the parking. I appreciate the street cross-sections, and it's time for our DCS to catch up so that we don't have this back and forth between private streets and public streets, and access on, private streets, and concerns about, you know, closing off of private streets, and so It's time that our code and our DCS catch up with our goals. period. you know, also, we've talked about we want, on one hand, we want narrow streets with slow speeds. On the other hand, we don't want streets that are shaded. Well.

[220:01] Again, this is, this is, you just don't, you can't design, narrow streets, tall buildings, good density, and not have shade. You know, shade happens. And, you know, two-thirds, this time of year. The, the southern two-thirds of the downtown mall is in shade, and we have people that remove snow, and spread sand, and snow melt. And it works great. And if you go to Vail, if you go to a ski town, they deal with snow, they deal with shade. It's just part of the deal. And so, we have to say, what do we want? Do we want narrow streets? Do we want intimate spaces, or do we want… big, wide roads that are unshaded. Well, I'll take the narrow streets and, and maintenance in regard to shade. The other parts of the, code… That, I think,

[221:07] You know, we have, yes, we have enshrined a 55-foot height limit, and we have allowed Wildly ugly, ridiculous screening to extend 10, 15 feet above our 55-foot-high buildings. to hide or not really hide. mechanical apportnesses. And so here we have Someone who is creatively trying to use the code to fit within the charter and fit within the code to create roof forms that are much more interesting, and in fact, you know, can actually be part of the aesthetic beauty of a building. And we're, you know, and… and… The idea of telling them, no, go back to a, you know, a 6-inch wide block strip across the top of a flat roof, and then put up a 15-foot-tall

[222:08] screen… That gets seen as soon as you're you know, 100 feet away from the site, or from Foothills Parkway, or anywhere else. That's really, to me, very wrong-headed. And, so, I think that this is an opportunity for us to examine our code and say, not how do we change the charter, but how do we interpret the code to allow for creativity and allow for good design. I also, like Claudia, support a zoning district, and I'm a supporter of the BBCP map changes that are simplifying things. And if we have to get rid of a zone to create a new zone. That's fine. But we need to acknowledge that here we've got something special.

[223:06] And it doesn't fit with anything we've got on the books. And, we need to make something new in this case. And a new zone, if we need to do something different to do that, if we need to eliminate another zone, great. But we need to acknowledge that we've got an opportunity here, and we need to, use it well, versus Force-fitting it into, our existing code and saying, why do we always end up with the same damn thing? So, and then I don't really have other key issues that haven't been addressed, but, I, I commend the applicant, and I think it's an opportunity for the arts community, it's an opportunity to show the way of what can happen in Area 3, and, I, I, I hope we, get to see this, and, and sure.

[224:04] I hope it doesn't take 20 years, but, you know, a lot of things that are great took a long time to build. So… That concludes my comments. Yep. So I wanted to, ask Kurt for a clarification, and I also wanted to clarify one of the comments that I made. I, I mentioned that I don't, tend to be very flexible about my interpretation of code. I want to acknowledge that I do think that an iconically designed performing arts center with things like, it doesn't have a courtyard in the middle, and it doesn't have as many windows, I think that the code can accommodate that. So when I say I'm not flexible, I'm not saying that we can't have an iconic performing arts center that does what a performing arts center needs to do. I was more talking about the other three buildings that are the more typical residential and hotel buildings that we see. That is where I would want to see, you know, very, very clear adherence to the standards the way that we have been interpreting them. But I do think that the event center is a bit different, as my colleagues have pointed out.

[225:05] And my understanding is that MU4 could accommodate that with the change that staff has proposed in terms of, updating the code for buildings less than 4 stories tall to be able to be 55 feet. that MU4 will accommodate building floor plates that are larger than 15,000 square feet, that there's a way to do that within our existing MU4, which sounds like it is. And that this kind of performing arts center is achievable in MU4 with a use review. Is that correct? That is not correct. I thought that it was achievable with a use review. It's the question about the use. Yes, can you have a performing arts center in MU4 with a use review? My understanding is it's the use is considered indoor commercial, which I believe is allowed with a use review. I can triple check.

[226:03] In the code. Okay. If… if a performing arts center is not allowed in MU4, then of course MU4 is not the appropriate zone. But my assumption in making my comments was that a performing arts center would be allowed with a use review, as well as all the other uses that they have proposed, could be accommodated with a use review, which is pretty typical. So that's… that's my basis for saying I think our existing MU4 could accommodate this project. I think the big barrier is just that they want more FAR than MU4 allows, by a small amount. And I already talked about why I think that's not as big of a barrier. But Kurt, the clarification I wanted to ask you was, are you saying we should use our existing MU4, or you're saying that we should do some kind of a code change to MU4 to make MU4 in general accommodate this kind of thing? The latter. You're saying the latter. The latter. I think it would be completely appropriate to change the allowable FAR, for instance, in MU4 to be 2.2. If that's what is needed in order to get good projects like this, then I think we don't want it just here, we want it

[227:11] everywhere MU4 is, and I see no problem with adding to the use table for MU4 the… whatever the appropriate use is here, performing arts, venue, whatever. So, I'm talking about changing, tweaking the code. in a couple of minor ways, in order to make MU4… to make this work in MU4. Okay, so I just want to clarify that is not what I was saying, but I hear your point, and I think it is… a valid point that could be considered? Or should be considered. Thank you. So, back to staff, I think you were trying to figure out if this use is allowable in MU4 with a use review? It is. We're just struggling with some different definitions, but it would be considered indoor commercial recreation, through the definition, and it would be allowed through use review.

[228:02] I was getting tripped up because we have a definition now for small theater rehearsal space, and I was conflating the two, but… So in MU4, it would be permitted use, through use review. Okay, with that clarification from staff, I think my comment stands that I think MU4 is appropriate. And I would look forward to the applicant working with staff to figure out the best way to do that, if that is indeed the direction this goes. Okay, everyone's gotten a bite at the apple, is there something that needs to be… Said that hasn't been said? Okay, hearing none, I'm going to close agenda item 5A. Oh, okay, yeah, I'm sorry, thank you, applicant, if you want to take a brief minute or two to, Discuss anything that you heard, please do so. It's just a really important clarification. We spent a lot of time thinking about this. The events… there's a… uses that are not allowed… there's an event center that is a use that is not allowed. Event Center. So we thought this would be an event center, and that's not allowed, but if, in fact, it is indoor

[229:12] Commercial recreation, that is an allowed use by use review, but an event center is not an allowed use. That is allowed in BR1, I believe. Is it… Specifically, what definition are you referring to? Because I'm not aware of any event center definitions. theater slash event center? I think we have that. I hope… If it's indoor commercial, we… that's great. It is a use… allowed use by use review. I don't know that this is gonna get settled tonight. No, I… And it's an allowed use through use review. Okay. So, yeah, okay. Well, I'm happy to talk. with the applicant offline about that. You have your assurance.

[230:02] Okay. Does the applicant… do you have any other… again, you heard some very divergent comments here, so I don't know how you synthesized those, but anyway… You guys were very concise and very helpful, we think. Took lots of notes. So I don't… we don't have any further comments or clarification. We appreciate the time you spent tonight. It was a really important For us to spend this time with you, so thank you so much, and thank you to staff. I also want to pile on the thank yous, like everybody, but I think, Mark, you nailed it. This is truly once in a lifetime. We've set some goals for the site. We've set some goals for this area plan. And it's gonna require a lot of creativity and a lot of will from all of us to make it happen. And our goal is to remove as many barriers as possible so that we can execute this project as quickly as possible and take advantage of the timing, take advantage of the fact that the community needs it. We need the economic benefit as well that this will bring. And not to mention, Sundance. Sundance is waiting for this piece of infrastructure. This could be one of the reasons that they stay longer in town, and the sooner we deliver it, the sooner that we can all enjoy it.

[231:13] So, I would really invite you all to figure out how do we get to a yes on all these things. We're just trying to do a great project here. There might be some things that are unorthodox, but we are just trying to do a great project for the citizens of Boulder. So, thanks for your time, and thanks for all the feedback given today. Okay, thank you. Okay, that closes, Agenda Item 5A. We move on to item, 6, which is matters from the Planning Board. I'm gonna go in this order. Planning Board, any matters from the Board? Okay? Laura? Just a question about whether that fourth Tuesday, do we know if that's going to be… February 24th? Yes. Yeah, we're gonna go ahead and cancel it. We won't have any items for that night. You're gonna cancel it? Okay, thank you.

[232:01] And can I, can I ask a similar question about March 24th? that I… it's too, too far out for me to say we may have items, so… but if we don't, I'll let… you'll be the first to know. Okay, great, thank you. I just wanted to add, I think March 17th is the week of spring break. I believe that's the meeting that we would probably be looking at potentially canceling in March. We're gonna try really hard to not schedule anything during the week of spring break. So we may very well need that meeting on the 24th to offset that. Okay. Any matters from the planning director? No. Okay. Alright, and how about our, city attorney? For me, either, thank you. Okay. Now, we did just do a calendar check, so, we've got that one, that's, that's item 7.

[233:04] And, is there anything else from anyone else Before we move on to item 8, which is adjournment. Okay, thanks to staff tonight, thanks to the applicant, and to the board for a careful reading of a big project. Okay, we're adjourned. Thank you, good night. Can I…