2026-09-22 - Planning Board

00:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We're ready to begin when you are.

00:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Fantastic. Welcome, everybody, to this September 22nd meeting of the City of Boulder Planning Board. I'm the chair, Laura Kaplan. We'll do just a real quick roll call here. To my right, far right, viewers left, is Board Member Kurt Nordbach, followed by Claudia Hansen-Theem, our Vice Chair.

00:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): To my left, viewers right, Mason Roberts and Max Lord. We also have Board Member L. Robles online, and I think we are expecting Board Member McIntyre to come, shortly.

00:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But he is not here yet.

00:40Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We do, however, have our quorum.

00:43Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, this meeting is hereby called to order, and we have one item on the agenda tonight, a public hearing for the Pearl Arts District. So, if you are here to testify about that, there will be a public hearing for that later in the agenda, and welcome, Mark, so we have a full house of board members.

01:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But we will start our meeting with public participation, in which members of the public may speak to the board about any matter under our jurisdiction that is not tonight's public hearing.

01:13Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And for that public participation, I think I'm turning it over to Vivian Castro-Woldrich, who's joining us online, to manage the public participation portion of the agenda.

01:23Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Thomas, for pulling up the slides. If you could just go back.

01:27Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: A little bit.

01:29Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Great! So, I will, as Chair mentioned, just go through these rules of public participation, which apply to everyone participating in person, online.

01:38Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: And wanted to just start by sharing that this vision I'll be sharing was co-created with community members to create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations.

01:49Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: 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 it on our website.

02:04Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: And I'll share some examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this Productive Atmospheres vision, and all of these will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

02:24Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: 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, which will be next or later, for the Pearl Arts Redistricting,

02:39Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Public hearing that participants Introduce themselves with their first and last name.

02:45Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Next slide, please. And if you're joining us online, you can raise your virtual hand so that we know you'd like to speak. If you're joining by phone, you can do that by dialing star 9, and when you raise your hand, we'll just call on you in the order that you've raised your hand.

03:02Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: So we can move to open comment, which Chair Lohr mentioned that is for items not related to the public hearing that will be later on in the meeting, but this would be the time if you'd like to address the Planning Board on any other topic. And I will start by asking if there's anybody in the room who would like to

03:21Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Speak during open comment, Thomas.

03:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Vivian. We didn't have any sign-ups in the room for open comment, but if there's anyone in the room that would like to speak to anything.

03:30Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Not on tonight's agenda, this is your opportunity.

03:33Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): And seeing none, we'll go ahead to online participants.

03:37Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Great, so if you are joining us online, thanks for being here, and please go ahead and raise your hand if you would like to participate, in open comment. We will start with Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you have 3 minutes, please go ahead.

03:51lynn segal: Yeah, this town has got a big problem.

03:59lynn segal: I was at a candidates forum, On September 8th.

04:04lynn segal: Last year, and Rachel Friend lied that I followed and shoved her.

04:10lynn segal: This is a big deal. I got two misdemeanors from her. One from Jessica Benjamin, Matt's wife, for following.

04:21lynn segal: And these are complete lies.

04:25lynn segal: And…

04:29lynn segal: I had a sign. It said, Jen Robbins and Sam Weaver want to sell your freedom to Xcel Energy.

04:38lynn segal: And they also got the police to lie that it had nothing to do with my sign, which was stolen.

04:45lynn segal: by people that locked it in Laura Spaulding's car, Lisa's sister.

04:50lynn segal: I don't know if it was just happened to be in her car, but I had to wait 2 hours to find it, and I missed a de-escalization talk at the Jewish Community Center. This is so not okay, that this kind of thing can happen in this community.

05:10lynn segal: political events that are going on. And…

05:14lynn segal: You know that I talk to you every time there's a planning board meeting.

05:19lynn segal: about… Affordability.

05:24lynn segal: And how it doesn't happen here.

05:27lynn segal: And I found out today that Achilles.

05:31lynn segal: And I had heard about this back a while ago, about the Iris Ball Fields and Mapleton Academy. And you know, what happened, Laura Kaplan? What happened?

05:43lynn segal: With Fujafs, Remember? That was supposed to be affordable housing.

05:48lynn segal: That never happened.

05:50lynn segal: Well now, Mapleton Academy is putting in some affordable housing in the county.

05:56lynn segal: and Achilles.

05:59lynn segal: Well, he's laughing all the way to the bank during this election, because he helped set up that deal to keep the Iris fields.

06:08lynn segal: But what's the price we paid?

06:11lynn segal: You know, what is the price we're paying? You know what you pay at Frazier? $700,000. Non-refundable.

06:19lynn segal: To live in that place.

06:22lynn segal: And when you die, you don't get it back.

06:25lynn segal: At Mapleton Academy, you pay a million bucks.

06:30lynn segal: For a much smaller place.

06:33lynn segal: And you'd get 85% of it back.

06:36lynn segal: And you pay 10,000 bucks a month.

06:39lynn segal: Or, for the penthouse, $40,000 a month. You know, what does this say about the missing middle in Boulder? I'll tell you, it says, goodbye, missing middle. There's no heirs that are getting any money here from these seniors.

06:56Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you, Lynn, for being here.

06:58Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: I don't see any other hands raised, but please go ahead and raise your virtual hand if you would like to speak.

07:05Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: For open comment… Okay, I see no other hands, so back over to you, Chair. Thank you.

07:13Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Vivian, and thank you, Lynn, for your testimony tonight.

07:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, the public participation item on our agenda, item 2, is now closed. Item 3, approval of minutes. We have no minutes to approve tonight. Item 4, we have no call-up items tonight, which brings us to our public hearing item, item 5.

07:32Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I am going to read the title, and it is a long one, and then I'm going to ask members of the planning board if you have any ex parte communications to disclose, or conflict of interest to talk about.

07:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, item 5A, public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding a request to rezone 14.84 acres of land located at 3550 and 3850 Frontier Avenue and the adjacent right-of-way.

08:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): From the Industrial Service 1, which is IS1, Industrial Service 2, IS2, and Industrial General, or IG, zoning districts, to the Mixed Use 4 MU-4 zoning district, as described in Chapter 9-5,

08:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Modular Zone System BRC 1981. And, amending the standards of Title IX Land Use Code, BRC 1981,

08:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): To establish a maximum floor area ratio of 3.5, and a maximum permitted building height of 55 feet for parcels in the rezoning area, and setting forth related details. Reviewed under application LUR2026-000.

08:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): 2-4.

08:43Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So that is our public hearing item tonight.

08:46Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Planning board members, anyone have something to disclose related to conflict of interest or ex parte communications?

08:52Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark.

08:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Madam Chair and Hawa.

08:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): This item, as I understand it, is advisory and legislative, and in fact, it is not quasi-judicial. Can you please clarify that?

09:10Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): A rezoning application for individual or small areas are quasi-judicial.

09:16Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): in nature, so I consider there to be two aspects to this request. One is a quasi-judicial rezoning request, although Planning Board is not the decision maker on that application, but a recommending body.

09:30Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And then a second request for modifications to the standards of the MU4 zoning district as they apply in the rezoning area, and that I consider legislative in nature.

09:44Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you for that clarification, Hela, and thank you for that question mark.

09:47Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): In light of that answer, Sure.

09:52Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): just to be on the safe side of everything. I have had, discussions about

10:02Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Both the ordinance, which is legislative.

10:06Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And this matter, the, rezoning, with, Mayor Brockett, Quality, handsome theme.

10:18Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Kurt Nordbach.

10:19Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): In regard to this matter prior to the meeting.

10:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mark. And Hela, is anything else required, given that disclosure?

10:38Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Can you describe the conversation that… Or head, so that… Everybody knows.

10:47Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Of course, I initiated those discussions, although subsequent calls back and forth.

10:53Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I initiated those on the belief that, in fact.

10:59Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): This was legislative and advisory and not quasi-judicial.

11:05Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And the, and I can't…

11:12Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I can't discuss too much, because some of that

11:16Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Some of the topics that we discussed were part of a confidential memo that you originated, so I'm not going to discuss that.

11:26Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): But my understanding was that as parties.

11:31Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): to any CAO confidential memo that we were able to discuss that,

11:40Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Memo amongst the parties that were named in the memo.

11:59Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): then I advise you, as it relates to the quasi-judicial aspect of the matter, that per the Boulder Revised Code.

12:08Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): No ex parte material, a representation of any kind, or any other communication outside the hearing should be considered in making your decision. So anything that you learned outside of the hearing that's not part of the hearing record and

12:23Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): making your determination on the facts related to the quasi-judicial rezoning, you cannot consider. It doesn't sound like that's what the communication was about.

12:34Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I would agree with that assessment, and again, the focus, I believe, was on,

12:42Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The content of the memo and how it related.

12:46Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): to the hearing.

12:47Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And can you be fair and impartial in this matter and make your decision based on…

12:53Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): The application and facts that will be in the record by the time

12:56Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): the board makes a recommendation? Yes.

12:59Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

13:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Hela. Kurt.

13:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mark, for bringing that up, and yeah, I was confused about the nature, whether this was quasi.

13:11Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): judicial. I thought that it was not. However, I would characterize my discussion with Mark as

13:18Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Really entirely about the ordinance and not about the rezoning, per se.

13:26Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So… My… my feeling was it was really entirely about the…

13:33Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): the legislative portion. I would agree with that as well. Okay.

13:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Since I was also named as a party to conversation with my colleague, Mark, yes, we also discussed the ordinance, and that was the nature of our.

13:48Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): conversation. And can you, Kurt and Claudia, can you be fair and impartial in this matter and make your decision based on the record that will be

13:57Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Before you tonight? You're not making a decision, a recommendation?

14:01Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yes. I can't.

14:04Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I apologize for being a troublemaker.

14:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And just for the record, is there any concern about a serial meeting, since it did involve three board members speaking about a legislative topic, or is that not a concern with a legislative topic?

14:27Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Was it… A meeting where everybody was present?

14:33Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Individual conversations.

14:36Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And I can say that,

14:39Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Reference to other board members or other board members' thoughts was minimal or not present at all.

14:46Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): It was a discussion.

14:48Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): As Kurt clarified, about the ordinance, and a discussion of the ordinance, and the ordinance in relation to the memo.

14:58Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, and then I recommend that the board does a thorough discussion of the items before it makes a recommendation and faces its recommendation on what's discussed here tonight.

15:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Hela. I appreciate that.

15:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any other, ex parte communication disclosures or, conflicts of interest?

15:18Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, hearing none, then I will turn it over to staff, and I'm sure that Shannon will walk us through the process for this hearing tonight. So, Shannon Muller, over to you. Thank you so much.

15:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Alright.

15:42Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Good evening, Board. If you can hear me okay.

15:46Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I'm Shannon Moeller with the City of Boulder.

15:48Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Planning Department, so I'll be taking you through the staff presentation tonight on this rezoning request.

15:57Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So again, this proposal is, being reviewed under the criteria in 9-219 rezoning.

16:06Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): and against city policies. The Planning Board is required to make a recommendation to City Council, and the rezoning would be decided by City Council at a future public hearing.

16:19Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): In terms of public notification, the site was posted and public notification provided per code. The City received several emails in the last few days that were sent directly to the planning board in support of the proposal.

16:33Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So we'll talk about the project location. Here you can see the site is located south of Pearl Parkway, west of Foothills Parkway, and north of the BNSF Railway.

16:46Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): It includes 3550 and 3850 Frontier, which currently include two large warehouse-style buildings built in the late 1960s.

16:58Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The site's located at the intersection of several major thoroughfares, and the property is just north of the BNSF Railway. To the west along Pearl Parkway are some redeveloped properties in the TVAP Phase 1 area.

17:12Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Including a mix of apartments, office, and retail uses. And Caddy Corner to the northwest is the Boulder Junction Transit Depot.

17:22Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The BVCP land use designation on the property is Regional Hub. This is a new land use designation in the newly adopted BVCP. Regional Hub is described as major destinations for community members and visitors, busy high-energy places where people come to work, visit, shop, dine, and live.

17:41Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): There's activity throughout the day and night, and it includes a mix of stores, restaurants, entertainment venues, cultural attractions, offices, and housing.

17:50Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): In terms of the existing zoning, the property is currently zoned IS1, IS2, and IG, which are industrial service and industrial general areas.

18:04Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The properties within the boundary of the TVAP Phase 2 amendment that was recently adopted in 2023, TVAP

18:12Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Provides the vision for, the 160-acre transit village area and guides redevelopment.

18:19Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): It was first adopted in 2007, due to the expected changes in the area, and the Phase 2 amendment was adopted in 2023.

18:29Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): It applies to the area east of the railway, and key recommendations included ensuring that proposed land use designations enabled a mix of housing types, encouraged retaining and encouraging local… new local and small businesses, encouraging maker spaces, workshops, breweries, and other creative spaces.

18:51Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And introducing flexibility in land use to transform the area into a mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhood rich with amenities and services.

19:01Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Here you can see the TVAP land use plan designates the property mixed-use, TOD, which calls for transforming the area into a mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhood rich with amenities and services.

19:15Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Tpap also assigns the regional TOD place type to the property.

19:21Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Place types were included in DVAP2 to provide greater refinement of the land use designation, and describe the design intent and performance expectations.

19:32Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So the regional TOD place type intends to integrate retail and housing options into traditional light industrial areas and prioritize creativity in new and redevelopment.

19:44Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The regional TOD place type includes detailed description of the anticipated characteristics, which are listed on this slide.

19:54Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Gvap 2 also includes an urban design framework. The framework describes the overall pattern of activity nodes that are shown in the… in the red bubbles, outdoor spaces that are shown in the green bubbles, and Paseo and greenways across the Phase 2 area.

20:12Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The subject property is identified to incorporate one of the activity nodes, one of the major outdoor spaces, and several paseos.

20:22Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The activity nodes are intended to provide focused retail, dining, personal service, and other activities that capitalize on high pedestrian traffic, public spaces, and planned transit improvements. And the outdoor spaces are publicly accessible gathering spaces that support a livable, vibrant, mixed-use environment.

20:42Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So the space identified on this property is the southern anchor for the entire Phase 2 area, and it's intended to provide, a variety of, festivals and events.

20:57Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): In terms of transportation connections, the site is impacted by several significant thoroughfares and transportation corridors. Again, it's, just north of the BNSF right-of-way to the south.

21:10Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And it's just adjacent to the raised condition of Foothills Parkway, just to the east. It's included in the TVAP connections plan.

21:18Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): As part of TBAP2, the community identified a desire to improve transportation connections, ensuring that redevelopment in the area is walkable, pedestrian-friendly, more connected to Phase 1, and offering better connectivity to bicycle and trail networks.

21:36Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Tonight's rezoning application follows the previous review of a concept plan.

21:42Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): That was discussed by the planning board back in February. The concept plan included a Bixdeus redevelopment proposal, including an arts venue and rehearsal space, hotel, apartments, commercial uses like restaurants, coffee shops, and retail, and structured parking.

21:58Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): At that hearing, it was noted that the concept plan proposal would not meet all form, intensity, and use standards of existing zoning districts in Title IX,

22:07Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And that the City has not yet performed a comprehensive analysis to determine whether the creation of new zone districts, code amendments, or other tools would be required or desirable to achieve the vision of TBAT Phase 2, of the TBAT Phase 2 Area Plan.

22:24Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Implementation of TVAP Phase 2 is anticipated to involve significant projects requiring cross-departmental staff time, such as regulatory updates, drafting new zoning districts, or form-based code standards, and this has not yet taken place.

22:40Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So at the concept plan hearing, staff requested the Planning Board's feedback on the redevelopment proposal.

22:46Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): As well as on a preferred approach for rezoning the property from its current industrial zoning to a new zoning district. Board members generally agreed the overall redevelopment proposal was consistent with the BBCP,

23:00Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And with TVAP Phase 2.

23:02Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And board members' feedback on a preferred approach to a rezoning was mixed. Some of the options discussed included

23:10Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): using an existing zoning district, or modifying an existing zoning district, or creating a new zoning district via an ordinance. The proposed rezoning we're discussing tonight follows that discussion and proposes a rezoning to MU4 with some specific amendments.

23:30Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So, staff has identified two key issues for discussion tonight. These are, first, the consistency of the rezoning to the criteria in 19219E and F.

23:41Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And then the consistency with the proposed… of the proposed ordinance, which includes the specific amendments to the MU4 zoning, which would allow for a 3.5 FAR and a 55-foot permitted building height.

23:56Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Reviewing those against the BBCP land use map, goals, policies, and objectives, and reviewing those against the TBAP Phase 2 plan.

24:07Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So, for Key Issue 1, we'll talk about the rezoning request to MU4 and the applicable rezoning criteria. So, as we talked about, the current zoning on the property is IS1, IS2, and IG.

24:21Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): which are industrial zoning districts, and the applicant has proposed rezoning to MU4, Mixed Use 4.

24:29Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The MU4 zoning district is described as a mixed-use residential area with neighborhoods serving retail office and other complementary uses, with development occurring in a pedestrian-oriented pattern.

24:43Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Mu4 was created in 2009 to implement the TVAP Phase 1 Mixed Use 2 land use prototype, which called for a maximum FAR of 2.0, consistent with that TVAP prototype.

24:59Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And it allowed for flexible mixed-use buildings. The MU4 zoning district has been applied or recommended in various areas of the city with adopted area plans, including in TVAP Phase 1, Alpine Balsam, and the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan.

25:15Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): As noted earlier, TVAP Phase 2 included place types, which are similar to the TVAP Phase 1 prototypes.

25:24Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And these provide greater refinement of the land use designation and describe the design intent. So as noted on this slide, the MU4 zoning district is consistent with many of the characteristics called for on the subject property by the regional TOD place type.

25:42Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): However, the MU4 zoning district does not accommodate up to the 3.5 maximum FAR called for by the place type, and it limits building heights to 38 feet, which would not accommodate the maximum 3.5 FAR while also meeting minimum open space requirements.

26:01Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So, we'll touch on the proposed amendments to the MU4 zoning for the site in the second key issue coming up.

26:10Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): But looking specifically at the rezoning criteria for Key Issue 1, the City will grant a rezoning request only if the proposed rezoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the BBCP, and if it meets one of six specific criteria.

26:27Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Staff found the proposal met criteria number one, which is that the rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the BBCP land use map.

26:35Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The land use map designates the property regional hub, which is a busy high-energy place where people come to work

26:42Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Visit, shop, dine, and Live. The proposed MU4 zoning brings the property into consistency with the land use map designation.

26:51Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): With the current zoning of IS1, IS2, and IG, this zoning was applied when the BBCP land use of the property was under a former land use designation of community industrial.

27:04Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So, the land use designation on the site has since changed, and the current industrial zoning is now inconsistent with the updated land use designation. So, there is clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the BBCP map.

27:22Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Staff also found the proposed rezoning was consistent with many goals and policies of the BBCP, such as those listed here, which support the intended urban form and redevelopment.

27:33Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Support for retail businesses and the economy, providing additional housing supply, and supporting the arts, in particular the proposed performing arts venue on the site.

27:47Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Staff also found the proposed rezoning was consistent with the additional criteria specific to MU4, RH3, RH6, and RH7.

27:56Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Related to transportation and infrastructure requirements. In regards to transportation, the property is subject to the TVAP Connections Plan.

28:05Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Which is capable of being implemented to the extent necessary to serve the property, and the public infrastructure can be paid for by way of redevelopment without contribution of funds by the city.

28:16Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): In regards to water, wastewater, stormwater management, and flood control, staff also found there were adequate facilities, considering the infrastructure requirements in the DCS and adopted plans.

28:28Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The property has adequate public facilities that are in place, and the property owner will pay its fair share of the infrastructure needs of the surrounding area.

28:37Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): As noted in the staff memo, the site is expected to be redeveloped, and public improvements would be reviewed concurrent with the proposed redevelopment.

28:47Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So moving to Key Issue 2, Key Issue 2 pertains to the proposed amendments to the MU4 zoning district in the proposed ordinance. The City has approved ordinances from time to time to amend city standards in limited circumstances, such as to support a specific public benefit.

29:06Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The proposed ordinance would grant the approving authority of a future site review the ability to approve a development on the property which exceeds certain standards in MU4's zoning district, including allowing a maximum floor area ratio of 3.5 and a maximum building height of 55 feet.

29:26Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The ordinance allowing for additional intensity and height for the future redevelopment is specific to the unique value the proposal presents to the community and the unique characteristics of the property. In regard to the unique characteristics, as shown here, the property is in TVAP2, regional TOD place type.

29:46Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Where regulatory changes to enable redevelopment consistent with the vision established by the Area Plan have not yet been completed.

29:55Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The property is further distinguished within this area as a unique opportunity site for redevelopment, which will implement the Activity Node and Southern Anchor Festival and community gathering space.

30:07Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The property is also uniquely situated adjacent to the railway and the Foothills Parkway-raised overpass, which limit potential visual and physical access to the site.

30:17Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Whereas the activity node called for on the property notes that high levels of activity, high visibility, and pedestrian foot traffic are critical to the success of a mixed-use neighborhood at this location.

30:31Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): In regards to the unique proposal on the property, the rezoning ordinance supports plans for a future site review to redevelop the property as a new mixed-use neighborhood, catalyzed by initial development of a performing arts and events center.

30:46Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Attention to developing additional performing arts venues has been highlighted by the City's selection as the future host of the Sundance Film Festival and the recently completed Boulder Arts Blueprint.

30:58Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The blueprint, adopted in 2026, notes that affordability, availability, and suitability of spaces, emerge as a persistent challenge that impacts artists and organizations in sustaining their work in the city.

31:13Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The blueprint provides 7 goals, including goals 1 and 5, which support the creation of new arts venues. And similarly, the development of the performing arts venue on the property supports many BVCP policies and serves as a catalyst for redevelopment of the property

31:31Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Including supporting the high levels of activity necessary for active ground floor uses, such as restaurants and retail to thrive.

31:38Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): and helps provide for creation and activation of the southern anchor Outdoor Space called for in TVAP.

31:47Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The intent and structure of the ordinance are described in the memo and on this slide.

31:52Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Generally the ordinance is specific to the specific proposal here, and requires certain elements at full build-out.

31:59Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The ordinance would allow for phased redevelopment of the site, and would require an initial phase to include the Performing Arts and Events Center.

32:08Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The approving authority would have the ability to approve a future site review, consistent with the ordinance. The approving authority would be the planning board or city council if called up.

32:20Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The ordinance grants the approving authority of the future site review, the ability to approve a site review up to a maximum FAR of 3.5, where a maximum of 2.0 is otherwise allowed in MU4,

32:34Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): It specifies that floor area used for parking areas within a structure do not count toward the FAR limitation.

32:41Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And it grants the approving authority of the future site review, the ability to approve a site review with permitted building heights, up to 55 feet, where 38 feet is otherwise permitted by MU4.

32:54Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): With a 55-foot permitted building height, the future site review would not be subject to the height modification criteria in 9214H4 or 9214H6.

33:07Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The amendments to the height and the intensity standards are specific to this property and proposal, and the future site review would need to be found consistent with the terms of the ordinance and with the site review criteria.

33:20Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So overall, Steph found the proposed rezoning and proposal, in the ordinance consistent with the relevant criteria and city policies, and recommends the motion listed here for a recommendation to City Council to approve the proposed rezoning ordinance.

33:37Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): That concludes Steph's presentation, and happy to take any questions.

33:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you so much, Shannon. That was thorough and informative, as always. Really appreciate it. Questions for staff?

33:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Who's got them?

33:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt.

33:58Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And then we'll go to ml.

33:59Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Shannon, for that presentation. I'll start with one question about the height.

34:07Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So… Per the ordinance, 55 feet is allowed by right.

34:13Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Would the application still be subject to the community benefit requirements, then?

34:19Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): No, the community benefit requirements in 9214H6 would not apply. Okay, thank you.

34:32Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): colloquy on that, for just…

34:35Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): go ahead and colloquy, and then we'll go to ml.

34:37Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Right. So, when we say… the community benefit requirement in 9-2-146… H6.

34:47Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): doesn't apply.

34:49Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Does that mean… They… all floors.

34:54Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The whole… the whole… everything, the whole project, is excluded from

35:00Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): a contribution to the Inclusionary Housing Fund.

35:05Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Oh yes, let me clarify. It would just be for the… the extra community benefit, so it would still…

35:12Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): meet the typical requirements that we require, no matter the height. It would just be for the extra community benefit.

35:20Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): That's typically required for a fourth and fifth story when you request a height modification.

35:25Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): the 11%,

35:27Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): tacked on to a 4th and 5th floor would be excluded, but the main benefit, the main requirement of a contribution to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for the 4th and 5th floor, and 1, 2, and 3,

35:43Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): would still be there. It's just the quote, bonus payment of the 11% that would be excluded. That's correct, yep. Great, thank you.

35:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mark, that's an important clarification. So they would pay the inclusionary housing per square foot fee on the 4th and 5th floors, just not the additional surcharge. Yeah, it just…

36:05Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): because they don't have to pay that, yeah, the extra bonus. That's right.

36:09Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thanks again. ml.

36:13ml Robles . PB: Thank you. I just have, one clarifying question. So…

36:21ml Robles . PB: I think what I'm understanding is that this ordinance is written with the concept plan as the basis, is that correct, when we refer to

36:31ml Robles . PB: what it's providing, et cetera, et cetera. It's the concept plan.

36:37Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yes, yes, I would agree.

36:40ml Robles . PB: So my question is, what FAR was used for that concept plan?

36:47Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, the concept plan, my recollection is it was around 2.2 at that point.

36:54ml Robles . PB: So then…

36:57ml Robles . PB: If the concept plan is being seen as the plan that we are referring to in the ordinance,

37:07ml Robles . PB: Insofar as meeting the goals of TVAP2, etc.

37:16ml Robles . PB: I'm guessing that the actual final site plan is not going to look like… That plan?

37:26ml Robles . PB: That's a significant… shift in FAR.

37:32Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, the way the ordinance is written is intended to provide some flexibility, because we… we anticipate there will be, you know, changes as the property is redeveloped, so it's not intended to require

37:47Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The site to develop specifically as shown in the concept plan, but it's intended to,

37:55Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): It includes, you know, reference to elements that we anticipate will be there that were, you know, depicted in the concept plan.

38:05ml Robles . PB: Are you expecting that the concept plan would be a part of the ordinance in that,

38:13ml Robles . PB: Addendum at the end?

38:16ml Robles . PB: as of… point of departure. Here's… here's what we're basing our understanding on, or no?

38:29Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): As currently proposed, there's not a requirement of finding of general consistency with the concept plan, but what the ordinance does provide is it says that

38:40Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Overall, once the full site is built out, that generally the following types of uses are anticipated, and it lists performing arts and event center, hotel, multi-dwelling units of varying types, such as townhomes, studios.

38:57Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Through 3 bedroom units, food, beverage, and retail uses, and arts and community spaces, such as art rehearsal space, and an outdoor at great or rooftop park and event space.

39:08Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): and other publicly accessible open space paths and plazas. So those were the types of uses that were shown in the concept plan. So there is a finding that has to be made that generally those types of uses are included in it.

39:22Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): But not… Generally consistent with the concept plan, so that's not a requirement.

39:28Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): But then there are additional requirements that the first phase of construction include a performing arts and events center of at least 20,000 square feet.

39:39Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And that at full build-out, there also would be an arts and rehearsal space of at least 4,000 square foot in size. So there… elements of the concept plan are included in here, but there's some difference in that to allow for flexibility.

39:54ml Robles . PB: or I think the word elements of it. One other legal question comes to mind, Hela.

40:02ml Robles . PB: So, if… The ordinance as proposed, which, Removes the need for site review to…

40:16ml Robles . PB: I'll get the height modification, and… the FAR has been,

40:23ml Robles . PB: awarded through this ordinance process. Would a site review still be required?

40:31Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): The ordinance provides that this site would have to be developed pursuant to the site review.

40:37ml Robles . PB: received? Good. Thank you.

40:40ml Robles . PB: I have a bunch of questions, but I'll hold. Thank you.

40:44Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, ml.

40:46Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason.

40:50Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): This is perhaps a dumb question, but I'm going to risk it. So, I just want to make sure that I'm understanding the memo correctly, that.

40:57Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): By right, is not part of… the MU4 current…

41:05Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): characteristics, it's part of the ordinance. We're essentially saying that

41:10Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): This property will have this, and we're granting them The… to be excluded from…

41:17Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): The requirements for a height modification.

41:22Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): That's correct. Under ME4, I think the… what some call by-ride height under the normal ME4 standards are… is 38 feet.

41:31Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And 55 feet can be achieved through a height modification approved through the site review.

41:39Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And what the ordinance proposes is to essentially make it 55 feet as the maximum height allowed under the table, so that no

41:48Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Height modification is required to be approved through the site review process.

41:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mason and Hela. Claudia.

42:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So… Setbacks in the height can be modified.

42:05Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Applied through a site review process, is that correct?

42:08Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Okay, that's right. Can maximum FAR be modified through a site review process? No, it cannot. Okay.

42:17Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Another question about FAR. Why… There was some discussion in the memo about excluding structured parking, vehicle circulation.

42:29Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): bicycle parking from FAR calculations.

42:33Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Why do we do that in some zones and not others?

42:37Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): That's a great question. I don't know if Charles knows. Well, in some zones, like the downtown zones, subgrade parking or structured parking.

42:46Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Is exempted in order to, encourage

42:51Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): development to have parking that's not surface parking or at grade, so to actually contain it in the building and mask it. So, at the time,

43:01Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): When those standards were starting to be used in our code, it was really to help encourage parking that was kind of, in effect, invisible, and wasn't leading the design.

43:09Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Okay, so do I understand correctly, in MU4, Structured parking counts against…

43:15Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): FAR? That's correct. Okay, so if that were granted an exception in this ordinance, what would the general effect of that be? What does that allow an applicant to do?

43:30Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): I mean, I think it would essentially… when we total up the FAR, those areas just don't count toward the FAR.

43:39Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): So it's potentially site coverage for parking and vehicle circulation that would not count against their…

43:46Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): to allow it to count as other FAR on the site, so other uses, housing, that kind of thing. It's just FAR that you could probably just apply somewhere else. Okay.

43:56Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Can I ask a few more questions, Laura? All right.

44:00Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): I am curious… why…

44:05Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): staff has, since we gave some mixed feedback at concept review, why has staff followed this approach, of trying to do an ordinance with some strategic exceptions?

44:17Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Versus creating a new zoning district, like a higher intensity mixed-use zoning district.

44:29Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): I was just waiting to see if Brad was gonna come up for this one, or if I should take a stab, but I'm happy to if you're…

44:37Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Brad Mueller, Planning and Development.

44:39Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Services Director, so… You know, with a unique…

44:46Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): set of land uses and land use types came the question of different approaches, and that certainly.

44:53Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): was one. One of the things that we always are cautious of when we think about changes to the overall development code are the fact of applicability citywide.

45:05Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): And it can be hard to anticipate all the unintended consequences of that.

45:11Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): And, furthermore, There may not be the same logic applied in different areas.

45:19Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): It is common in land use practice to acknowledge that sometimes there is a unique set of

45:26Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Land uses that come along, and…

45:28Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): need a unique approach towards that. I would say in the most basic form, going back maybe 30 years, when Euclidean zoning was very much segmented by land use type, and mixed use started to show up.

45:43Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Where people said, well, look, in Europe, they can do commercial on the bottom and residential on the top.

45:49Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): that's an example of a unique set of land use types that aren't easily accommodated. So, it certainly was an approach that was thought about and taken into consideration. It would have been a different process, it would have been a different timeline, it would have…

46:05Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Resulted in, community conversation about the general versus the specific.

46:13Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): So… I had some follow-up, and then I'd be happy for a colloquy.

46:19Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): How long does it take to develop a new zoning district?

46:23Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I would be hesitant to…

46:26Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): generalize, because every situation's gonna be different, but I could imagine that taking a good 9 to…

46:35Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): 16 months, when we've done things like the family-friendly.

46:39Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Vibrant neighborhood, amendments, which is fundamentally a change in the zone… zoning allowances in certain zone districts.

46:48Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): It was quite lengthy.

46:53Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): So, we asked at concept review what the city's intentions were for developing zoning districts for the TVAP2 area, and at that point, there was no timetable. Is there currently a timetable for doing zoning for this area?

47:08Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): not. One of the things that we have… a couple aspects of that. One, through experience with other sub-community plans and implementation, we've recognized there may be other tools other than simply

47:24Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Bringing an assumption of bringing zoning changes to it.

47:29Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): The Comprehensive plan has a different paradigm for how land use types are considered.

47:34Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): And then there's just, frankly, the… also the, resources to do those various types of things.

47:42Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I forget, was KJ gonna be on the call? No, okay.

47:47Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): so there were a multiplicity of reasons, but I think the important fact around all that is recognizing that, while that was an implementation strategy, it's not the only implementation strategy, and that continues to be a…

48:03Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): question of how the larger TVAP

48:06Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): changes get made. We also now have certainty around the rail, for example, that will bring up items.

48:14Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, and I think there were…

48:15Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Are there,

48:17Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): flood concerns, other infrastructure considerations that, had to be made, at very least in advance of crafting new zoning, at least that's what the plan envisioned.

48:28Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): But to summarize, there is still no projected timeline for updating zoning to match TBACT. Well, there's no presumption.

48:36Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): zoning. No presumption of that? Yeah, so that's something that we're gonna see whether that is the right implementation, or the only implementation, to realize those aspects of the sub-community plan. Okay, thank you.

48:49Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So I'd like to colloquy, if you might stay there, please, Brad. Sure.

48:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So in the TVAP2 plan, we have this regional TOD place type, which, as I understand it, is not regulatory, but it is a vision.

49:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): that included the ability to go up to 3.5 FAR. But we have no zoning that accommodates that. So is an applicant's only opportunity to get that kind of intensity

49:15Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): to go through this process and get ordinance by ordinance, property by property, or have we abandoned the idea of a 3.5 FAR in TVAP2?

49:24Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): We certainly have not abandoned the opportunity of a 3.5 5, FAR.

49:29Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I would say sitting here today, that is, property owners

49:35Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): option. In the future, if other property owners come forward, we may have other circumstances that… that accommodate that, and of course, the one that

49:46Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Feels familiar would be changing the zone districts, or making them more…

49:52Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): permissive, but there may also be changes in the criteria for rezoning, for example, as part of, changes that happen with the implementation of the comp plan.

50:03Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): So it's impossible to say, you know, on a… on what the future might lie, but that gets to the larger point of…

50:10Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): The paradigm is shift, whether there's just one

50:14Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): approach towards implementing aspects of the… of the TVAP or not is an open question.

50:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'm just trying to understand, how would changing the zoning criteria

50:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): allow for a 3.5 FAR if you cannot adjust the FAR in site review, and we have no zones that allow for 3.5 FAR.

50:33Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I don't want to speculate, but there's lots of different ways to approach zoning criteria. We're familiar with the ones we have, but there's a whole universe out there of different ways to approach rezoning criteria.

50:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): When you say rezoning criteria, are you talking about the criteria in 9-2-19. Correct.

50:52Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, so that may be something that merits looking at citywide as part of implementation of the comp plan overall.

51:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): rezoning is just changing from one zone to another, and I keep getting stuck on, there are no zones that accommodate this.

51:07Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I understand.

51:08Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): that, but… Again, there may be performance allowances as part of a rezoning criteria in the future, for example.

51:16Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I don't know what that means. If you do certain things, then a certain FAR might be allowed, for example.

51:23Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Those are considered performance-based criteria.

51:27Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Those might be factored in, and I'm speculating, I don't want to, you know, I don't want to speculate too widely to have

51:35Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): People think that these are all boiled thoughts, but there are many different approaches to how rezoning criteria, for example, can be crafted. Okay, thank you.

51:46Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Claudia, did you have more?

51:47Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): I had one more question, if I could. That's you, Claudia. So then, going this direction of doing an ordinance with some exceptions.

51:55Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Where else have we done this in the city, and in what kinds of cases?

52:01Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I'm metal it.

52:03Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Probably most recently, Diagonal Plaza.

52:07Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): For the redevelopment, and that was having to do with minimum open space requirements? I believe it was…

52:14Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Was it open space requirements, or was it density? I'd have to go back and look, but I think it related to one or the two density controls. Is there some…

52:25Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Like, what makes something rise to the level of meriting exceptions through a rezoning ordinance?

52:34Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I can speak to that. So…

52:37Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): If there's exceptional circumstances on the property, or exceptional benefits from something, in the case of Diagonal Plaza was affordable housing.

52:47Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): in a scenario where that subsequently was changed with code, but at the time was not there. I believe we also had an ordinance associated with

52:56Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Alpine Balsam, is that correct?

52:59Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Or one other site for Alpine.

53:01Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I don't think there was one with the Alpine Balls. Most of the time, I remember seeing a special ordinance that was associated with affordable housing that was provided on-site, and oftentimes more than

53:16Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Typically, something more was provided than required under the code otherwise.

53:22Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): So.

53:23Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Speak to that broadly, an exceptional community benefit being brought forward.

53:29Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): But not accommodated under code.

53:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, are you colloquying, or are you… Okay.

53:40Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, I think Kurt wants the colloquy, and Mark, I don't think you haven't gone yet, so we'll go to Kurt and then Mark.

53:47Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Except Brad just walked away.

53:51Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I just wanted to follow up on your response about the time to… Create a new zoning district?

54:00Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I'm just trying to understand that.

54:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): It's…

54:04Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): in my simplistic view of the world, we could take an existing zoning district, such as MU4, and copy and paste and change

54:14Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): A number, a couple numbers, or something.

54:17Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And it would be simpler than the ordinance that we're looking at here.

54:23Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): and it would only apply to… if we rezone to that.

54:30Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): for this site, it would only apply to one site, and so there wouldn't be any broader implications, at least immediately. So I'm just trying to understand what… why is it so complicated to create a new… or time-consuming?

54:45Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): To create a new zoning test.

54:46Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): So the mechanics of changing the code sometimes are as simple as that, striking a word here, or adding a phrase, or changing a number, like you say, but there are other MU4 zone districts in the community, so that change would apply to those.

55:02Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): We would…

55:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Sorry, if we were to create a new zone district that was very similar to MU4, but not quite. Right.

55:09Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): That, too, we would have to, we would have to analyze, A, what would happen if other properties throughout the city

55:18Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): who might qualify or be likely candidates for MU5, let's call it, what the implications of that would be. And then we'd also need to develop a community outreach program and discussion around that.

55:34Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): To talk about the…

55:35Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Changes to the zoning code, and what the possible implications of that indicatives and benefits of that.

55:43Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): So you're engaging on an entire citywide,

55:47Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): conversation versus a specific site. And as we've sometimes said, relative to…

55:54Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): site plans and other things. Having policy built on the back of an individual project is not…

56:01Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): generally not a good approach. So, in this case, having…

56:05Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): A policy discussion that is citywide and affects zone districts that

56:11Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): are or could be, implemented citywide when we're really talking about a specific case didn't seem like the prudent thing to do.

56:22Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): May I colloquy? You may colloquy.

56:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I guess I'm not understanding why implementing the TVAP, we haven't already done the outreach and already done the community conversation to say we want to have a zone where this intensity is possible, and we've defined it as the regional TOD place type that's in TVAP, too. That seems like we've already done most of that work. Well, I…

56:44Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): with respect, I think I answered that by explaining that, A, we're not convinced that that was necessarily the right approach, that, or form-based code, or any other variations of, kind of, zoning tools that would be applied.

56:58Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Second, there were some resource and timing matters with the comprehensive plan team that would presumably undertake that.

57:05Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): And again, there were shifting circumstances physically on the site between, opportunities for flood control, changes in what we were learning about infrastructure, and then the train coming.

57:18Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): So again, trying to do that all in the context of a shifting landscape didn't…

57:25Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Seem appropriate, nor… nor… Possible, frankly, given the resources at the time.

57:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Back to you, Kurt.

57:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): You're done? Okay, Mark.

57:39Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

57:42Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So, kudos to my fellow board members, because I have a whole lot of questions, and they've all… almost all been answered. The one I have remaining is that we are responding

57:55Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): To a zoning request and an ordinance for a variance, within that zoning change.

58:03Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Associated with a project.

58:06Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): that is… complex, and has a lot of different aspects to it. How… And so…

58:16Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): We can't… I can't help.

58:19Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): But look at the entirety of the project when trying to judge how to advise Council on an ordinance adoption.

58:28Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And, the request for zoning. So, having experience with other projects where, things were promised and not delivered legally.

58:40Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Freyhops and other things, where, You know, development went forward.

58:49Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): With the thought of

58:51Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): this is going to happen. My question, I'll get to the question. How do we guarantee that the arts and performance space and, the aspects of this project that are influencing our decision to,

59:09Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): In regard to this ordinance and zoning change.

59:12Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): How do we, guarantee that those get built?

59:26Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I think that can be done through the ordinance, and the ordinance suggests a way to do that, by requiring that part of the first phase of construction is,

59:38Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): As a perform… arts and performing center, considering that a big community benefit for the…

59:45Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): For the city, out of this project, and out of the development of this property.

59:50Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And the way the ordinance sets that up is that that is something that the approving authority in a site review has to find as part of the first phase of construction when the first approval is made under site review. And then there's a separate requirement that, a rehearsal space of at least 4,000 square foot in size.

1:00:10Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): is part of the project. It's not required to be part of the first phase. It could be provided in a later phase, but…

1:00:17Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): But that, again, would have to be found, with the ultimate…

1:00:23Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I guess, at least with the last site review approvals, and I would think that then during the process, if a project came forward.

1:00:29Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): the proposed An initial phase, and then later phases that may not have been fully designed.

1:00:39Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): That you would consider whether… Other required elements of the ordinance could still be…

1:00:48Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Are still possible on the remaining site that is to be developed.

1:00:52Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And then I mentioned those two elements, and then there is, a third requirement.

1:01:00Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): that a Southern Anchor outdoor space, as identified in TVAP,

1:01:05Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): be provided, as it's described in TVAP, that it's large enough, that it's a community gathering space large enough to allow for a variety of uses, such as festival and events. So, that's also one of the findings that has to be made through the site review process, and

1:01:21Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Something that has to be accommodated on this side.

1:01:27Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

1:01:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And then a colloquy.

1:01:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And Hela, if the board does not find that those things are provided, then…

1:01:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): the benefits of the ordinance, such as the additional FAR and the height without going through the site review criteria, and the structured parking,

1:01:47Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): element of that. That all does not apply to any phase that does… is not found to meet the ordinance, is that correct?

1:01:55Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I wouldn't say to any phase, because two of those elements that I described can be met in a later phase. But yeah, these requirements only apply if those special provisions that are incorporated in the ordinance regarding FAR and height are being taken advantage of.

1:02:16Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): So if a project came in that didn't seek

1:02:20Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): height above 38 feet, or it could go through the site review process, meeting the normal site review standards that apply for height exceeding 38 feet, or FAR doesn't exceed

1:02:34Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): 2.0, then the property could be developed just under MU4 standards without considering the ordinance.

1:02:44Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): But when the special provisions of the ordinance are being taken advantage of, then those elements have to be present, and…

1:02:52Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): the site review Would have to be denied if they weren't present.

1:02:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

1:03:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other board members have questions who haven't spoken yet.

1:03:05Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Well, ml's gone once, we'll go another round. I have a few, but…

1:03:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): No? Okay, alright, so I'll do mine, ml, and then we'll get back to you for your second bite at the apple, if that's okay. Okay, thank you for the thumbs up. Alright, some of my questions, like Mark, have been answered, so I'll try to be brief.

1:03:21Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So thank you for clarifying that the section, BRC Section 9-2-19E, the rezoning criteria, it sounds like that just applies to the decision to rezone to MU4.

1:03:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Not the other provisions of the ordinance, the exemptions that are being required, is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And then, I think this was answered in key issue number two, but what are the standards that we are supposed to apply when deciding about the other provisions of the ordinance?

1:03:50Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): So the other… so the first part, the rezoning, is a quasi-judicial process, and as you all know, it's… you apply the facts to the criteria, and if the criteria are not met, you have to deny. If they're met, you have to approve.

1:04:04Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): So that applies to the rezoning under MU4. The other parts are legislative in nature, and there are no criteria that you have to find, but generally, when legislation is adopted.

1:04:18Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): There has to be, a…

1:04:21Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): rational relationship to a legitimate government interest involved, and in zoning, often that's meeting BBCP goals, being consistent with the BBCP,

1:04:33Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And enabling…

1:04:36Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): the vision of TVAP, for example, those are all city policies that are already established, and achieving those can be legitimate government goals.

1:04:46Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

1:04:47Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): My next question, so no zone in the city, as we've discussed several times, can achieve 3.5 FAR currently. What are the highest density zones that are currently achievable, and what are their FARs or other density-limiting characteristics if it is not FAR?

1:05:10Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): I think in our downtown zones, with FAR bonuses, you can get up to about 2.7 FAR, if I'm not mistaken, and DT5.

1:05:20Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): I think there's also some density bonuses that would get you about to a similar FAR in our regional business zones.

1:05:29Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): And then as far as residential.

1:05:33Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Goes the RH3 zone, which is… encompasses most of the 28th Street frontage.

1:05:39Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): is really just based on open space, so there's no maximum FAR, so it kind of contemplates a higher density, but that's really more of a dwelling unit per acre thing than a floor area measurement. So I would say that BR and the DT zones are probably your highest density, but around 2.7.

1:05:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And in RAH3, what is that open space requirement?

1:06:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I would need to look.

1:06:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Diz…

1:06:21Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): 30%.

1:06:23Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Minimum open space on the lot for residential.

1:06:28Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, that's helpful, thank you.

1:06:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So a regional TOD

1:06:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): as we talked about, contemplates a 3.5 FAR, and it says usable minimum, or usable open space minimum of 10 to 20% of the total land area based on building height. Can you explain that further? What does that based on building height mean?

1:06:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): like, taller buildings, you need more open space? Yeah, the code requires.

1:06:57Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): It requires, when you get up to the 45 to 55 foot height of the building, you automatically have to provide the 20% open space minimum in that scenario.

1:07:09Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And does that apply in MU4? Like, if we approve the zoning for MU4, would they be required to provide 20% minimum open space, or could that be modified in site review?

1:07:24Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): it cannot be modified. So it would apply. It kind of applies across the board for all zoning districts. It's in 9911 in the open… open space standard. This is where that

1:07:38Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): percentage is located in the code. Okay, so if.

1:07:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): If this project, even if we approve the 3.5,

1:07:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): FAR, they would have to provide 20% open space. Yeah. Cannot be modified. And I think it said somewhere in there,

1:07:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): it says…

1:07:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): The permitted principal building height, when coupled with the minimum open space requirements, would not accommodate buildings of the intensity indicated

1:08:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): up to that 3.5 FAR range called for by the place type. So does that mean it's really not possible to have 3.5 FAR and 20% open space on this site?

1:08:15Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): with… with the MU4 zoning as it typically is, with the FAR and the open space.

1:08:23Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, it's not… it wouldn't… Even if you increase the FAR… sorry.

1:08:29Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): I'm trying to remember how I calculated that out. But yeah, generally, the way it's written now, with the open space.

1:08:39Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And the height limitations.

1:08:42Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): you can't get to the FAR of 3.5.

1:08:45Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): is what?

1:08:46Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Sorry. But under this ordinance, yeah, with it being 55-foot building height.

1:08:52Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): basically by right, through the ordinance. 3.5 FAR, 20% open space. Is all of that simultaneously achievable on this site?

1:09:03Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yes, I believe, theoretically, if you had a 20% open space, and the rest of your site was dedicated to buildings that were 5 stories in height, you would…

1:09:14Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): You would, be able to achieve your FAR.

1:09:18Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Especially if we're subtracting or excluding things like parking garages, that kind of thing.

1:09:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): If you excluded the things like parking garages. And I'm sorry, Kurt, did you have a comment?

1:09:29Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I was just saying, if you have 20% open space, and every building is 5 stories, then you're at 4.0.

1:09:35Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): FAR.

1:09:37Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

1:09:39Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But some of that open space is things like streets and such that don't count towards open space, so…

1:09:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay. But theoretically, it's sort of just barely achievable if everything is 55 feet tall. Yeah.

1:09:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Alright, thank you.

1:10:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Getting back to the idea of the 3.5 FAR,

1:10:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Where this appears is in the regional TOD place type.

1:10:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): which, as I understand, that is not regulatory. That's not a land use category, it's not a zoning district, it is something that's in the sub-community plan as being…

1:10:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): A description of a vision.

1:10:22Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But… but sub-community plans also are not regulatory. Is that… is that correct?

1:10:30Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Area plans and sub-community plans are not regulatory by themselves, but we do have certain code provisions that pull them in and make them regulatory to the extent that they are referenced in the code, so you'll remember that the site review criteria…

1:10:48Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Reference area plans in two or three locations, and one of them requires general consistency with an area plan and the regional hub.

1:10:59Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Designation could be considered in making that finding.

1:11:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, so there's a requirement for general consistency.

1:11:07Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, there's a requirement for general consistency with the overall plan.

1:11:12Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): There are two other references in the criteria, but one is in the criterion related to height modifications. That wouldn't apply, but there is another one.

1:11:24Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And I think it relates to building design.

1:11:30Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And I think it's also… It's criterion.

1:11:32Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): H the Reap, I can look it up. Okay.

1:11:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): My recollection is that there's no place that sub-community plans… you have to comply with every detail. It's just a finding of general consistency.

1:11:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay. And that 3.5 FAR, that does not appear in the BBCP definition of regional hub, is that correct? The land use category?

1:11:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): That's correct. And it does not appear in the MUTOD land use description.

1:12:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): That's correct. Okay.

1:12:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you. I, I was curious…

1:12:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): You know, the memo does state that,

1:12:14Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Staff generally are not able to support legislative requests that can be achieved through an existing mechanism in the land use code, such as a site review modification request.

1:12:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): There is a process.

1:12:27Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): through site review to get the 55 feet in height. So, I'm curious why staff is supportive of putting that into an ordinance as basically by-right for this site only.

1:12:44Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Correct.

1:12:45Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I think in this case, where we're looking at both the FAR, the intensity called for, that

1:12:54Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): We sort of determined that that had to work hand-in-hand with the height.

1:12:59Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And so that was really…

1:13:01Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): it sort of just went hand-in-hand with the FAR consideration.

1:13:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you.

1:13:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I think I might have one more.

1:13:18Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Oh, okay, so there are two pieces of the ordinance that I didn't understand how they work together.

1:13:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And one piece of it says that, the initial site review application is not required to include a redevelopment proposal for the entire site review land area.

1:13:35Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But then another piece of the ordinance says the approving authority of the site review application has to issue a finding that the overall development of the lots and parcels of the property at full build-out will generally include a set of uses that, Hela, you described earlier. So I guess I don't understand

1:13:52Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): how could there not be a full proposal for redevelopment of the whole site, and also a finding that full build-out will do X, Y, and Z?

1:14:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Can you help me understand that?

1:14:05Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I think the idea is to require a site review over the entire site to tie it together, because the ordinance relates to the entire site.

1:14:14Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): But not to require…

1:14:18Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): all of the required elements to be part of the first phase, and I think, for example, the applicant is hoping that flood mitigation work

1:14:28Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Has happened by the time future phases come along.

1:14:32Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And postponing some work on parts of the site that are currently within the floodplain.

1:14:39Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): So, the idea is to require some of the community benefit.

1:14:44Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): That the ordinance accommodates to occur at the beginning, but that

1:14:50Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): The totality of the community benefit that's anticipated to be shown with full bid out, so they could…

1:14:56Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): The community benefit could still be met, in part, in later phases.

1:15:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay. I mean, I get the idea that it could be a phased build-out, I just don't understand this phrase, the initial site review application doesn't have to include a redevelopment proposal for the entire site review land area. Am I misunderstanding what a redevelopment proposal is? Does that just mean… Well, I think it sets it up.

1:15:19Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): for the… no, it's a fair question. I think it sets it up so that the first phase really, contemplates the Performing Arts Center and the,

1:15:29Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): rehearsal space. So, so that they can get to work on, I guess, one of the most compelling portions of the property that I think drives a lot of the benefit.

1:15:39Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): And then figure out kind of the sequencing of the rest of the development over time. So I think that's… that's… the ordinance kind of sets it up so that initially, the first phase is going to include that performing arts center to get to work on that.

1:15:52Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): That makes total sense to me. I just… maybe I'm just quibbling about wording here, but… No, it's complicated. It sounds to me like they would not have to even describe the second and third phases. Like, if it says that it doesn't have to include a redevelopment proposal for the entire site review land area, that there could be blank pieces of that land area.

1:16:11Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): That are not shown in the redevelopment proposal.

1:16:15Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, that's correct.

1:16:18Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

1:16:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But then how do we assess what it's going to be at full build-out?

1:16:23Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): It wouldn't have to meet it at that point in time, it just has to meet it at…

1:16:28Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): when the…

1:16:29Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): When all the pieces come together, so you could be looking at whether it's possible on the remainder of the site for which you do not have a development potential yet… a development proposal yet, to meet those other elements.

1:16:42Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I think you could consider that at first phase, but you might not know yet what

1:16:49Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Those other phases will look like.

1:16:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you. All right, we're gonna go back for round two. Sorry that took so long. Ml, I think you are next up if you have remaining questions.

1:17:02ml Robles . PB: I have no remaining questions, thank you.

1:17:05Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Who does have remaining questions?

1:17:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): None to my left. To my right. Kurt.

1:17:18Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): The first question is about…

1:17:22Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): what is possible, in terms of FAR through site review.

1:17:30Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So, when I look at Table 8-1,

1:17:34Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): There are some zone districts that have a,

1:17:41Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): a footnote C that says, for the FAR, that says this requirement may be modified pursuant to 9214H6C.

1:17:52Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Can you talk about what the process is for that modification? It's really the height modification. It's the same criteria that we use for height modification, but apparently it's also

1:18:04Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): available for FAR modification?

1:18:07Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Can you explain how that works? Because I don't think I've ever seen that.

1:18:14Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): There's a limited number of zone districts that have a really specific requirement in site review, where you can get some extra. That was kind of like what Charles was mentioning earlier, where you can ask for that. Mu4 is not one of them, that you can ask for that in.

1:18:33Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): But the question was, for the ones where you can… I'm really asking because it seems like this would be another possible way of achieving at least the FAR, would be to allow for that kind of modification. But when I… when I look through, again,

1:18:50Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): what I consider the height modification requirements.

1:18:54Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I don't see, really, what the…

1:18:57Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): what the criteria are, what the process is for doing an FAR modification. So, if you scroll down.

1:19:04Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): to Table 8-2. It explains the floor area ratio additions.

1:19:08Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): So, it's not just things… for things like height. Again, this is where we get into exemptions. You know, for example, if you have below-grade area that's used for occupancy in a lot of zone districts, that floor area isn't counted.

1:19:21Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): so there's… You know, the,

1:19:28Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): The standards found there in that table by where, if you satisfy certain criteria.

1:19:35Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): You can get a bonus depending on…

1:19:38Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): the zone district. But no, this is not the bonus. This is, this is footnote C.

1:19:47Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Right. That refers to 9214H6C. Right. Which is the height modification.

1:19:54Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Which is not… it's different, I… my understanding is it's different from the bonus FAR.

1:20:02Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Well, they're two different modifications. Right. Yeah.

1:20:05Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): So how… So there's two separate sets of criteria that need to be satisfied? Right.

1:20:10Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So, just imagine, in a theoretical world.

1:20:14Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): that MU4 had this parenthesis C, on the FAR in table… 8-1.

1:20:24Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): What would the… How…

1:20:27Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And somebody came to us and said, hey, we want an FAR 3.5, even though 2.0 is sort of the base FAR that's allowed.

1:20:36Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): What criteria would we use to evaluate that?

1:20:45Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, if it was one where it was under that footnote C, it would just be the overall site review criteria would apply, so there's not…

1:20:55Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Like, additional criteria,

1:20:59Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): It would just… yeah. All the stuff in 9214H6C.

1:21:04Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Yeah. Would apply for height.

1:21:06Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

1:21:08Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): So then you get your height, if you satisfy all those criteria.

1:21:13Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): But then say you have a property in DT5, And you have below-grade parking.

1:21:20Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): And… below-grade area that's being used for occupancy.

1:21:26Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): then you wouldn't have to count that FAR, you could apply it elsewhere on the site.

1:21:38Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Okay, I'm sorry, I'm still not getting it. Let's… let's look at BR1, for example, as a specific example. That has an FAR limit of 2.0.

1:21:48Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And then… Footnote C.

1:21:52Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): which says… This requirement, the FAR 2.0, may be modified.

1:21:58Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Pursuant to Section 9214H6C, which is the same… that…

1:22:04Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): even though I think of it as height modification, it's actually height and intensity modification or something.

1:22:13Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And so… What… what you're saying is…

1:22:18Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): That project, then, coming through site review, could be allowed an FAR of, say, 3.5, if…

1:22:29Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): just by the judgment of Planning Board, it meets the site review criteria.

1:22:37Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): The same site review criteria for height, basically.

1:22:42Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Is that correct?

1:22:44Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I'm going at this to try to figure out, oh, is there another way to get here besides the special ordinance?

1:22:51Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, like, if a code amendment was made to add that into the code. Yeah, that would be another possible avenue, yeah.

1:23:01Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And for… for BR1,

1:23:04Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Section 9214 says that the FAR can be increased to up to 3.0 FAR under that process.

1:23:16Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you. Sorry, that was so difficult.

1:23:20Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): but it's… yeah, it was confusing to me. Okay, thank you, that's helpful.

1:23:26Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): In terms of the FAR exemption for parking, Why…

1:23:37Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Why are we talking about exempting

1:23:39Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): structured parking as opposed to some other use. Basically, the idea is to

1:23:48Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): allow for, as I understand it, to allow for FAR 3.5 plus something.

1:23:56Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Why exempt parking as opposed to, say, housing, or the hotel use, or the performing arts use, or something like that?

1:24:08Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I think, that request was made by the applicant. I think they know that there will be structured parking on this site, and the intent was really just to provide

1:24:22Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): as much of the FAR to be dedicated to actual, you know, helpful uses, like… like the housing and the retail and so forth, instead of having to count.

1:24:32Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): structured parking against the FAR, so…

1:24:35Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): I think we have other analogs of other zone districts in the code where that's exempted.

1:24:41Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): To its precedent, really.

1:24:45Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

1:24:57Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): The last question that I have, I think this is really the last…

1:25:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): is about the requirement, for the additional criteria for MU4, blah blah blah, in 9219F.

1:25:14Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Which talks about, that, that,

1:25:21Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Reservation dedication and improvement of rights-of-way. Basically, the developer will be responsible for all of those.

1:25:31Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): In the memo.

1:25:34Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): No, sorry, I think it was in the applicant's statement, it said there are no public improvements, or widerway improvements, proposed with this rezoning, which sort of is by definition of a rezoning, right? There's nothing…

1:25:48Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): There's not an application, for a project.

1:25:52Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So, my, my question is… In the, concept plan, we saw some fairly significant transportation changes.

1:26:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): in… on Pearl Street, for example, do we have…

1:26:09Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): A commitment or some way of enforcing that the developer will pay for all of those in order to meet this requirement of

1:26:18Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): 9219F.

1:26:36Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): The findings.

1:26:52Board & Commissions: It has the question, how do we get.

1:27:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Is that something that can be included in the ordinance?

1:27:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): As a condition?

1:27:32ml Robles . PB: Laura, I can't hear him.

1:27:35ml Robles . PB: It's Microsoft.

1:27:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): There was no response to the question Zach was thinking.

1:27:39Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): still giving it some consideration, but can you… can you repeat the question again, Kurt, just so I make sure that I understand it?

1:27:44Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Sure, well, it's… yeah, I'm sorry, it's complicated, or at least because I don't fully understand it. It's complicated in my head. So, 9219F is additional criteria for MU4 and other zone districts, right?

1:27:58Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And it says,

1:28:00Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): item… sub-item 1C is the public infrastructure can be paid for by way of redevelopment under the provisions of 998, without contribution.

1:28:13Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Without contribution of funds by the city, Blah blah blah blah blah.

1:28:19Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And in response to this… so, my understanding is, it's basically saying, we want to make sure that the… any public street, right-of-way street infrastructure that is done is paid for by the developer. And so…

1:28:38Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): we saw in the concept plan, we saw some fairly significant changes, and I just want to verify that

1:28:47Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): we have a way of ensuring that the developer will be paying for those changes. Well, yes.

1:28:55Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): As in any other site review that we would do, you know, we'll review the transportation connections plan, and we'll look at all the infrastructure, and when we're actually getting ready to approve it.

1:29:06Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): They'll have an approved set of documents, so we would treat it like we'd treat any other private development project.

1:29:12Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): There's also going to be a development agreement that's, you know, required as part of any site review or amendments to future site reviews. So through the development agreement, you know, again, we wouldn't be making any concessions for the city to be.

1:29:26Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): you know, subsidizing any of the roadways. It would be treated like any other private development that has a site review.

1:29:34Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Brad Mueller again, and all of what Charles said, and I do want to acknowledge that there might… it might be easy to conflate one of the public improvements, that's the stormwater management for the… for the slough.

1:29:47Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): That is a city that's being taken on by the, city for management of it, but the development is paying for the majority of that, and I say the majority because there are other beneficiaries of that slough improvement downstream that would they…

1:30:06Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): redeveloped would… would also pay into that. And there is some public space that is

1:30:12Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): benefited by that as well, where the city, as…

1:30:16Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Beneficiary of that will also contribute to it.

1:30:20Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): But it, too, is developer paid, as all the other infrastructure, as Charles just spoke to.

1:30:27Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Okay, so, like, including the crossings, I recall there were crossings of Pearl… Pearl Parkway.

1:30:33Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): For example, those would be paid for entirely more.

1:30:36Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): There would have to be a determination about what the rational nexus is on that. That's kind of the legal standard, and so if there are externalities that benefit from that, too, it might be different. But generally speaking.

1:30:51Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): all of what Charles just described as part of the tech doc and then development agreement accounts for the on-site impacts and any direct off-site impacts to infrastructure.

1:31:03Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Adding a turn lane, for example, might be something that's a complete Impact due to a development.

1:31:10Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): But a crosswalk might be part of a planned improvement, already by the city, and so there'd be some discussion about what that… what that amount is.

1:31:21Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): But that all happens as part of the site planning and development agreement.

1:31:24Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Again, all reflected in the development agreement.

1:31:28Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

1:31:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): You good, Kurt?

1:31:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any other questions for staff?

1:31:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Seeing none, it is now time for the applicant presentation. We'd like to invite our applicant to come on up. And Shannon, how much time have we allotted for the applicant?

1:31:43Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I believe 15 minutes. 15 minutes, thank you. So we'll have the applicant presentation.

1:31:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Followed by any remaining Q&A from the board for the applicant, followed by our public hearing and opportunity for public comment.

1:31:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Followed by board deliberation and recommendation.

1:32:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Start over, good evening. My name is Danica Powell with Trestle Strategy Group.

1:32:11Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'm here to present today.

1:32:12Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): night on the Pearl Arts District, proposed rezoning and legislative amendments to the Zone District.

1:32:19Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Personally, I've been working on this project since 2018.

1:32:23Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): I, we have been working to engage with the city around adoption of TVAP Phase 2. It was kind of determined in 2020, that phase… the 2020… 2007 adoption of

1:32:38Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): TVAP Phase 1 was reaching build-out. It was anticipated to reach build-out about 15 to 20 years after adoption, and in fact, it did that. And so I was, engaged with the property owner to look at how we could start positioning this property for TVAP Phase 2.

1:32:51Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): A big part of the work we're doing that we haven't discussed as much tonight, and I know we can answer questions, is the…

1:32:57Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): flood mitigation in the slough. So in 2016, the city mapped a floodplain in this area that didn't exist before, not on paper. And so that put much of the property into high hazard and 100-year floodplain. So one of the big aspects of this project is working to mitigate that through a trestle fix, not my company, but a trestle bridge fix with the railroad company.

1:33:20Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): That is taking several years. We have a conditional letter of map revision, and then that means we have to go into final engineering, and then we design, build, and construct, and

1:33:31Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): hopefully in 3 years or so, we'll… that, flood mitigation will be built. It will take this property out of most of the high hazard… all of the high hazard and most of the 100-year floodplain, as well as many properties around us, downstream and upstream.

1:33:46Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): that speaks to the phasing of the project. It's hard… you can't approve buildings that are in the high hazard and 100-year floodplain. So we're balancing a lot of,

1:33:56Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Different things happening in this to try to get the venue out of the ground as soon as possible in order to build that community benefit.

1:34:06Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): I'm gonna go back. And as mentioned before, we, you know, when TVAP was approved, it was actually 3 years ago yesterday that TVAP Phase 2 was approved, it was noted that new zone districts and or form-based code would be implemented the following year, and so we actively stayed involved

1:34:26Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): you know, questioning and wondering when that would happen. It never got put on a work plan, and so as we continue to ask the questions, how do we implement this project, how do we move forward with site review, there's no zone district to align with our approved land use and the TVAP.

1:34:42Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): what do we do? How do we move forward? And so that led us to February of this year, when we came to you with a concept plan and asked that very question. We did receive mixed feedback, but all overall, we were heard… we heard

1:34:55Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): that the concept was great, it met the values of the community, it met the intent of TBAP Phase 2, and that we'd like to see this move forward. Taking that direction from you and City Council, we are moving forward.

1:35:07Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): It is tricky. There isn't a zone district, there's not a perfect… you know, we discussed flex zoning, which is kind of a Frankenstein zone district. That doesn't work. BR1 zoning doesn't really work. BR1 isn't appropriate for a transit

1:35:20Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): oriented development. Has big setbacks, big floor plates. So we landed on MU4 with two small changes that I know we're gonna talk about a lot tonight.

1:35:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Danica, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we don't have a clock yet. Thomas, could we please get,

1:35:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): 11 and a half minutes on the clock. Thank you. Thank you.

1:35:41Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): So the two modifications, as we've mentioned, and Shannon did a great job explaining, is the FAR of 3.5 to align with TVAP Phase 2, and then building height. I want to note that that building height of, you know, the allowed building height of 55 feet is really to align with what would have happened had the form-based code

1:36:00Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): been applied to this area. In all the form-based code areas, there is an additional community benefit for that height, because it's determined that they're in transit-oriented areas, and you don't have… you actually can go through an administrative process, which I know you're very familiar with. So we're trying to blend…

1:36:16Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): this MU4 with a form-based code, creating an MU5-type zone district that would mirror what could have happened if form-based code was

1:36:25Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Approved.

1:36:28Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): In exchange.

1:36:31Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): we have made a lot of commitments in this ordinance. Commitments above and beyond what we would have if it was just a straight rezoning, which is including the Performing Arts Center of 20,000 square feet in Phase 1, rehearsal space of 4,000 square feet, the southern anchor.

1:36:45Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Publicly accessible open space, and a commitment to all future site reviews coming to Planning Board for approval and call-up by City Council.

1:36:53Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): many more bites at the apple. That was a commitment that is made in the ordinance. We can't get around that. That was something that this team, agreed to. So there was… this is a balanced ordinance, in our opinion, that is, providing some certainty to the developer and the investors on this project, as well as promises and commitments to the City of Boulder.

1:37:14Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): I think we talked a lot about the alignment with the Transit Village Area Plan Phase 2, which talks about a land use that

1:37:21Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): doesn't… in a zoning that doesn't exist. When TVAP Phase 1 was approved, the city actually created MU4 zoning, and they initiated rezoning on all the properties within the transit village. And then they adopted the form-based code. We're in a very different time right now, with limited staff resources.

1:37:37Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): And a lot of challenges in order to get to this implementation phase of this project.

1:37:44Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): The… this project is fully aligned with the City Vision, not only TVAP Phase 2, but the recently adopted Boulder Valley Comp Plan, the Boulder Arts Blueprint, and the rezoning criteria. And I think Shannon did a great job of providing that analysis. I'm gonna pass it off to Daniel Eisenman with Conscience Bay.

1:38:03Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Thank you very much, Daniel Eisenman with Conscience Bay Company. We are the developer for the project, and thanks for all.

1:38:09Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): All your incredible questions.

1:38:11Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): As Danica said.

1:38:12Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): and as you have noticed, this is a very complex process. There is no simple solution, and all we've been trying to do is follow the lead of the staff, follow the lead of the area plans, follow the lead of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, just to get to a place where we can provide this community benefit for the city.

1:38:31Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): We are not trying to ask for exemptions here, we're just trying to implement the visions that the community had already approved. And, truly, we're asking your support for that, so…

1:38:42Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): As a reminder of what this project is offering, certainly we have, 2500% capacity venue, which is going to go on Phase 1. We've committed to that. That's a major commitment.

1:38:53Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): This is no small task. The reason we can achieve this on Phase 1 and sooner is because we could find a way out of the floodplain. That is, some part of the site that is out of the floodplain.

1:39:03Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): But we don't have that certainty yet. Certainly, 180 events that will happen, community events, music events, cultural events.

1:39:12Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The dedicated rehearsal space for the arts community. This is a fully community benefit, part of the blue arts blueprint, that the city, established, and a major need that will be, provided with this project at a later phase.

1:39:28Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Certainly the housing, the 500-plus units of transit-oriented development homes where housing belongs.

1:39:34Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And, 30,000 square feet of food and beverage, and certainly the hotel, 150-room hotel, which is much needed for, multiple reasons, including Sundance.

1:39:44Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, I do want to mention that the southern anchor is a major component of our project, and we are committed to that as well, as part of this ordinance, and as part of the project as well.

1:39:56Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, I want to talk a little bit about BBCP alignment. I think Shannon and team listed 12, we actually have 16.

1:40:06Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Policies, the visitor economy, the night economy, the experiential economy. We all can conclude that a project like this

1:40:14Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): would provide a benefit like that. But more important, I want to say that original hubs are defining places of Boulder's identity and play a key role in the health of the local economy. They bring together jobs, retail services, tourism, and housing in artful, walkable, well-connected areas.

1:40:33Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, this is what we're bringing to this project, that kind of benefit. So, why does this matter to Boulder? Because this project delivers a generational music venue, and it's committed… that it's committed on Phase 1. I want to re-emphasize that. That is a major commitment that we're making in order to achieve this ordinance.

1:40:49Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, we're providing the infrastructure that supports Sundance. Sundance is not going to stay in our town if we don't have the right infrastructure to support them, and we are committed to, to bringing that as well.

1:41:00Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Also, you know, part of the Policy 38, Imagination Locations, Arts, Culture, and Heritage.

1:41:09Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, this project will support the local arts community, and this is really at the heart of the project 24-7. This is a 24-7 arts project.

1:41:17Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): We are committing to providing the long-needed rehearsal space, and this will be the new civic gathering space in this part of town. This is the anchor of our project, more than the event center itself. This is what brings real people, Boulderites, and artists every single day to the project.

1:41:34Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Also want to talk about the compact urban form, the housing diversity and supply that we're complying with this project. We're delivering the 500 new TOD homes.

1:41:43Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): within walking distance of the transit station. This is the dream, this is what we've been waiting for when we funded this train that's finally coming in 2029.

1:41:52Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The transit station that's already there that's underutilized because there's not enough density in this part of town, and we will bring that density so that we can have enough service connecting to the rest of the city, connecting to the rest of other towns.

1:42:05Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And we will build a variety of housing here. We're not just saying that we'll build a monotone of housing. We're actually talking about inline townhomes. It could be 2, 3, 4 bedrooms. We're talking about studios, 1s, 2s, 3s, and fours even, for that matter. So, this is something that we're committed, is having the variety of housing for the project.

1:42:25Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): We're also bringing a vital and productive retail base on the ground floor with this 30,000 square feet, inclusive, diverse, and inviting community, 15-minute neighborhood, which is another dream that we have in our city of Boulder. We have all the services and all the ingredients associated with that. We have the business and the employment, diversity and the excellence.

1:42:45Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, this project will be a true economic, engine for the city. It will bring permanent jobs, good-paid jobs in the arts.

1:42:54Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): But also very important not to forget that the economic development that this project would generate for the city and the county is upwards of $2.8 billion over 25 years. Let that sink. $2.8 billion.

1:43:09Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And additionally, $1.6 billion for the state of Colorado.

1:43:14Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, this is a unique opportunity.

1:43:17Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Certainly integrated land use and transportation. We've all seen what's happening with COCO, hopefully it will pass. Either way, the first phase will guarantee us that we have a train starting in January 2029.

1:43:30Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Granted, we're not able to deliver the project as quickly as we wanted to, because we still don't even know what zone we're on. So, we really need that level of clarity for that to happen, so…

1:43:40Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): But this is TOD as good as it gets. So…

1:43:45Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Talk a little bit about the funding city services and infrastructure, and design excellence for all other projects.

1:43:52Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): As it was clarified by the staff, part of the development agreement, and with your approval, with this body's approval and Council approval, we will commit to the things that need to happen in order for this project to occur. So, we will underground, electrical infrastructure, upsize the capacity, another fire mitigation measure.

1:44:11Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): We'll deliver the transportation plan, the multi-use paths, even this micro-mobility hub depicted here, that we really want to, be able to be groundbreaking with.

1:44:21Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And the whole project is designed, through the lens of the best serving practices.

1:44:28Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, talk a little bit about urban natural infrastructure and support for redevelopment. In particular, I want to talk about this stormwater project, which is not our responsibility as a developer. It's not even in our property. It's underneath the railroad track of BNSF. We paid $250,000 of our own money to get that clomer.

1:44:47Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): We've shepherd this with the city, created relationships with BNSF, with the two ditch communities that own the ditch company where the Boulder Slough goes through, and we finally are getting traction in getting this solved, so it's not only us that are getting out of the floodplain, there's 35 other properties, that will benefit from this project.

1:45:06Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, talk about community, benefit that this project will produce.

1:45:10Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And more important, I think this project will be a catalyst for development for TBAP2.

1:45:17Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): We're done with TBAP1, we gotta start with TBAP 2. You guys approved, the area plan 3 years ago. It's been 3 years, and we still don't have a zone, and I don't have any clarity.

1:45:27Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): As to what I can do in a property. I cannot wait any longer, to understand what my property rights are, and what I can do, and what are the promises that I can start making to people that can finance this project, bankers.

1:45:41Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): urban redevelopment authorities, metro districts, any other, body that I would need to have to approve this, and, that I'm not able to even start those conversations, because I don't have the proper zone, to, to execute what TBAP.

1:45:55Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Started to, to do.

1:45:58Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, I wanna, also mention, and give me one second here… Yep.

1:46:06Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): This is the current state of our property. We have two large warehouses here sitting on asphalt.

1:46:13Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Most of our tenants here are, large distribution facilities. We have a brewery that we just revived to… so that we can keep people coming into the site, but primarily, most of the people are driving from out of town to work on this… on this place.

1:46:29Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): We are across the street from the transit station, part of an area plan that's been litigated, community, approached, and listened to.

1:46:38Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And, we are ready to get going, so…

1:46:42Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I just want to conclude that, we are asking respectfully to recommend City Council the approval of the rezoning and the special ordinance, including the 3.5 FAR, which is set as a vision that you approved, not we, but you approved, the 1 to 3.5 FAR.

1:47:01Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): 55-foot height allowance, which is what TVAP got as a result of the form-based code, which is what Alpine Balsam got, which is what the East Boulder Plan got, but we didn't get. So we want to just come into compliance, into alignment as to what division for the city was.

1:47:19Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, with this ordinance, the project remains fully subjective to the site review.

1:47:23Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And the public oversight, while gaining flexibility necessary to deliver the city's adopted vision.

1:47:30Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, again, I want to re-emphasize, it's 3 years since we submitted a recent application.

1:47:36Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): 3 years later, here we are. It was declined, and we applied for it again after the concept plan was submitted, so…

1:47:44Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): This is the moment to move, to implementation, and I want to thank you for your consideration.

1:47:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you so much to the applicant team.

1:47:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Alright, questions from Planning Board members. Claudia.

1:48:00Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Thanks for that presentation. I want to start off by asking what

1:48:05Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): are the key aspects of your proposal that are not accommodated by MU4? So I know we're having a conversation about FAR,

1:48:13Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): But what specific aspects of the site design that you're envisioning?

1:48:19Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): require that higher FAR.

1:48:21Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): I'll just answer your first part of your question. I'll let Daniel maybe answer the second. I think that, actually, we… when we approached the city with this ordinance, we were actually asking for more things than you were seeing in front of you. One of those is a 15,000 square foot floor plate limitation, which is in MU4, which every… I think, to our understanding, every project that's come before this has gotten an exception, and that's an exception that can be done through site review criteria. So that was something we

1:48:46Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): I think, last minute agreed to. So there were… there were several things that we were looking to put in this ordinance that we stripped out in order to kind of meet the intent, and I think the legal intent, of what we're trying to do here. In terms of what the reason for the 55 feet and the 3.5 FER, I think that was your second part of your question.

1:49:08Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, the 55 feet, is mostly because we want to provide the right density for what was designed for our city.

1:49:16Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And similar to the form-based code that was approved across the street for, for TBAP1. That is what we were told was going to happen when TBAP2 was approved. The form-based code was not implemented, so those were our assumptions to begin with, that that's what we were going to work towards, and that was not the case.

1:49:33Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Our goal is to maximize the arts, our goal is to maximize the number of units that we can build. Certainly, getting to 55 feet is the method to get there.

1:49:42Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, I think that's the reason.

1:49:45Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Why 3.5 is because we are looking for a dense project, similar, it was designed in the TVAP2 phase… what is it, the regional TOD, place type that was designed for this project, so…

1:49:59Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): We are looking to do as much density as possible on this site, and that requires a 3.5 FAR. We want to build what belongs

1:50:07Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): In close proximity to the transit stations and the core of our city, as well.

1:50:14Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): We recently discussed, and I think City Council approved some

1:50:19Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Some changes to height modification rules that make it possible for buildings like,

1:50:25Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): performance spaces, recreational spaces, etc, to ask for additional height, right? Or to make that… to make that an easier ask.

1:50:33Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): In that context, is there a particular need for a height exemption written into this ordinance, as opposed to getting it through a site review?

1:50:42Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): I think those are kind of… those are two different items. So the… and the code is very complicated, as you are well known, we've demonstrated tonight. You guys had me scrambling around, the code looking for things, as always. The…

1:50:56Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): The modification was for a performing arts venue to be two stories, or one story above 35 feet, to kind of meet the needs of a… and plus, remember, this building also has to be flood-proofed, so…

1:51:08Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): the… and that… a similar thing, a code change happened for a museum, which kind of was, like, respectful, I think, to BMOCA. So we did… our code just doesn't

1:51:18Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): have accommodations for certain things. Like, you can't do a…

1:51:21Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): a three-story building with a… in a zone that's a two-story maximum that's over 35 feet. So there's all these, like, kind of weird little glitches. So that was one code cleanup, was just to allow us to ask for height modification for that venue. Now, the 55 feet is a kind of another layer on top of that, which is just to allow 55 feet

1:51:41Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Without the additional community benefit requirement, which again, which, if it was form-based code, wouldn't be required. And I think to reflect the community benefit that this project is bringing with the performing arts center and venue, because the… the…

1:51:56Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): you know, the additional cash in lieu on those 4th and 5th story is… it makes the project more expensive. And, there's also some design considerations that…

1:52:05Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): impact the design of a venue, in terms of the building length and facade and the amount of glazing, etc. So we're trying to really capture what a form-based code would have done, and an MU5 zone district would have done in a simple… the simplest way possible.

1:52:21Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I also want to add that the venue itself is over 38 feet, it's already close to the 55 feet, and that's the nature of a concert venue, so…

1:52:31Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Because of our building needs to have those qualities, and if we don't get that level of certainty, we cannot make a deal with an operator, and therefore the… we cannot get to a venue, essentially.

1:52:42Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Okay, yeah. What I'm trying to clarify is there… there is a pathway in our current rules for you to get that height through site review, but you're asking for some additional conditions around the community benefit aspect in particular. Okay.

1:52:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I… it sounds like there are also some of our… Design criteria in the code.

1:53:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): that would be difficult to meet on the performance venue, but those… those still apply, right? Those design criteria around glazing and building length.

1:53:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Still apply, even if the ordinance is approved at 55 feet.

1:53:16Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Is that correct? That's correct, yeah, they'd have to be considered as part of site review. Okay, thank you. Just wanted to clarify that.

1:53:23Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): And then just one more question, what are the anticipated parking needs of a performance venue of the scale that you're planning?

1:53:32Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): That's a really good question, and I don't have a concrete answer to you, but I will say that, we are counting on a number of,

1:53:41Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Traffic, demand management measures, which will include, certainly public transportation, and providing eco-passes for the workers, and all the stuff that's required of almost any project.

1:53:52Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I will say that, we do have a very large unoccupied parking garage that's part of BJET that is not occupied at night, that, could fulfill those needs, so that would be extra, extra, revenue for the city for the event nights.

1:54:08Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I will also say that we are trying to manage, the people arriving on site via ride-hailing services and autonomous vehicles in the very, very near future with this micromobility hub.

1:54:22Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, to encourage… to do the least amount of parking associated with the project. And, to me, the most important is the bike connectivity as well. We want to encourage as many people to arrive on bikes, and I think that's a realistic expectation.

1:54:35Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Sure. Again, I'm asking about this because of a specific

1:54:39Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): part of the ordinance that you're asking for, where we're talking about how we measure FAR, right? Sure. And does that include above-ground parking spaces, vehicle circulation, etc? And you're asking for that to not be counted. So I'm asking, like, how much of that are you actually anticipating

1:54:57Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): having in that above-ground space where it could potentially count against FAR?

1:55:01Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I think there'll be some associated with the venue itself, but mostly it'll be associated with, residential blocks.

1:55:08Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And I will remind you that we are not able to go underground on the site, mostly because the water table is really high, and it's cost prohibitive, almost $110,000 per space, which is an absurdity if I would go underground.

1:55:21Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, our goal is to go above ground, and that eats a lot of, a lot of leasability on the project. And leisability means number of units as well. And sorry. Yeah, and I think…

1:55:32Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that even with the Clomar, low-mar, and flood mitigation, parts of the site will still be in the 100-year, they'll just be taken out of the high hazard, and there's limitations. You can't do underground parking on a residential building.

1:55:46Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): You can do underground parking on a mixed-use building, but not residential. So the ability, besides the water table and the cost.

1:55:53Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): We… flood rules don't even allow you to go underground. So, we anticipate a lot of the parking to be above ground, surrounded by buildings, and that's why we didn't want it to count towards the FAR. Okay, thank you.

1:56:09Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt.

1:56:12Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): It's clicking my mouse instead of my microphone button. Following up on that, why specifically did you request the exemption for the parking, structured parking, as opposed to some other use?

1:56:26Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): It's the same question that I asked staff.

1:56:28Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Can you clarify, like, what other use? I'm not sure what that means. Housing, for example.

1:56:33Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Or the… Or the, the performance venue.

1:56:37Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): It did not occur to me to have an exemption for housing on FAR, but if, you know, if that's possible, certainly,

1:56:46Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): And I actually kind of have a question for staff, because when you look at the table where parking is excluded from the FAR, MU4 isn't in that table, so…

1:56:55Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): I actually don't understand that completely, but I think in 75% of the zone districts in that table, parking is excluded. Vehicle parking, bike parking. So we were just following…

1:57:07Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Kind of what has been…

1:57:09Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): you know, most of our zone districts exclude structured parking from the FAR calculation, but I don't know if there's an answer why MU4 isn't in that table.

1:57:22Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I'm gonna make an educated guess. When the ME4 zoning district was created, it was created with an incentive to join the district, a parking district in the area, and the zone was created such to minimize parking on parcels, and there was no minimum parking requirement.

1:57:41Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And there's a maximum parking requirement.

1:57:44Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): So, that was kind of novel when that zoning district was created, and it was different from all other zones in the city. So, properties could be developed without providing any parking.

1:57:55Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And I want to compliment that, and we counted this, 3 quarters of the zones outlined in the city don't count parking for, as if they are.

1:58:04Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, there's a lot of precedent, in our code.

1:58:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Ml?

1:58:15ml Robles . PB: Yes, thank you. So I have, pretty direct question. So the concept plan, which is the basis for determining significant community benefit, is this an accurate representation of what you propose on the site?

1:58:35Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): This is our intent, as of now.

1:58:38Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Yes, I would say that what was represented in the concept plan is our intent.

1:58:43Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): But, conditions change, designs can change.

1:58:49Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Essentially, it is a concept, and it was intended to be a concept. We have not started site review. And, once we start the site review process, you will get,

1:59:00Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): the same, process that you get with any other project. So, I would say consider that a concept, but yes, that is our intent.

1:59:09ml Robles . PB: So, am I correct in understanding that the FAR for the concept plan, is 2.2?

1:59:17Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The concept plan FAR is 2.2 across the board. Each parcel on a parcelized basis varies, all the way to 3.5 in some cases.

1:59:27ml Robles . PB: But on the entire site, it's a 2.2.

1:59:29Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): As depicted, yes. That does not mean that that's the ultimate number, but as depicted, yes, it was 2.2.

1:59:36ml Robles . PB: Go ahead.

1:59:37ml Robles . PB: Thank you, those are my questions.

1:59:40Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, ml.

1:59:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other questions for the applicant?

1:59:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark.

1:59:49Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): This is about the businesses currently on the site.

1:59:55Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I assume, but I want to ask, are… all of them are well aware, of your intention and plans in their leases. It's well documented that at some point, those buildings will go away, and their tenancy will go away, is that correct? That is correct. And how many…

2:00:14Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): businesses, and again, I realize

2:00:18Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): You're very… in a very conceptual phase, but based on the amount of retail that you are currently considering, how many small businesses will occupy

2:00:31Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): that space.

2:00:33Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): That is a hard question to tell you by number, Mark, but there is,

2:00:40Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): There's quite a,

2:00:44Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Quite a few sizes that we're planning for, all the way from something really small in the 400 or 500 square feet, which would be entry-level retail service type of space.

2:00:53Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): All the way to somebody wanting to do maybe a 10,000 square foot, you know.

2:00:59Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): type of restaurant, or some other use that I haven't thought of.

2:01:03Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Now, I want to say the project is not designed, but that is our intent, and our goal is to have a mix of sizes and entry level, all the way to more established businesses as well.

2:01:16Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you.

2:01:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other questions from the board for the applicants?

2:01:23Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I have just a couple.

2:01:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Maybe 3.

2:01:28Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So you referenced the arts blueprint and some of the goals in that, and one of the values that's represented in the arts blueprint is trying to make access to the arts and rehearsal space and performance space more affordable. Can you comment? Is there any component of that still planned in your project, or planned in your project?

2:01:48Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The rehearsal space, while the ordinance points out to only 4,000 square feet as a minimum.

2:01:53Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Our goal is right now to have an 8,500 square foot facility.

2:01:57Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): That was solely dedicated for rehearsal space for the performing arts community. And I say performing because I don't see this as a place where painters are going to come, or sculptors, this is more on the performing arts side of things.

2:02:09Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And, our goal, if we can finance this, if we can get this done, is to give this building to some sort of, cultural trust that will manage this building, and they'll be responsible for, essentially,

2:02:24Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Charging the fees that they think their artists can support.

2:02:28Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): But our… it is our goal that this is a community space, not a space that we're gonna own.

2:02:35Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you.

2:02:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): if I remember correctly in concept review, and please, I might not, so correct me if I'm wrong, you had talked about building out open space in Phase 1. I'm particularly interested in that southern anchor space. Is that intended to be included in Phase 1?

2:02:51Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): It is not, not.

2:02:52Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): because I don't want to build it, because the area where the venue would go, is very, very limited. And, basically, it would eat up most of the space required, for, that I can improve in Phase 1.

2:03:09Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): In other words, I cannot improve a space that is still in the conveyance zone and in the 100-year floodplain. Does that make sense?

2:03:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Well, I know you can't put structures in the conveyance zone.

2:03:20Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): manipulate the contours either.

2:03:22Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): You can't build anything within the flood zone before you get the…

2:03:28Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): improvements done. I cannot manipulate the contours of the site, and basically.

2:03:33Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The venue's gonna basically place in the only location that we can manipulate the contours.

2:03:38Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Yep.

2:03:40Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): and I'll say it maybe a different way, you can't create a rise in elevation in almost anything in this area. We have a flood engineer. Even a curb, even a trail, a sidewalk starts to change the flood rise, and we just legally can't do that. And so, we're really trying to walk this, you know.

2:03:58Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): There's a portion of the property in the southern end that's in the 100-year, so we can flood-proof that building and create the, you know.

2:04:06Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): you know, accessibility around it, and create, you know, paths, and we've talked to the city a lot. We actually have ongoing meetings every other week to figure out how we can kind of walk this tightrope of adding as much as we can without creating that rise, because you just can't even…

2:04:22Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): like, there's not even a way to do that. You can't do a letter of map revision in the high hazard zone, so it's…

2:04:29Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): any pavement, any… even a bush or a tree, it starts to change the qualities of that conveyance zone, and it… because it's just really meant to send water through. So, ultimately, that is our goal, to have all of that revised, and that plan will show the ultimate, kind of, vision of both TBAP and our concept plan.

2:04:49Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you. And that relates to my last question, which is.

2:04:52Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Can you describe the part of the site, and in particular the amount of acreage, that will be in Phase 1, as you are envisioning it now? Yeah.

2:05:00Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Is it 2-point… no, not even. Can I, share my screen again?

2:05:04Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Happy to…

2:05:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): While you're doing that, ML, do you still have your hand up, or is that a lingering… Hand.

2:05:23Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you.

2:05:30Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, the land, this is essentially what Phase 1 would look like. The green box is the only area in the site that is out of the 100-year floodplain, no conveyance zone, no high hazard zone. So, essentially, that is basically the site, what you see here.

2:05:49Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And the intended uses, as far as you are planning now, to propose for site review, is the performing arts venue.

2:05:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): That's it. Parking? Structured parking? No. No, just the performing arts?

2:06:00Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Performing arts venue.

2:06:01Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Okay. Yep. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome.

2:06:05Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Can I follow up on that? But that… that is showing parking also, right, as part of… surface parking?

2:06:12Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): It's existing.

2:06:14Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Oh, you would use it.

2:06:14Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The existing… we would use the existing parking. Yeah. Yes.

2:06:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Anything else for the applicants?

2:06:23Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, thank you so much to the applicant team. It is now 8.07. Do folks need to take a break?

2:06:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Anyone need a break?

2:06:32Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Nope.

2:06:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Maybe. Let's… let's take 5, and we'll come back at, 8.13. We'll say 8… let's just go ahead and say 8.15. We'll be back at 8.15.

2:07:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Oopsies.

2:08:11Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So…

2:08:18Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): That's not supposed to…

2:08:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Absolutely.

2:08:37Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Passenger.

2:08:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): There is a vision here.

2:08:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'll send you.

2:08:49Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So… He gets bigger.

2:08:52Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Uncertain number.

2:08:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): expensive.

2:09:02Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, like, the aerial thing. Yeah, I would be the last one to just say, you know, never say never, but, but…

2:09:09Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): You know.

2:09:13Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): sort of thing.

2:09:15Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): It's, you know.

2:09:21Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Without the network.

2:09:25Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Network.

2:09:37Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Whenever I talk to them.

2:09:58Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): It's like, it's right there, yeah. And that's what's frustrating.

2:10:05Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Yeah.

2:10:07Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I think I would generalize it.

2:10:12Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): That's like…

2:10:17Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Looks pretty wet as we go.

2:10:20Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): It sounds funny.

2:10:45Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I do take.

2:10:51Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Pretty good, yeah.

2:10:54Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): There's kind of that area.

2:11:04Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): It's really…

2:11:35Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): That's simple.

2:11:42Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): efficiency guys.

2:12:06Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Oh, good.

2:12:21Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): It's 17 people at the arts.

2:12:25Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Let's go.

2:12:28Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I'm so dope.

2:12:37Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): A lot of the existing infrastructure.

2:12:39Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): But that's, you know, something different.

2:12:44Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Let's go.

2:12:50Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): He's shifted the conversation.

2:13:02Board & Commissions: So somebody else is an alchemistole.

2:13:08Board & Commissions: But the sites get really interesting.

2:13:17Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I can change my mind those annoying.

2:13:23Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): What did you say?

2:13:33Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Thank you all for the rebuilding, build this, I think.

2:13:45Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Hey, Laura, when we come back, can I clarify something?

2:13:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Coming back together here in less than a minute.

2:14:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, folks, we are reconvened at 8.15, and we have a request from staff to clarify one thing before we go to the public hearing.

2:14:29Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Chair Kaplan, before the break, you had asked if the facade length requirements

2:14:34Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Found in the site review criteria in 9-2-14.

2:14:39Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Which are part of… The exemptions for a height modification.

2:14:48Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Those would not apply, since the applicants being granted a height modification through the ordinance, the way that the ordinance is drafted is that these standards wouldn't apply. So, the, facade length of 200 feet…

2:15:04Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): If granted a height modification, wouldn't be something that we would consider through site review.

2:15:09Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): The transparency requirements, and, building entrance location.

2:15:16Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): the standards found in 971 in the table would apply, so the transparency stuff would apply, the facade length would not be something that we would consider through

2:15:27Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Site review.

2:15:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): It could not be considered under any of the site design criteria? No.

2:15:34Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

2:15:35Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): All of the rest of the site review criteria, for the most part, apply, but just that the ones related to height modification wouldn't.

2:15:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes, thank you. Okay, we're gonna go to the public hearing, and Thomas, who's managing the public hearing at this point in the evening? I'll be… I'll be managing it. Great, thank you so much. I'll turn it over to you, Thomas.

2:15:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Chair, and we'll.

2:15:57Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Let's start with our in-person participants. We have 3 sign-ups here in the room.

2:16:01Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): First up, we have Nick Forster. Nick, you can step up to the podium and give your comment, you'll have 3 minutes. And just, please turn on that microphone before you begin. My name is Nick Forster, I live at 701 Euclid here in Boulder. So I've been around for many years.

2:16:16Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): in Boulder. I've spent on a lot of…

2:16:18Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Commissions and panels to talk about performing arts.

2:16:22Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): centers in Boulder, and we've all been, thoroughly

2:16:26Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): Disappointed, because it's just sort of impossible to make progress on this front.

2:16:30Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): It's one of the many reasons why I'm excited about this project, not just because

2:16:35Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): venue of this size doesn't exist in Boulder, and I think it would offer a lot of opportunities for us to bring new programming to Boulder that would continue to enliven and invigorate our community.

2:16:45Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): I happen to think that this particular site is uniquely qualified for this, where it is, and the combination of residential, hotel, and performing arts venue is exciting.

2:16:55Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): I think it's so tough to get something like this through. I want to commend you all for your ability to navigate, the finer points of land use code. I can tell you that I…

2:17:08Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): have gone through this process myself for E-Town Hall and for other projects.

2:17:13Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): And it's tough, but I hope that at this point, we can elevate the conversation just a little bit, and think more broadly about the public benefit, because we've got, for example, with the St. Julian Hotel and the Civic Pad.

2:17:26Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): There was public benefit that never materialized.

2:17:28Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): With the redevelopment of the camera building, there was the movie theater and the park on the roof that really became

2:17:36Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): A kind of a nothing burger in terms of public benefit.

2:17:39Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): Here's an opportunity for a project where the developers are providing… they're kind of leading with the public benefit, the Performing Arts Center, the 8,000 square foot rehearsal space.

2:17:48Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): And they're paying for a lot of the infrastructure changes that are necessary. I don't see this as a problem for taxpayers, I don't see this as a problem for the city, I see it as a benefit, and I also see it as a really dynamic addition

2:18:03Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): To, particularly the adjacency to the train tracks and the, the opportunity to have multi-use

2:18:08Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): modes for getting there. I am noticing that, for example, at the performing arts venues in Denver, a much higher percentage of people are arriving on Lyfts and Ubers, and so they're cutting down on their parking for… the Mission Ballroom, for example, is getting rid of a lot of their parking.

2:18:25Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): Because they're finding it's just not utilized.

2:18:27Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): So I think there's been a lot of time, and a lot of thought, and a lot of thoughtfulness.

2:18:32Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): Around this project, and I'm typically skeptical, particularly when there's big, you know, high-density development, being a hippie environmentalist from Boulder.

2:18:43Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): this is a project that feels good, and I know that it's hard to get through. This is the first phase of many that they're gonna have to jump through in order to find their way to making progress and moving forward.

2:18:55Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): But I urge you to consider approving this change so that they can move on to the next phase, the next step, and present their site plan, and of course, you'll have another opportunity to weigh in, many more opportunities to weigh in, but I urge you to support them at this stage. Thank you.

2:19:16Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Next up, we have Maria Cole.

2:19:21Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Hi, is this… is it on? Okay, great. Hi, good evening. My name is Maria Cole. I appreciate Nick's comments about raising this.

2:19:28Speaker 15 (Board & Commissions): to a higher level and starting that conversation of the public benefit. I want to speak in support of the Pearl Street Art District. I'm on the Create Boulder Board, president of the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, and I live in North Boulder.

2:19:39Speaker 15 (Board & Commissions): This spring, I rolled off a 5-year term on the Boulder Arts Commission. As a commissioner, one issue we heard every year, that's year after year from all the different liaison organizations that we're tasked to reach out to, is the lack of venues in this community.

2:19:54Speaker 15 (Board & Commissions): So I want to support the need for venues and the, really that aspiration to build venues at this node.

2:20:01Speaker 15 (Board & Commissions): This is clearly reflected in the Arts Blueprint and the Boulder Comprehensive Plan, and as you all know, the Comprehensive Plan talks about these 15-minute communities, walkable communities. I think that means there should be

2:20:14Speaker 15 (Board & Commissions): arts nodes in each of those communities, and I think that's sorely needed at this intersection at Pearl and Foothills Park Nodes. It's just perfect for that east end of the city.

2:20:24Speaker 15 (Board & Commissions): I think as we wrote in the Crete Boulder letter, venues provide essential civic infrastructure that contribute to Boulder's economic vitality, community well-being, and quality of life.

2:20:34Speaker 15 (Board & Commissions): As a representative of Crete Boulder, BMOCA, and community member, I support the proposed rezoning and special ordinance because it provides a path to advance the city's adopted land use goals and provide vitality needed spaces for arts to thrive.

2:20:47Speaker 15 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

2:20:50Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Next up, we have David Ensign, and David, you'll have 3 minutes to speak. Please go ahead.

2:20:56Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): All right, thank you so much. Hi, everyone. My name's.

2:20:59Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): This is David Ensign, I live at 4020 Evans Drive here in Boulder, speaking as a Boulder resident.

2:21:04Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): As a former planning board member, I want to offer my encouragement as you look for a path.

2:21:09Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): forward on the Pearl Arts District project.

2:21:12Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): You may have seen my email that included a letter from me and three other planning board members, that I served with during the years for the vision of TVAP, and it was a major initiative that we were involved with at many steps of the process.

2:21:25Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): Brian, John, Harmon, and I know what it's like to be in your shoes, working through zoning issues that are pretty complex, and we know what it's like when an exact fit in zoning designation needs to be… is needed to implement a vision that hasn't made it into Title IX.

2:21:42Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): I hope the letter, which conveys our excitement about the realization of Complan and TVAP roadmaps we were involved with, will at least make you feel a little less alone, since there are people in the community that can kind of feel your pain.

2:21:56Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): It hits home to hear the example of the diagonal brought up this evening, since I was on planning board for both the concept plan and site review for that project.

2:22:05Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): From my recollection, the existing BC1, BC2 designation was developed for strip malls that were all the rage in the 60s and 70s, but those zones haven't been modified enough to adapt to the possibility of denser housing projects than commercial sites that can't meet the 600 to 1,200 foot minimum usable open space per dwelling unit.

2:22:25Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): We followed the same exact process you're going through tonight, well, exact, to decide whether a special ordinance for the site was justifiable, and I'm pretty sure we didn't have an area or subcommunity plan in that case. So I'm thinking we had to rely almost completely on the principles in BVCP.

2:22:42Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): So hopefully you feel fortunate to have TVAP to help inform you tonight.

2:22:46Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): In reviewing tonight's packet, though I don't dig as deep as you do, I was impressed with the proposal that planning staff have been able to put together. They chose the close-fit zoning of MU4 and provided thorough justification of how additional allowances are supported by criteria.

2:23:03Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): Clearly, having to use code change ordinances that include special allowances for a specific site has its issues. It adds cost to the process and additional complexity to the code. Hopefully, a future Title IX rewrite will make these situations much less common, but for now, this is where we are.

2:23:20Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): I hope that tonight you'll be able to work through the issues necessary to make you feel comfortable, sending a strong recommendation to City Council to move forward, the zoning changes and ordinance forward.

2:23:30Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): Boulder residents will benefit greatly from having a dynamic arts district adjacent to Boulder Junction with new housing, arts and culture uses, restaurants, commercial businesses, public gathering spaces, and convenient transit options.

2:23:44Speaker 16 (Board & Commissions): Thank you for your time and for all the hard work you put into making sure the best interests of Boulder residents and visitors, and visitors, right, are considered when important projects like this come forward. Thank you so much.

2:23:59Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, and thank you to all of our in-person speakers for being with us tonight.

2:24:03Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): With no other sign-ups in the room, we'll move to online participants.

2:24:08Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): So if you're joining us online and you would like to speak for the public hearing, this is your opportunity.

2:24:12Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Please go ahead and raise your hand to let us know you'd like to speak.

2:24:19Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): First up, we have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you'll have 3 minutes, and you can go ahead.

2:24:26lynn segal: Yeah, I don't support a new city being built in Boulder on the east.

2:24:35lynn segal: hard. It… Going back to 1948, when my dad, finished college here, and felt that…

2:24:48lynn segal: Boulder was too big at 30,000. It's not that I don't appreciate all the work that's been done, and… and how great Sundance is. I lived in Salt Lake for a while, so I appreciate that, but…

2:25:03lynn segal: I want nothing to do with the fact that

2:25:09lynn segal: the growth generated from this project is unacceptable to the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, because the Boulder Valley Comp Plan talks about benefit.

2:25:20lynn segal: The… the community benefit.

2:25:23lynn segal: And I don't see benefit here. I see it bringing a lot, particularly while we're in major wars, Israel, Palestine, and Iraq.

2:25:33lynn segal: We can't afford to grow.

2:25:36lynn segal: We… we have inflation like never before.

2:25:40lynn segal: And we have affordable housing costs, and it's not getting better.

2:25:45lynn segal: But we have a 1700

2:25:49lynn segal: person performing arts center at Mackey Auditorium, which is all refurbished now, and Chautauqua. We have plenty in Boulder. I came here

2:26:00lynn segal: To a small town.

2:26:01lynn segal: Not a big city.

2:26:04lynn segal: And I came here to be in a place that will not inflate so much that I can't…

2:26:12lynn segal: Afford to be here.

2:26:16lynn segal: It's just, not acceptable.

2:26:22lynn segal: this… intensity of… This housing, and hotel, and… Performance art, 2,500 people.

2:26:35lynn segal: That isn't… what… I think.

2:26:39lynn segal: That's just me.

2:26:41lynn segal: Boulder should be.

2:26:45lynn segal: I like it small. You know, I went to the Porch Fest this weekend. I didn't really have that much fun at the Porch Fest anymore, because there's so many people

2:26:55lynn segal: That are drawn

2:26:56lynn segal: to this neighborhood, one place. There should be porch fests all over town, and there's not enough community vitality now in Boulder for people to rise to the occasion and get to know their neighbors and do something. Instead, we're having out-of-towners come in and drive up the land value here considerably with Sundance.

2:27:20lynn segal: I don't support Sundance coming here at all.

2:27:24lynn segal: And… Sorry, I have to say no.

2:27:32Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Lynn.

2:27:34Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): I'm seeing no other raised hands online at the moment, but this is your opportunity if you'd like to speak, so we'll give it just a moment here.

2:27:46Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): And seeing none, I'll pass it back to you, Chair. Thank you.

2:27:50Laura Kaplan: Thank you, Thomas, and thank you to everyone.

2:27:55Laura Kaplan: Was that me again?

2:28:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Have to learn to mute my Zoom. No, that was me, Danica, but thank you for that. Thank you to everyone from the public who commented tonight. Thank you so much. So we are now to board deliberation and recommendation. As noted, we are not making a decision tonight. We are making a recommendation to City Council. Shannon, could you please pull back up the two key issues for us?

2:28:26ml Robles . PB: Laura, I have one staff clarification question, if possible.

2:28:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes, please. Go ahead, ml.

2:28:34ml Robles . PB: So… I either read… Conflicting information or heard it, but,

2:28:42ml Robles . PB: When this project comes for site review.

2:28:45ml Robles . PB: Is that site review for the entire project?

2:28:53Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, the boundaries of the entire property would be included in that site review, but it would only require

2:29:00Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The actual new redevelopment of that first initial phase with the first, application, and then there would be future site review amendments for future phases along the way, and those would all come to Planning Board for approval.

2:29:16ml Robles . PB: So, I think what I'm understanding you to say is that the site is the site, the entire parcel.

2:29:23ml Robles . PB: And… For the Phase 1, the site review…

2:29:29ml Robles . PB: Would only be looking at that building

2:29:33ml Robles . PB: As though it's the only building on the entire site? Is that correct? And then you'd be amending that to add the rest of it?

2:29:40Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yes, that's right.

2:29:41ml Robles . PB: Okay, thank you.

2:29:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, I have a few thoughts to frame up what we're doing here, and then we will go to the key issues.

2:29:52Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, tonight our options are to recommend approval, recommend denial, or recommend approval with conditions, if that is the will of the board. City Council is the decision maker and will be hearing this item. They do not need to call it up.

2:30:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I want to remind everyone here, and anyone watching, that the quasi-judicial part of this is not a negotiation.

2:30:13Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We make quasi-judicial based on criteria in the code.

2:30:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): The legislative part also is not a negotiation. It is based on our best judgment of whether the proposed modifications in the ordinance,

2:30:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): are consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

2:30:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): and the Transit Village Area Plan Phase 2, and I would submit the judgment of this board.

2:30:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So that is… those are the criteria that we are using tonight.

2:30:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I also want to remind everyone that…

2:30:49Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): as Mark pointed out, and I think as ML discussed, and as the applicant has acknowledged, nothing that was presented at concept review is guaranteed.

2:30:58Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Nothing is binding upon the applicant unless it is written either into this ordinance that will be passed by City Council in some form, probably, or it is written into the site review approvals. So, good intentions are wonderful, and we do love to hear about it.

2:31:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And we cannot rely on anything that was presented at concept review, or the images that were presented tonight. Nothing is final until site review.

2:31:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

2:31:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): With that said, I'm gonna propose that first we deal with the rezoning request.

2:31:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And that… I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble reading it on the screen because of the way that Zoom is presenting.

2:31:40Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): different windows.

2:31:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I can get it out of the memo, or is there a way to maybe scroll it or move it to be able to read it?

2:31:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I believe what it says is, is the rezoning request consistent with the rezoning criteria in Section 9-219E of the BRC?

2:32:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): That is our basic… P and F.

2:32:05Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): E and F, thank you.

2:32:07Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): of the BRC. That's our basic quasi-judicial question, and I'm gonna propose that we

2:32:14Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): comment on it, if the board are so moved. And I, in particular, would like to hear, is anyone thinking

2:32:21Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): that we should be doing something other than approving the rezoning to MU4.

2:32:28Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Dealing just with the rezoning request, not the rest of the ordinance that is legislative.

2:32:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, opening it up for a round of board comments. Kurt.

2:32:40Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Well, yeah, part of the problem is that these are intertwined, right?

2:32:43Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So… I support the rezoning.

2:32:49Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I would also… so I would support rezoning to MU4. I would also support rezoning to a new zone district.

2:32:58Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Call it MU5.

2:33:00Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): That, pro- includes some.

2:33:05Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): At least, of the provisions in the ordinance.

2:33:12Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, so when it comes time to make a recommendation on this.

2:33:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): you're saying that you might see if other board members are interested in recommending to Council that they

2:33:22Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): ask staff to create a new MU5, rather than rezoning it to MU4.

2:33:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you for flagging that.

2:33:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other comments from board members about this rezoning to MU4, recognizing that it can be intertwined and complicated.

2:33:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason.

2:33:41Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I would also be supportive of,

2:33:44Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): this key issue 1, and from what I've heard from the city and the questions and the discussion and reading the packet, I would not be supportive of another method. I feel like the method that was chosen by the city is appropriate.

2:33:58Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): So, I just wanted to throw that out there.

2:34:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mason.

2:34:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Max.

2:34:05Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I guess I would… gosh.

2:34:08Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): I forget I don't need it.

2:34:12Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I would agree with Mason. I'm very content with staff's analysis of the problem.

2:34:16Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): it seems.

2:34:17Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): to be that this is the most expedient way forward. I think that there's obviously.

2:34:23Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): And I mean, obviously, many complicated issues with Title IX that we're all aware of, but sometimes, in an effort to untangle it, we create even more tangles, so maybe that's something for down the road, and for right now, I would be very supportive of just allowing the applicant to move forward with MU4.

2:34:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Max.

2:34:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark.

2:34:48Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I'm supportive of the rezoning as proposed. I'll have additional comments because of the interrelated nature of the two key questions, and the fact that the motion

2:35:02Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): as suggested, is… is one motion.

2:35:06Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I'll just hold my comments until…

2:35:09Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): We get to motion making.

2:35:13Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mark.

2:35:14Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Claudia or ml? Claudia.

2:35:18Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): I'd say that I… I agree with Kurt that I might have preferred a new zoning district, an MU5, for example, in a different world. I don't see movement on that happening at this time. And so, in that context, I think that the rezoning to MU4

2:35:33Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): As proposed is appropriate and probably the best option that we have, given our limited choices.

2:35:40Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Claudia. ML.

2:35:43ml Robles . PB: I don't have any issue with, rezoning to MU4 as proposed. I believe that it is consistent with the criteria as noted.

2:35:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, and I also believe that the rezoning request is consistent with the rezoning criteria that we are asked to consider, that the rationale is solid, and I don't…

2:36:07Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): believe that we have the capacity as the planning board, or maybe not even as city council, to

2:36:13Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): force a different zone that doesn't exist. So,

2:36:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'm not terribly interested in recommending that to City Council, since I don't think staff would be supportive.

2:36:23Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): It doesn't seem like a practical option at this point, although I probably would have preferred that in a different world.

2:36:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, so that's discussion of the first one, and we'll save motion making.

2:36:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Since these are intertwined, yes. Sorry, may I interrupt?

2:36:39Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Lisa. I wanted to clarify, based on Kurt's statement, that the application in front of you is to rezone to MU4, so your recommendation should be on that. I think you could do a separate motion

2:36:51Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): For additional considerations, but there should be a recommendation on the actual application in front of you.

2:37:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Hela. That's very useful to know.

2:37:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, our second key issue is about whether the proposed ordinance granting authority to approve a development which exceeds certain standards in MU4 zoning district, including allowing the maximum floor area ratio, or FAR, of 3.5,

2:37:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): the maximum permitted building height of 55 feet without going through site review. And also, I believe it's missing from this key issue as written, but the request to have the structured parking not contribute to the FAR.

2:37:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Is that ordinance consistent with the land use map designation and the goals, policies, and objectives of the BBCP and the TVAP Phase 2?

2:37:43Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'd like to open it up for a round of board discussion. I'm not going to try to structure this overly much, because there's so many ways this could go. So I'm not going to try to put my fingerprints on it, I'm going to look to you all.

2:37:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): What do you think about the proposed ordinance and the provisions therein?

2:37:58Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason.

2:38:01Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, so… I think I mentioned no concern with The first, key issue

2:38:08Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): On the second one, I… you know, from questioning, I feel like I'm probably not out on a limb or by myself on this one, but my concern is narrow, narrow. It's about what this ordinance grants and what it secures in return. It gives the site 3.5 far, 55 feet, everything that we've been discussing.

2:38:27Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): And what the city gets back is spelled out for the art spaces, a 20,000 square foot venue.

2:38:32Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): And a 4,000 square foot, feet of rehearsal space. What's not spelled out, is for the housing piece of this, which is a key part of the BBCP here, and the Transit Village Area Plan.

2:38:46Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Which has also been discussed, thoroughly here tonight.

2:38:50Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): And I do have two amendments that I will be proposing based on that.

2:38:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Do you want to give us a heads up on what those amendments might be, or would you like to save it for motion-making?

2:39:01Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): I sent them over to Thomas so they could go up on screen, I suppose.

2:39:07Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I think it's useful to hear about it in discussion, just so people… if other people have comments or thoughts as we're discussing it, we can discuss it. This is… and I want to just be clear.

2:39:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): this is not the board debate that accompanies motion-making, right? That is a separate thing, but I think having a heads up and being able to discuss it a little bit informally benefits the board.

2:39:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Including, potentially, the motion maker. Sure.

2:39:29Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Let's keep it high level, then, in that case. So, the First Amendment would be about

2:39:36Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): He's pulling them up.

2:39:38Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Not less than 50% of the floor area in excess of the too far shall be used, for dwelling units.

2:39:47Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): 50%. And I put it as a percent because…

2:39:53Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): well, again, let me try to say high level, I can speak more to the motion when it's made.

2:39:57Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): From a high level, I wanted some assurances. We talked about how the Phase 1 is the only thing that's going to come in site review, there's not necessarily any detail. At concept, plan, there was discussion about how it's very unsure about what's going to be able to be built, etc.

2:40:13Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): So, this would be language that I proposed to try to have some assurances that what we're giving would get us

2:40:20Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): housing.

2:40:22Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Isn't that right?

2:40:23Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): The second… oh, go ahead.

2:40:25Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Oh, the second, is more about that… those exemptions to the height bonus.

2:40:31Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): And it basically would reinstate that, that the bonus should still apply to any building with a fourth or fifth story.

2:40:40Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): It's basically just reinstating that, and it would exclude the rehearsal space, the event art center, etc.

2:40:48Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): That's not on… what you just said is not on the screen?

2:40:51Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, not on the screen at this time. Okay, the second one's not.

2:40:54Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): on this screen, no. Yeah.

2:40:55Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So, Thomas, you… oh, there we go, okay.

2:41:04Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): And I'm happy to give more detail later, but that's just the high level of what I'm trying to accomplish.

2:41:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, of the criteria that apply to height modifications.

2:41:15Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): You're just trying to reinstate the community benefit for the fourth and fifth story.

2:41:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): That is exactly.

2:41:21Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Other than for the Performing Arts and Events Center? Yes, because that's.

2:41:26Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): I consider to be very strong community benefit audiences.

2:41:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I don't think that that building's intended to have a fourth or fifth story anyway, so… Correct.

2:41:35ml Robles . PB: That was gonna be my point. I think.

2:41:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): It's next year.

2:41:37ml Robles . PB: The point for that.

2:41:38Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Sure.

2:41:40ml Robles . PB: Increasing the height, yeah.

2:41:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, okay, thank you, Mason.

2:41:44Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other folk… can we get the, key issues back up? Thank you for that preview.

2:41:49Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other folks have comments about the ordinance.

2:41:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt.

2:41:56Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I'm supportive of the FAR allowance. I think that that makes sense. I am not supportive of the exemption for the parking, structured parking.

2:42:11Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): As we heard tonight, MU4 was designed for a parking district, and back in the days of we had parking mandates, it did not have a parking mandate. So, it was intentionally designed as a low parking kind of a district.

2:42:26Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Now, thanks to the state, we don't have parking mandates anywhere, which is great.

2:42:32Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): But the… the question is, how do we then continue to, bring forward that intent of the MU4 as a relatively lower intensity, lower parking intensity district?

2:42:48Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And I think that exempting

2:42:51Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): The parking from the FAR for MU4 would be contrary to that intent, so I don't support that part.

2:42:59Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): In terms of the 55 feet,

2:43:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I… I… I very much like what Nason is bringing forward. That, I think, is how, actually, everything in the city should work. You should have 55 feet by right, but be required to meet the, the community benefit requirements. So, I'm fully supportive of that.

2:43:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Kurt.

2:43:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Who's next?

2:43:28Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): ml.

2:43:29ml Robles . PB: Yeah.

2:43:30ml Robles . PB: I… I've been thinking about how to, increase, or…

2:43:39ml Robles . PB: further articulate significant community benefit, because I think the question, this project is highly desirable. So, to me, the real question is, how are we going to achieve significant community benefit? I am very intrigued with, with what Mason has put forward. I was considering

2:43:58ml Robles . PB: something not quite as complicated, or nuanced, not necessarily complicated as that, but, I like what you're putting out there, so I,

2:44:10ml Robles . PB: have, I think the question of securing, The housing related to benefit.

2:44:19ml Robles . PB: And with enabling the arts facilities to do what they need to do without undue encumbrance.

2:44:29ml Robles . PB: I think it accomplishes both of those things, so I… I am interested in pursuing that kind of a, response to this key issue, number two.

2:44:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, ml.

2:44:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark or Max? Mark.

2:44:50Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Again, I have additional comments when we get to motion-making, but I'll simply say that,

2:44:55Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): My thoughts about, this key issue, about the ordinance.

2:45:00Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): have… Changed, have flip-flopped, before the meeting, during the meeting, and, it has become…

2:45:11Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): In the course of time, it has become much more apparent to me that… as…

2:45:19Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Reluctant as we might be, As, as, adjudicators of the code to make these sort of exceptions.

2:45:29Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): In this case, at this time, for this project.

2:45:34Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): This is the right… this is the right thing to do for the community.

2:45:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mark.

2:45:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Claudia or Max?

2:45:46Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Claudia.

2:45:49Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): So I definitely support some strategic exceptions to MU4 as they're being proposed, and in fact, I think we need some of what's being proposed to make this rezoning consistent with the BBCP and with TFAP2. I think this is a particularly appropriate site for some of these exceptions.

2:46:08Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Because it is an exceptional location within the TVAP2, it encompasses that planned outdoor space, the activity node that's part of the plan.

2:46:17Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): And also because of how well it harmonizes with multiple economic, cultural, and land use objectives of the BBCP.

2:46:26Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): My sense of the ordinance that's being requested is that it does contain a lot of the guardrails that we would want to see around that, in terms of what would be included, what would make a site review proposal have to revert back to just straight MU4.

2:46:42Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): I thought coming into this that it might be conceding a bit more than what's necessary, to compensate for the… some of the limitations of MU4, specifically around height. Okay, this idea of whether we would get to review height modifications, particularly given some of the changes that we've recently made for exceptional buildings.

2:47:02Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): I was reluctant to let go of that as part of our site review criteria, as long as there was some pathway for projects like this to get the height that they need.

2:47:12Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): But I've also listened to the applicant's discussion of the form-based code, right, and how that deals with height. And so I'm leaning away from making a recommendation around that at this time.

2:47:24Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): I would also say, actually, contrary to my colleague Kurt, I do support, the exceptions related to how parking is included in FAR calculations for this project.

2:47:37Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): The plan, as I understand it, is to really make this a regional destination, with a lot of traffic that may actually be coming to the venue.

2:47:47Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): And I think that does come with a significant parking burden, even with the best TDM plans, so I think it is sensible to actually, build that FAR calculation around the parking needs.

2:47:59Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

2:48:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Max.

2:48:03Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I…

2:48:06Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): If you're gonna allow density anywhere, this is where we would want it, right? And I agree with all of the former points, or many of the former points, so I'm not gonna belabor it. I guess I'll kind of…

2:48:18Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): say something I disagree with and…

2:48:21Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): I'm sure the applicant would probably say this as well, but a lot of the benefit is going to come out of

2:48:28Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): you know, these theaters, right? And as far as, say.

2:48:31Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): mandatory for housing. I mean, I would imagine what's going to pay for any of this is going to be high-density housing, so I don't necessarily need… I don't think we necessarily need to be pushing for that more.

2:48:46Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): Simply because the return is going to be the theaters and their rehearsal spaces. And then as far as the height exemptions, I would imagine that, similarly, that the reason that we are moving slightly away from that is to, once again, reflect form-based code, which a lot of us talk about as being a goal for the board, so…

2:49:05Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): as Mark was saying, I think that at times it can be our instinct, you know, the hair on the back of your neck stands up, that we're surrendering some sort of discretion in the future. But I think, to the applicant's point, many concessions have already been made even to get to this point, and I very much respect them and admire the applicant.

2:49:27Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Okay, I think… I think I'm last here, and I apologize that these thoughts may be somewhat scattered, because I have changed my mind on a few things since this hearing began, and I have not taken the time to edit my comments while I was trying to chair. So, forgive me if this is a little bit scattered.

2:49:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, I do think that 55-foot height is certainly appropriate for this land use designation, this zoning that we're heading toward, and the site characteristics, including its location, quite near to our transit, our high-density transit area.

2:50:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And it's… it's bordered by railroad tracks, and an elevated highway, and commercial uses, and a major arterial, right? This is not plunked down in the middle of a neighborhood.

2:50:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): that is an existing housing, low-density housing. This is, as Max said, one of the most appropriate places in the city for high density, and I think that's reflected in the TBAP. So I'm certainly supportive of the 55-foot height. I think the project is going to get this one way or the other, either through this ordinance or through site review. I don't…

2:50:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Imagine at that same question.

2:50:32Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I do appreciate the point about it's allowed basically by right with form-based code, but form-based code also comes with a lot of other things that we are not getting in this review, right?

2:50:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): It's a… it's one of those things where the perk of going through the hassle of doing all the checkboxes in form-based code is that you get that…

2:50:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): additional density and that height guarantee. Similarly, with site review, site review, as my understanding, is it was always designed as, you can achieve this height, but you have to give us better design, and the way that we achieve that is through the site review criteria. So I'm very reluctant to waive our,

2:51:11Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): the site review criteria for height, even though I think the project should get that height, I just think that they should do it through the process that we have established.

2:51:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I think that would go for any property. Whether it's form-based code or site review, they have to meet these additional criteria that we have established. This ordinance doesn't include any of that from form-based code, and it waives it from site review, so I'm not supportive of that provision.

2:51:37Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I do agree that the property should be one of the densest properties in the city with a more urban form, and I'll just say, I would support large blocky buildings on this site. I don't think it needs to have transition to any other area. I don't think it needs to have a huge variety in height and roofline.

2:51:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And those are things that we can do through site review, is exercise that discretion, just like I supported that building form for the development at the former Millennium site, right? I do think that a higher FAR is appropriate, and that that will require bigger, blockier, denser buildings, and I think you can get that through site review.

2:52:13Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I do think that the community benefit requirement for inclusionary housing

2:52:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): that is so minimal compared to the benefit that the applicant is getting with a 3.5 FAR. That's, you know, an additional .75 times what their allowable density is under MU4. It's huge, so I don't think that paying that

2:52:37Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): rather minimal IH requirement will mean a lot for this project, but it will mean a lot for the budget of our inclusionary housing program. I think this would be a significant chunk of that budget, so I don't think we should waive that lightly.

2:52:51Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But through site review, if they go through the site review code, they could still propose that they are providing already sufficient community benefit, for example, by providing affordable

2:53:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): arts rehearsal space, if that is part of the proposal. And that is something that I said at concept review that I would be very amenable to hearing about, how that could replace or be the alternative community benefit that's provided for in the code. So I think that they should go through the site review process, and that

2:53:18Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Includes either the inclusionary housing benefit or justifying their alternative community benefit.

2:53:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Regarding the 3.5 FAR,

2:53:32Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I came in somewhat reluctant around that to just grant that through the ordinance, but I do think that is consistent with the TVAP, and the thing that makes me…

2:53:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): less reluctant, or not reluctant at all at this point, is knowing that that 20% open space is guaranteed for MU4, that that cannot be waived, it cannot be requested to be modified in site review, and so I think they're going to have to provide that 20% open space and work with it.

2:53:59Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, that's… that's the only thing that I was worried would be sacrificed for that 3.5 FAR.

2:54:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And so now I'm no longer worried about that.

2:54:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Sorry, that was inelegantly said, but I think you guys get the point.

2:54:13Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I am… I don't love the idea that we're doing this through an ordinance. I think that that is not…

2:54:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): a mechanism that the city should generally rely upon. But given the circumstances, given that we have not lived up to the implementation of TVAP yet at this point.

2:54:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): and that the vision of TVAP is not achievable with our current zoning code, I will support doing this through, through an ordinance, with some exceptions, as I just described.

2:54:40Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And… I do appreciate Mason's attention to the fact that the ordinance currently does not require

2:54:50Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): housing in any form, right? This whole project could come back without housing. Very unlikely.

2:54:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But, but I like the idea of locking down some of that, because to me, that is a community benefit that is just as important as the arts, right? These are co-equal in the BBCP. The BBCP doesn't place one over the other, and I wouldn't want to give up our attention to, to housing benefits for the city.

2:55:15Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Especially if we're going to this, very high density. So, I'm very likely to be supportive of that, although I want to see it in final form.

2:55:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'll stop there.

2:55:27Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any other comments that folks want to make before we go to motion making?

2:55:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Could we get staff to put up… oh, I'm sorry, did the applicant… I don't think I ever gave you an opportunity to respond to public comment, so I'd like to give you at this time an opportunity to respond to both public comment, and if you want to correct anything that you heard us say that you think is inaccurate.

2:55:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Closed tonight.

2:55:58Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Microphone, please.

2:56:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So the applicant's requesting the opportunity to respond to Mason's proposed amendment, which I think is appropriate, so we're going to put that up on the screen.

2:56:08Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So,

2:56:10Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I need to correct the record here, because this is pretty important. And first of all, I cannot commit to anything but a venue on Phase 1.

2:56:17Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Reason is, I am not allowed to put anything on this side until the floodplain is, fixed.

2:56:23Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So putting something in the ordinance at this stage does not, I don't even know if this floodplain is gonna ever be fixed.

2:56:29Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I cannot comply with anything until the floodplain is fixed, so,

2:56:34Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I can apply to a venue, because I can put it, I know where it belongs, and it's out of the floodplain, but nothing else.

2:56:40Speaker 18 (Board & Commissions): Let me, let me just, let me.

2:56:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): ask staff to respond. So my understanding of Mason's proposed amendment is that it would only apply to bonus floor area, 4th and 5th floors, in any residential buildings that are developed in future phases. Does that…

2:56:56Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I don't… I don't know what it said. It was put up very quickly, so I don't… I want to read it again.

2:57:02Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): So I thought about that, and let me know if this doesn't actually address that issue, because I was concerned about that as well.

2:57:08Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): The language says above the 2.0 FAR, and I think with just the venue, you wouldn't be reaching.

2:57:17Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): 2.0 far.

2:57:20Speaker 18 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, we just need to read it.

2:57:23Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, no worries. Yeah, and I want to make sure it's…

2:57:26Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): you know, reasonable, so I appreciate it.

2:57:29Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I just want to be clear with something. I cannot begin any other phases on this project until the city fixes the floodplain, and that might… that is completely out of my control, and that might not happen.

2:57:38Speaker 18 (Board & Commissions): I do think that's clear.

2:57:39Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I appreciate that.

2:57:40Speaker 18 (Board & Commissions): So,

2:57:41Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Which means, that committing to anything else beyond the venue at the first phase is kind of an impossibility.

2:57:49Speaker 18 (Board & Commissions): I don't think.

2:57:49Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We're proposing that.

2:57:51Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yep, thank you. Did you want to respond to anything that you heard in public comment, or correct the record on anything else?

2:57:59Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Anything else?

2:58:06Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And, just for the record, it is our intent to put as much residential as possible. This is where humans belong. It is the success of our district. So, it is our intent, it's just not in the ordinance, that's all.

2:58:18Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you.

2:58:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And for the record, I was going to propose an amendment that you had to build out the southern anchor, but you have been compelling in that that's simply not possible with our floodplain regulations.

2:58:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

2:58:32Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Alright, could we put back up staff's recommended motion language?

2:58:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And…

2:58:39Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): This is an option if somebody wants to propose it. A board member could make a different motion. So I'm going to open up the floor for motion-making. Would anybody like to make a motion? I will acknowledge you. Yes, Mark?

2:58:50Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): move.

2:58:51Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): to recommend to City Council to City Council approval

2:58:56Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Of the request to rezone 14.84 acres of land located at 35

2:59:04Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): 50 and 3850 Frontier Avenue and adjacent right-of-way.

2:59:10Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): from the Industrial Service, IS1, Industrial Service 2, IS2, and industrial general, I.G,

2:59:19Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): zoning districts to the mixed-use 4, MU4 zoning district, as described in Chapter 9-5, Modular Zone System BRC, 1981,

2:59:36Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): and amending the standards of Title IX, Land Use Code BRC 1981, to establish

2:59:44Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): A maximum floor area ratio of 3.5, and a maximum permitted building height of 55 feet for parcels in the rezoning area, and setting forth related details.

2:59:59Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Second.

3:00:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): The motion has been moved and seconded, so I'm going to give an opportunity to the motion maker and the second to speak to the motion, and then open up the floor for any debate, which can include proposed amendments to the motion.

3:00:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I will speak to that a little bit more about whether people want to attach their

3:00:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): opposed amendments to this motion, or make it as a separate motion, but let me go ahead and let the motion maker and the second speak first. So, Mark, as motion maker.

3:00:35Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

3:00:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So…

3:00:38Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I've been in Boulder a long time, and I've participated in a number of different planning.

3:00:45Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): activities. Just concluding the BBCP update.

3:00:51Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And we, as a community, are pretty good.

3:00:54Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): At making and adopting plans, and stating goals, And providing beautiful visions.

3:01:03Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): But many times, we get in our way to actually realizing those goals.

3:01:10Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): This is an example of that.

3:01:13Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): As a board, we are tasked, week after week.

3:01:17Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): With following the code, adjudicating the code.

3:01:21Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And there is a frustration on my part with the code.

3:01:26Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): That, there is not a timely way forward within the code.

3:01:32Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So, I'm supporting the rezoning because of the failure of a way forward.

3:01:38Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And I am also frustrated by the ordinance, and we are being asked to make exceptions.

3:01:47Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): This is one of those moments where we need to put aside our desires for changes to the code.

3:01:54Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And look at the project, and the project's role and benefit within the community.

3:02:00Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And the benefit it provides to a broad part of our community.

3:02:05Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So I'm looking at this project as a whole.

3:02:09Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And setting aside my desires and frustrations with the code, and the limitations of the code, and the limitations of our timing and ability to change the code.

3:02:21Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And hope that we can move forward with, unanimity, and send a message to Council that this is the kind of project that we keep envisioning, we keep talking about, we keep…

3:02:35Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): stating in TVAP, in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, in the BBCP update, And here it is.

3:02:45Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): It's… here it is. This is what we want. This fulfills

3:02:49Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So many aspects. So, if we have to, do some things that we…

3:02:57Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): That we would prefer not to… to move this forward, then this is the time to do it.

3:03:05Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mark. Claudia, I believe you were the second. Would you like to speak to the motion? I will second my colleagues.

3:03:12Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): comments as well, and I may save some other comments for after our votes.

3:03:18Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): On the process.

3:03:21Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'm sorry, you want to save some comments until after we have approved.

3:03:25Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): recommendations? Yes, I may have more to say after our vote, but not to… After the vote. Okay, thank you.

3:03:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Alright.

3:03:32Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So I just want to speak, from a process perspective. We have had a couple people suggest that they may want to make either amendments or additional recommendations. And what I'm going to recommend

3:03:46Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I would recommend this in any group.

3:03:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): on any topic, is if your support of the main motion is conditional upon having your amendment approved.

3:03:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I would recommend trying to now move to attach it to this motion as an amendment to the main motion.

3:04:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): If your support for the main motion is not conditional upon approval of your amendment, then I would recommend that you make it as a separate recommendation after we have voted upon this one.

3:04:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Does that make sense?

3:04:18Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So if your support for this main motion, if you're going to vote no on this, unless you have your amendment attached to it.

3:04:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Now is the time to forward your proposed amendment.

3:04:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Would anybody like to propose an amendment to the main motion?

3:04:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'll give you a minute to think about it.

3:04:46Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): let's say potentially conditional. You're not guaranteeing a no vote, but if it's potentially conditional.

3:04:52Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Yes, I think my second motion, meets that bar.

3:04:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Would you like to propose an amendment to the main motion? I would.

3:05:01Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): I move to amend the motion to add, with a re…

3:05:05Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): With the recommendation that City Council amend Section 5 of the proposed ordinance as follows.

3:05:10Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): replacing… the phrase, without regard to any requirements for height modification found elsewhere in the land use code with…

3:05:20Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Without regard to any requirements for height modification found elsewhere in the land use code, provided, however, that the requirements of subparagraphs 9214H6CI, 1, I, I don't know, and 3,

3:05:34Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Brc 1981 shall apply to any building with a fourth or fifth story.

3:05:39Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): For purposes of applying subparagraph 9214H6C, bonus floor area means…

3:05:46Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): floor area on the fourth or fifth story that is particularly or fully above 38 feet in height, and bonus units shall be determined as provided in subparagraph 9214H6C,

3:05:57Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): 1B,

3:05:58Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): The requirements of subparagraph 9214H6C2BRC1981 shall not apply to floor area used for the performing arts and events center or arts and rehearsal space.

3:06:10Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): It's replacing that line with this line, and that really just brings back the community benefit portion.

3:06:15Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): And explicitly, which might not be necessarily, but explicitly.

3:06:20Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): excludes the Performing Arts and Events Center Or in rehearsal space.

3:06:29Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Second.

3:06:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you. Mason, as the…

3:06:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): maker of this proposed amendment, would you like to speak to it?

3:06:38Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): So, yeah, I mean, first, I just want to say, as an artist who's played in venues in Boulder, I'm super supportive of this project, and I agree with everything that Mark and

3:06:50Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Claudia seconded.

3:06:52Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): I do think… that,

3:06:58Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): I'm just gonna read my comments.

3:07:01Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): The site doesn't need an ordinance to reach 55 feet. MU4 already allows 55 feet through site review, through the height bonus.

3:07:08Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): In 9214H6C.

3:07:11Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): The price of that height is affordability. Bonus units carry an extra 11% points of occlusionary housing. Every other MU4 project that goes to 4 or 5 stories pays it.

3:07:21Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): This ordinance turns that off.

3:07:23Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Staff confirmed this. The height bonus criteria would not apply. In effect, the venue is being accepted in place of affordable housing if we agree to pass this as is.

3:07:33Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): The venue and affordable housing

3:07:35Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): The venue and affordable housing serve different comp plan goals. Policy 67 on Arts and Culture, and Policy 82 on Housing. One doesn't substitute the other.

3:07:45Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): This amendment restores exactly what the code already requires, and nothing more. It applies only to 4th and 5th floor area above 38 feet, calculated the way that H6C already calculates it. It exempts the venue and rehearsal space from the non-residential fee because they are community benefit.

3:08:01Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): On a project of about 500 units, that's on the order of 10 to 22 more permanently affordable homes.

3:08:08Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Modest, but it keeps the site on the same footing as every other MU4 project in the city, and avoids setting a precedent for the rest of the Transit Village Phase 2.

3:08:18Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mason. Kurt, as the second, would you like to speak to it?

3:08:23Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I'll, first of all, really agree with everything that Mason said. I thought that was great, and I'll just remind everybody that we're giving really a significant amount of value in approving the FAR of 3.5.

3:08:38Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And so it seems appropriate to still require the community benefit, affordable housing requirement.

3:08:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other discussion or debate before we vote on this amendment to the main motion?

3:08:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I see Mark.

3:08:59Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I understand this, I understand the motivation.

3:09:04Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): that… Removing the 4th and 5th floors.

3:09:10Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): R… From the bonus, the 11% bonus.

3:09:16Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): is something that… Is a trade-off.

3:09:22Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): But I think I… the other way to look at this is…

3:09:26Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Let's just say this was… come… came before us.

3:09:29Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): As a four-story housing project with no art space.

3:09:37Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And they were happy to pay the 11%. A four-story student project with width.

3:09:46Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): 254-bedroom units. No art space, no nothing.

3:09:52Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I think that what we're doing here is deciding not between…

3:09:59Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Like, what's… what's the fairest, what's the rightest thing?

3:10:04Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): But what… Gets done in light of

3:10:09Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The concept of the project, and what the alternative is, if… we, don't provide

3:10:19Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Some of the benefits, from the… from

3:10:24Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The planning department and city government back to the applicant in exchange

3:10:31Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): for what they're providing. So, I won't be voting for this.

3:10:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mark.

3:10:39Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I would just like to jump in and clarify with staff, I do believe that this amendment, as written, still allows the applicant to argue alternative community benefit. That they… that through providing the Arts Center and the flood control, or whatever other benefits they want to say, is a cost to them, but a benefit to the city.

3:10:59Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): that they are providing a sufficient, trade-off for that inclusionary housing benefit. So when this would… if this were approved, if this came to site review, they could still argue that community benefit.

3:11:09Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): that they have met it through the alternative community benefit provision. Is that correct?

3:11:15Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I believe that falls under Section C.

3:11:26Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Oh, god.

3:11:27Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I think we would want to understand what the intent is in that regard. If that is the intent, then, you know, it could be written in that way. It would be very clear in that way.

3:11:41Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Yep.

3:11:46Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): To be transparent and honest, that wasn't the original intent, but I like it. Can we make it that way?

3:11:50Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): So…

3:11:51Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): I would think… Yeah.

3:11:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I think that it still allows the applicant to make the argument that Mark is making, which is that they are providing sufficient community benefit.

3:12:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I think we would have to add a little Roman numeral 4, because I think it is…

3:12:07Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): that code section C… And it is Roman numeral.

3:12:12Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): 4.

3:12:18Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So it would need to be…

3:12:21Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Is that a change we're wanting to make?

3:12:23Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): It's just…

3:12:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): It would be a friendly amendment. Let me figure out where it would go. Sorry.

3:12:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So that's the alternative commute, it's a little Roman numeral.

3:12:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I think it would have to be in the sentence, yeah.

3:12:40Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): 1… 3, and then Little Roman numeral 4, which is Ivy.

3:12:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Hela, does that make it clear?

3:12:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): If we cite the little Roman numeral 4, which is the Alternative Community Benefits section.

3:13:17Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Maybe there could be something added that says the applicant may propose for consideration

3:13:24Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): may propose that, the Performing Arts Center and Rehearsal space

3:13:33Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Meet the community benefit requirement as an alternative community benefit.

3:13:38Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Just… just so it's clear, because we're excluding those items from community benefit requirements, so…

3:13:46Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): if that's what your intent is, I think that can certainly be done. I just would want that to be documented.

3:13:52Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): For a planning board looking at this in the future.

3:14:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): What do you think, Mason?

3:14:07ml Robles . PB: Can I say something?

3:14:09Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Sure.

3:14:10Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Yes, ml?

3:14:11ml Robles . PB: We're talking here about the inclusionary housing, potentially the inclusionary housing, benefit, but what I want to remind us of is we are giving a significant increase in FAR to the project.

3:14:27ml Robles . PB: And… The requirement for rezoning is that

3:14:34ml Robles . PB: we're getting significant community benefit. I think that we…

3:14:41ml Robles . PB: are by allowing the increased FAR,

3:14:48ml Robles . PB: I think that that should weigh in here at some point, rather than just assume that the only way that there is kind of a trade-off between what we're giving and what we're getting is through this inclusionary housing attached to the residential. Just, we have

3:15:07ml Robles . PB: Granted a significant increase in,

3:15:13ml Robles . PB: Square footage to the project as a part of this ordinance as well.

3:15:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, ml. Just one second, Mark. So, I do want to point out that the calculation of alternative community benefits says that the applicant

3:15:28Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): has to demonstrate that the proposed method is of a value that is equivalent or greater to the benefits required by this subparagraph, H6C. So, it just requires them to quantify what is the benefit to the community and have that conversation with the planning board at the time of site review.

3:15:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And they could make the argument that what they're providing is the equivalent benefit as this IH bonus.

3:15:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes, Mark.

3:15:59Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I just want us all to be aware that the… Thought of us.

3:16:05Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): giving them this FAR. It's an FAR that is codified, and I realize it's not code, but I still use the word codified. It is…

3:16:15Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): It is stated clearly in the TVAP,

3:16:20Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And it is clearly part of our vision for this area is an FAR up to 3.5. So, this idea that we're

3:16:33Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): giving this as some special favor, I remind us, it's codified, and it's for housing.

3:16:41Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So, it's, you know, the benefit is… is that we're getting more housing, and we're getting an arts… an arts space. And so,

3:16:53Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): It's not like we're… Bestowing upon them some…

3:16:58Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): you know, incredible gift. This is part of our plan.

3:17:07Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I just have a thought in response to that, which is, I mean, it's very similar to the fact that

3:17:13Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): an applicant application like this can achieve the 55-foot height, and they are required to pay the IH in order to get that height, and this applicant is requesting a waiver of that. So, you know.

3:17:28Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And it's understood that the form-based code doesn't require it, but the form-based code requires other things that this applicant is not required to do. So, I think this is a legitimate conversation that we're having, and everybody's making good points. Okay, Mason, did you want to further clarify your, motion with a friendly amendment?

3:17:46Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): No.

3:17:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): No, okay, you feel it's sufficiently clear? I do. You do want to keep the little IV in there. I think that's fine.

3:17:54Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Alright.

3:17:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any further discussion of this proposed amendment to the main motion before we vote?

3:18:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Let's go ahead and vote. We'll start with Mark.

3:18:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): No. Kurt? Yes. Claudia. No.

3:18:11Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason. Yes. Max.

3:18:14Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): No. ml.

3:18:15ml Robles . PB: Yes.

3:18:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I'm a yes, so this passes 4 to 3.

3:18:23Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Would anybody else like to make an amendment to the main motion?

3:18:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): You can also make a separate motion recommendation if you don't want to attach it to the main motion.

3:18:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Looking at you, Kurt, since you proposed something.

3:18:47Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): No.

3:18:48Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

3:18:50Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Alright, so we have a motion with an amendment attached to it.

3:18:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any further discussion of the main motion as amended?

3:19:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Hearing none, can we get the main motion back up on the screen?

3:19:09Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): I have that in this document, Shannon, so I can pull it up.

3:19:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, so I'm gonna re-read it.

3:19:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And then just state as amended.

3:19:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, Planning Board recommends to City Council approval of the request to rezone 14.84 acres of land located at 3550 and 3850 Frontier Avenue and adjacent right-of-way from the Industrial Service 1

3:19:43Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): IS1 Industrial Service 2, IS2 and Industrial General IG Zoning Districts, to the Mixed Use 4 MU4 Zoning District, as described in Chapter 9-5, Modular Zoning System, BRC 1981,

3:19:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): and amending the standards of Title IX, Land Use Code BRC 1981 to establish a maximum floor area ratio of 3.5, and maximum permitted building height of 55 feet for parcels in the rezoning area, and setting forth related details as amended

3:20:15Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Today, by the Planning Board.

3:20:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): That is the motion that was made and seconded and amended.

3:20:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Shall we vote? We'll start this time online. ML.

3:20:31ml Robles . PB: Yes.

3:20:32Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Max.

3:20:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

3:20:34Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Jason.

3:20:35Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kurt? Yes. Mark? Yes. And I'm a yes.

3:20:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Congratulations to the applicant. The, recommendation from Planning Board to City Council is approved, as amended.

3:20:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any other… motions that the Planning Board would like to make as a recommendation to City Council. Kurt.

3:20:57Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I have a motion that I forwarded to Thomas.

3:21:15Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So, I move to remove the FAR exemption for structured parking from the ordinance.

3:21:23Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Is there a second?

3:21:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, no second. That was easy.

3:21:33Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Kurt.

3:21:35Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I will say that I thought about that one too, but I am reassured by the 20% open space that will be required, so I'm not too worried about that.

3:21:43Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, anybody else want to make a second recommendation? Mason?

3:21:48Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

3:21:49Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): And Thomas could pull it up, this is the first one.

3:21:53Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): But I'll… I'll go ahead and start reading it. I move to amend the motion, to add with the recommendation that City Council amend Section 5 of the proposal ordinance as follows.

3:22:03Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): To include at full build-out, not less than 50% of the floor area in excess of a 2.0 FAR shall be used for dwelling units.

3:22:12Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): The site review approval shall include a phasing schedule for the dwelling units required by this paragraph, and no phase of development may use floor area in excess of 2.0 FAR for non-residential uses other than the performing arts, an event center, and arts and rehearsal space, unless dwelling units are approved in the same or an earlier phase.

3:22:31Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): I will second.

3:22:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'd like to ask staff, before we… before we…

3:22:39Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Okay. So, my understanding is, we just passed the main motion, so this is not a motion to amend anything. This is a motion to advise counsel.

3:22:49Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes, so we need to change… you're right, Mark, thank you. We need to change that language, so it should read, M. Roberts made a motion, seconded by L. Kaplan to recommend to City Council.

3:23:01Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Yeah.

3:23:07Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): To add to the ordinance.

3:23:11Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I mean, it's pretty much there. Oh, or, sorry, to… I'm sorry.

3:23:15Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): You can just delete it down to…

3:23:19Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): The second city council.

3:23:21Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, delete it down to the second.

3:23:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Sorry, it was unclear, that's what I was going for.

3:23:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, to recommend that City Council amend Section 5 of the proposed ordinance as follows. Yes, thank you, Mark. Good catch.

3:23:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I do want to ask staff, Whether they foresee any…

3:23:44Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): practical problem with this? Is this implementable, is the question.

3:24:03Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): I mean, keeping track of FAR throughout different phases over time can be challenging.

3:24:09Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): phasing changes over time. I think I understand…

3:24:16Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): what we're trying to do here based on the language that's proposed, so I… I think it's implementable unless…

3:24:22Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Shannon, you're seeing something that…

3:24:27Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Would make you feel otherwise, but there's always some challenge in managing phases, especially when we have

3:24:35Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): FAR averaged across the site and that kind of thing, but I feel like We can make this work.

3:24:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I mean, it sounds like they're planning a primarily residential build-out for the future phases anyway, so I wouldn't think this would pose a problem, but seems like a nice guardrail, to use Claudia's language.

3:24:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And it's good to hear from staff that you think it is implementable. Okay, so, Mason, do you want to speak to your motion?

3:25:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

3:25:05Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Reverse.

3:25:07Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, so, the staff finding on Policy 82 and the ordinance's own Rescital 1 rely on this project delivering, quote, hundreds of new housing units, but Section 5.5 only says the project will generally include

3:25:20Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Multi-unit dwellings. There's no minimum.

3:25:23Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): The TVAP says that mixed-use TOD designations, quote, contain predominantly attached residential uses. The regional TOD place types calls for, quote, transit-supportive, attainable housing options, unquote.

3:25:37Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): That plan is a justification for going from 2 to 3.5 far. If that extra floor area can go all to the hotel or commercial space, we haven't implemented the plan. We've just granted intensity.

3:25:49Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): There's the timing problem that's been discussed about tonight. The ordinance does not require the site review to include what Phase 2 and 3 will be.

3:25:57Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Or what it's shaping up to be, at least. And I'm trying to avoid a situation where we all agree on, here tonight, on what we want.

3:26:04Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Including the applicant, etc. But when the future site review comes, we'll have no mechanism to ensure it.

3:26:10Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): This amendment requires that at least half of the floor area above the 2.0ARB housing. It also says no bonus floor area goes to non-arts commercial use before the housing is approved.

3:26:21Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): It doesn't touch the venue, and it doesn't set a unit count, even, so the applicant keeps full flexibility on you at mix. The applicant's own concept plan with about 500 homes should clear this bar comfortably. If it doesn't, that's worth knowing.

3:26:34Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): And being able to enforce.

3:26:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mason. I seconded it,

3:26:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I was also less than fully pleased by seeing that the ordinance just included housing as something that should be generally included as one of a mix of uses.

3:26:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I definitely appreciate the applicant's intention, as described to us tonight and in the concept plan, and I think this is a good backstop. And it doesn't seem like it will… it is in any way contradictory to what the applicant has represented to us, or to the different planning documents that we're working with. It seems fully in line.

3:27:09Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So I, I support this as a backstop.

3:27:12Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other board discussion. Max.

3:27:15Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I guess…

3:27:17Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): the… I would agree with your second point that this is fully in line with the applicant's intention, and that would be why I just find it to be somewhat pedantic, and…

3:27:28Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): potentially unnecessary, making somebody's life complicated somewhere down the line, when in the end, realistically, what they want that 3.5 FAR is to pack a ton of housing in there. So… and the parking doesn't count towards it, so it's all gonna… I mean, a good, good chunk of this is going to be housing. The ROI on housing is going to be higher than the…

3:27:48Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): retail and restaurant anyway, so I just think that this is…

3:27:51Speaker 17 (Board & Commissions): an unnecessary provision, not that I don't agree that we want to have housing on it.

3:27:58Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Max.

3:28:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other voices, I'm gonna get Kurt and then go to Mark.

3:28:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Thanks, Max, for that. I appreciate what you're saying. On the other hand, you know, things change. We've seen economics change over time. At one point, everybody was worried about getting too much… too many offices, right? Because office was the highest and best use, and now everybody's worried about too much housing.

3:28:23Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Or at least some people are worried about too much housing. And so I think putting on this guardrail, is really appropriate to ensure that, just no matter how things change going forward, we're still going to get a significant amount of housing that we really, really need in this area. So, I will be supporting.

3:28:43Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Mark.

3:28:46Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I'm gonna fall into the max camp here.

3:28:50Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Early on, I think it was a conversation with Brad, or we had in the room.

3:28:56Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): About conditions. And conditions… should be something that is both actionable, and I think this is actionable.

3:29:06Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): But it also doesn't need to be something like.

3:29:11Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): the applicant will not make nuclear weapons on the site. The applicant will, you know, shall not, you know, process, toxic chemicals.

3:29:21Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): When we start conditioning things that, are…

3:29:27Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): just as Max says, pedantic, or just…

3:29:31Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Part… clearly part of the plan, and the applicant's, intention

3:29:38Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): it seems unnecessary. So, I'm gonna fall into that camp.

3:29:43Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason would like to respond.

3:29:46Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I completely hear what you guys are saying, and I'm usually in that camp as well, but I do remember at Concept.

3:29:54Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Review, hearing concerns from the applicant about being able to build the housing that

3:29:59Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): we would like on the site, and not promising on, like, the third phase, or whatever it was, that that would actually get done. So, I… I hear you, and I've also seen other projects that have promised things in concept that didn't happen. So, having a backstop.

3:30:16Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): you know, that ends up being completely worthless, or at worst, pedantic, I think is, helpful.

3:30:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Claudia.

3:30:28Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): My reading of this condition

3:30:30Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): does not suggest that it would force, or that it could force, or that anything could force an applicant to build anything in a subsequent phase, right? So, I see this as addressing if something is built, what the mix of it should be.

3:30:43Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): I am not interested in conditioning it in that way for a couple of reasons. First of all, I think this is likely to be a project with a very long timeline, even under the best of circumstances, and precisely for the reason that conditions do change, and what is feasible and possible.

3:31:00Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): changes over time, I wouldn't want to get

3:31:03Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): too restrictive on that. This is also, this is a mixed-use area, right? We have just agreed that it should be rezoned for mixed uses. And getting into the finer grains of how we define those mixes is a bit much.

3:31:19Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Elm… And there was one other point, too, but I… it is getting late, folks.

3:31:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): for me.

3:31:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Claudia.

3:31:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any other discussion about this?

3:31:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): New motion.

3:31:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'll just say for me, look, what this does is it puts the power

3:31:35Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): to enforce this in the hands of City Council, and not in the hands of

3:31:39Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): whatever developer is in charge of this site at the time that this build-out happens. Market conditions can change, properties can change hands, and so if at the time that this is built out, City Council agrees that this no longer makes sense, City Council can amend it. But it puts that power in City Council's hands to change what we've agreed to tonight.

3:31:59Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Rather than the vicissitudes of the market and whatever property owner happens to own it at that time. And I have personally been burned by buying into a complex where the property changed hands, and the promises made by one developer were not upheld by

3:32:13Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): the next developer, due to whatever would make their investors the most profit, not necessarily what our complex or what the city needed. So I support this as,

3:32:23Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): trying to…

3:32:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): keep this project true to a vision, and if it no longer makes sense, City Council can change it.

3:32:32Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): We're gonna… Laura, funny, my final point. Please, okay, go right ahead. I had to…

3:32:36Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): it had to do with a general movement in our… on our kind of East Boulder area approvals of going more towards form-based type codes, right? And that is being less prescriptive about particular uses, and more about… about urban form, building design, et cetera, in areas. So, I would prefer to stick with that approach to doing things.

3:32:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Claudia. Okay, we're gonna go ahead and vote, so I'm gonna start with Mark.

3:33:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): No. Kurt? Yes? Claudia? No.

3:33:07Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Mason. Yes. Max? No. ML.

3:33:11ml Robles . PB: Yes.

3:33:12Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I'm a yes, so this one also passes 4 to 3.

3:33:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): as a recommendation to City Council.

3:33:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): For their advisement.

3:33:22Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any other separate motions people would like to make?

3:33:28Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Seeing none…

3:33:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We will bring this item to a close. As always, we would like to thank our applicant, thank our staff team, thank all of the people who commented tonight, and I'd like to ask the applicant, is there anything that you would like to ask us or say?

3:33:45Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I would like to correct the record, there's a property in MU4 that was just rezoned, what was it, that did not require any commu… the Boulder dinner theater did not require any community benefit, and it was in MU4.

3:33:57Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And you guys approved it without any community benefits, so…

3:34:00Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): A little disheartening with the way they send it, because we're bringing a lot of community benefit with this venue and this rehearsal space.

3:34:09Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): These conditions, are making a project a lot more complicated on a project that's already, at…

3:34:16Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Life support, essentially.

3:34:19Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, very concerned about these conditions that were, that were added to the project. Also remember the form-based code does not require

3:34:29Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Additional community benefit, and we're here mostly because it was not implemented, and now we're struggling on the consequences of that, so…

3:34:38Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): It feels a little unfair, to be honest, the way this ended up, and just concerned about the survivability of our project.

3:34:48Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): I want to say thank you for your time. I know this is a hard project. I do want to say my concern that I was sharing with Shannon is that conditioning

3:34:56Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): residential in a site… the first site review approval is impossible because it's in the floodplain. So I just… I have some questions that we'll work through with staff on how

3:35:06Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): we'd actually conditioned the first site review to require residential in a high hazard zone. So I think we can work with staff on that, but that was one of the concerns that, you know, I know we're not able to speak, so… and most of TBAP Phase 1 was MU4 with form-based code and did not pay that additional community benefit. So there is… I think that was something that Daniel tried to correct, but

3:35:30Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): We hope that for, you know, that we do look at zone… zone districts for the rest. There's other properties in TVAP Phase 2. This isn't a problem that's going to go away with tonight, so I encourage all of us to work on implementation of this great plan. Thank you.

3:35:47Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, and I hope that you heard tonight that many board members would be supportive of moving forward with whatever it takes to get into the code, a more regular,

3:35:59Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): method for approving projects like this that live up to the vision of TPAP.

3:36:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And hopefully what we have recommended tonight does not create problems for the applicant in getting their Phase 1 approval.

3:36:12Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Which would not have any buildings in the flood zone, so none of it would apply to that, those buildings that don't exist, theoretically. Okay.

3:36:21Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you so much. We're gonna call a close to this agenda item, and we're gonna go back to our agenda. We are now on our item 6, which is matters from the Planning Board, Planning Director, and City Attorney.

3:36:38Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Good night.

3:36:40Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Laura, could I kick this off?

3:36:41Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Oh.

3:36:43Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Yes. As a matter from the board, and I think something I wanted to say as we closed out this item. Please go right into the segue. Claudia. Just wanted to say, when…

3:36:51Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): when we saw this project at Concept Review, I…

3:36:56Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): was very frustrated at the lack of appropriate zoning choices, for TVAP2 goals and place types, and at that time, I was one of the ones that said that if a special ordinance was the way to get this project moving, that I would support that direction.

3:37:10Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): And in fact, several of the

3:37:13Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Several of the quotes on the applicant's slides were mine. I recognize them.

3:37:20Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Despite saying that and ultimately supporting that tonight, I really had hoped that there would be some quick work on the zoning, given the size of this project, given its consistency with so many city goals.

3:37:33Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): you know, the fact that we have plans in places that reference these high FARs, and now a serious proposal that requests to use it, that we really should have zoning that supports that, right? You could call it zoning, we can call it something else, there may be other pathways, but we don't have a way to permit this right now, right? And there's no plan on the horizon.

3:37:53Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): And I think to echo something the applicant said on their way out, we are going to see this issue come up again and again, right? There is a lot of land in the TVAP2 that has this combination of zoning and place type, and I think what we're seeing now, that we're getting into this process, this is not a great way to do land use reviews.

3:38:12Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): With other applicants, it might involve end runs around an approved community vision.

3:38:19Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): It seems like a really wasteful and hollow thing to have these area plans that the city has put resources into, to have new land use concepts like we have in the BBCP, and not have the tools that we need to implement them. So, just an ask to staff, and I know everybody's really stretched.

3:38:37Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): But could we try to find a way to get in front of this before we get more proposals like this?

3:38:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Claudia.

3:38:47Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Alright.

3:38:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Since we're on matters from the board, any other matters from the board, or comments from the board? Kurt?

3:38:54Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Well, first of all, I wholeheartedly agree with what Claudia just said, and I think that the frustrations, both on the part of the board and on the part of the applicant, are entirely due to the fact that we're doing this ad hoc

3:39:08Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): zoning planning that's not really planning, and I think it reflects really, really poorly on the city, that we're stuck in this position, and we're hearing that it would be, a year to…

3:39:23Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): create his own district with a few numbers changed, and I think that that's a problem. I think that…

3:39:30Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): We…

3:39:31Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): that may be… clearly is the case, but then our processes need to change. There's something fundamentally broken with the city, if that's what, is… is really what it would entail, because that… we're just not going to be able to make progress that way.

3:39:49Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So, okay, that's enough on that. I had a second…

3:39:54Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): thing. Somebody was asking me about the citywide strategic plan, and there's some…

3:40:01Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): thing coming up in November, or whatever.

3:40:04Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Is that something that Planning Board is going to be involved in?

3:40:08Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Apparently, TAB and some of the other boards are involved, so they were just wondering what the deal was.

3:40:17Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Do you… Sure, I can speak to that. So…

3:40:22Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): First of all, quick recap. So, the city adopted its first, or at least first modern strategic citywide… citywide strategic plan 3 years ago.

3:40:31Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): And it was really an intent to try to focus, priorities and work planning, and it was largely done at the staff level, and then…

3:40:39Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): semi-blessed or acknowledged by Council. This time, there's a more deliberative effort, and really this idea of taking

3:40:48Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): all the values and… or all the policies, rather, of the comprehensive plan, and…

3:40:54Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Among the other things, but values of that, and pulling out of those the priorities or strategies for the next four years.

3:41:02Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): 30 of them, let's call it. And, that is going through a more

3:41:07Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): more, still very much internal process, but with some council engagement, and some… Opportunity for boards and Commissions.

3:41:17Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Did we send out that ex… did we extend that Saturday meeting invite to the planning board? Did that get sent to folks? Does anybody know?

3:41:27Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I don't think we got that. Okay.

3:41:30Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): So if we can follow up and get that sent out, it went to DAB and Historic Press.

3:41:34Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): reservation. Sure, yeah.

3:41:36Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Not aware of it, but…

3:41:38Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I apologize, we may have…

3:41:41Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): Okay, November 14th.

3:41:44Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): So we certainly would encourage ADO to that,

3:41:48Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): And…

3:41:48Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): My apologies.

3:41:49Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): jeez, if we missed on that, but that's the intent of it. It is not.

3:41:53Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): the same kind of outreach or engagement that the comprehensive plan would have, for example. That's the policy document. This is really about

3:42:02Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Strategic thinking, tactical thinking for the city.

3:42:08Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Thank you for that.

3:42:11Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): other matters from the board or board member comment on tonight before we move to matters from the Planning Director?

3:42:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Seeing none, Brad, what have you got for us?

3:42:22Speaker 14 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, well, first.

3:42:23Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): First of all, as always, thank you for your.

3:42:25Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): Rust, discussion and, and,

3:42:29Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): You know, considerations before coming, obviously.

3:42:32Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): The hard work of going through a difficult packet and complex one, and appreciate the acknowledgement, or recognition, too, that complex things like this are multi-year in the workings.

3:42:43Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): setting a foundation, a vision, then talking about constraints and those types of things, so appreciate that acknowledgement. We hear the concerns about timing of code and updates and those types of things, and take that to heart. I won't…

3:43:00Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): you know, reiterate the comments I made earlier, they were.

3:43:03Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): But, do know that we hear you, and…

3:43:06Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): Appreciate your understanding, too, that we're trying to balance many things as well.

3:43:11Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): Other than that, I would say, thank you again for a busy September. We asked for 4 meetings from you, and we're…

3:43:20Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): Two, two.

3:43:21Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Three… three through those, so…

3:43:24Speaker 19 (Board & Commissions): too much.

3:43:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Brad.

3:43:27Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): other matters from the city attorney's Office.

3:43:30Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): have a matter.

3:43:32Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Laura, you emailed me and the board earlier today asking about an invitation to attend a community gathering about the North Boulder Creative Campus development.

3:43:43Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): That's, proposed redevelopment at… 4401 Broadway in North Boulder.

3:43:50Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And there is actually… there are applications that have been filed for the redevelopment of that site, both the site reapplication and a rezoning application. Those are both quasi-judicial types of applications, so my recommendation is that the planning board not attend

3:44:07Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): These meetings, or have any other ex parte communications about that project, because it will be coming to the board as a quasi-judicial item.

3:44:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Hela.

3:44:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any other matters from staff?

3:44:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I see a shaking a head of no.

3:44:28Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Sorry.

3:44:29Speaker 18 (Board & Commissions): Nope, that's okay.

3:44:30Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Just that, you know, we have another meeting,

3:44:33Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Next Tuesday night, we have the concept plan for 2750 Broadway, and then, an informational item, so…

3:44:40Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): We'll round out September next Tuesday.

3:44:44Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Wonderful, thank you.

3:44:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And Kurt. I wanted to follow up.

3:44:47Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): with Hello, thank you very much for that response.

3:44:53Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): What about… social… Social interaction with

3:45:02Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Developers in the city who do a lot of work.

3:45:07Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

3:45:10Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I have gotten an invitation, probably other, you know,

3:45:14Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Board members have gotten invitations, too, to a social thing put on by a

3:45:21Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): a large developer that does a lot of projects in Boulder.

3:45:25Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): as far as I know, there's nothing currently coming forward from them, but things happen all the time.

3:45:33Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Do you have any recommendations about that sort of thing?

3:45:36Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Is it the same as what you said with regards to the…

3:45:41Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I… The other one? I think it's… it's… Whether or not it's about…

3:45:46Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Upcoming development applications, or pending development applications?

3:45:51Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Particular if the development applications are pending and they're coming in front of the board.

3:45:56Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): If they're upcoming, in my mind.

3:46:00Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): something that you can learn ex parte the day before the application is filed affects you the same way the day after the application is filed, so if a project is in the pipeline, I would recommend that you not talk about it outside of the hearing, and just wait until the project comes in front of you to

3:46:18Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): talk about it here on the dais. Right, and I'm not talking about… It's not related to any kind of project,

3:46:27Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): you can have social meetings and gatherings and… Okay, yeah, this is…

3:46:31Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Going and drinking beer and eating brats, so… Okay.

3:46:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes, and we can discuss legislative matters.

3:46:39Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): with anyone, is that correct? That's correct. Okay, it's just the quasi-judicial we have to be careful about.

3:46:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Alright, Thomas, anything?

3:46:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): That you would like to talk to us about.

3:46:50Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Charles covered our calendar check, so…

3:46:54Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): I think we are all set to move forward.

3:46:57Speaker 13 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

3:46:58Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, everybody, I think that's our meeting. Thank you so much. We are adjourned at 9.47.