Attachment G_Responses to Advisory Board Comments

Comment 1: The developer is planning to provide spaces for e-bikes and cargo bikes on site, ensure residents have eco-passes, and is discussing options for serving the site with Boulder's B-cycle and Lime Scooters. The Parking Management system will use information about utilization rates to help set available spaces and will be used to assist in making the garages efficient. Comment 2: Spaces within the garage will be managed by a central entity, and will be allocated based on use and demand information. The Parking Management System will be used to track and anticipate usage at different times of day and will adjust the available parking to accommodate the residents and other users of the garage. This allows management the flexibility to update and adjust the number of reserved spaces as time progresses to stay current with utilization rates. As an example, spaces that might have been used by commercial areas during the day would likely be utilized by residential guests at night. The short term bike parking around the site is located to make the proximity to entries and uses intuitive.

Attachment B – 03.05.25 EAB Meeting Minutes for Approval

CITY OF BOULDER COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Environmental Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: March 5, 2025 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Heather Sandine, 303-441-4390 NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS: Environmental Advisory Board Members Present: Brook Brockett, Anie Roche, Alex Bothwell, Hernan Villanueva Environmental Advisory Board Members Absent: Hannah Davis City Staff Members & Presenters Present: Jonathan Koehn, Heather Sandine, Charles Ferro, Chandler Van Schaack, Katherine Van Der Spek, Bill Holicky CALL TO ORDER A. B. Brockett declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. B. H. Sandine reviewed the meeting protocols. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. On a motion by B. Brockett, seconded by H. Villanueva, the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) approved the February 5, 2025 meeting minutes. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. None 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 2952 Baseline Site Review i Overview • C. Ferro and C. Van Schaak introduced the site applicants, B. Holicky and K. Vanderspek. They shared the design plan and explained the importance of making the area more pedestrian friendly. The buildings meet or exceed Boulder’s energy goals. Landscaping is designed to bring in nature. The site is close to transportation. There are EV chargers and chargers for electric scooters. Buildings are all electric and have heat recovery systems. Irrigation will use primarily non-potable water. The buildings are situated to take advantage of sun in winter and reject radiant heat in summer. Plantings will help reduce urban heat island effects and are pollinator friendly. ii Clarifying Questions and Discussion • B. Brockett read H. Davis’ comments on the record. H. Davis believes the design does meet the BVCP requirements and IPCC recommendations. • A. Bothwell was happy to hear about the EV charging. She asked about the restaurants and stores that would be included in the space. She was concerned about the impact that removing a grocery store may have on the community. Is

Attachment B – 03.05.25 EAB Meeting Minutes for Approval

• •

• • • •

• • • • •

•

•

•

•

•

there the ability to maintain space for a grocer. She also asked if solar panels would be incorporated. How does Coburn anticipate the impact on the unhoused community in that area. K. V. We have been talking with Sprouts about keeping them on site. Solar has been part of the conversation but there are no definite commitments at this time. B. Holicky said that currently the area is not safe for students, the unhoused community or other residents. We want to make it welcoming and healthy for everyone to be in. A. Roche asked if there has been talk about rooftop gardens. KV yes. H. Villanueva asked if there will be a change in the bus stops/routes in the neighborhood. KV not trying to alter anything that RTD is doing. Current stops are within a 5minute walk of the site. The site is currently very well served by the transportation infrastructure. What are the specific strategies for the diversion of construction waste. BH we are working with the transportation department to improve one crosswalk that has been identified as dangerous. KV building recycling is typically handled by the contractor. There are programs and building recycling centers set up, such as Resource. J. Koehn offered to send additional information about the deconstruction ordinance to the board. A. Roche asked if gas lines would go to the site. She also asked what the process is to give feedback and after KV the buildings are all electric, but the lines will go to the site. There may be a need for backup generators or gas lines for restaurants. There is not enough buy in from restauranters for an all-electric restaurant. C. Van Schaak said this is the first time a site review has gone to EAB. If the board has feedback or a recommendation staff will include those in the memo for council. A. Roche would like to see more thought on solar and battery storage capacity rather than gas generators as backup. The community-serving retail phrase is a bit vague. She would like to see more language to promote small, local, or disadvantaged businesses. The student Housing developer has begun reaching out to solar companies. Phase 2 likely will not reach that point until a Developer has been identified. Retail spaces have been designed to be smaller making them more affordable for tenants. A. Bothwell and B. Brockett agreed solar should be seriously considered. The student Housing developer has begun reaching out to solar companies. Phase 2 likely will not reach that point until a Developer has been identified. A. Bothwell asked for more details about additional water sources (beyond non potable) that may be used as a backup. Grey water is not allowed in Colorado at this time. Xeriscaping and native landscaping are planned to help reduce the water needs for landscaping. AK said that it would be the same water used in the building.

Attachment B – 03.05.25 EAB Meeting Minutes for Approval

•

• •

•

BH added that there will be stormwater systems and rain gardens to keep the water on site. There is a desire to use gray water systems, but we cannot commit to that until the water systems are chosen. Part of the system recaptures heat from wastewater. The tradeoff means we would have grey water for use. So, we have to look at tradeoffs. Do we want the heat recovery or gray water. Grey water is not allowed in Colorado at this time. Xeriscaping and native landscaping are planned to help reduce the water needs for landscaping. A. Bothwell asked if there is any conversation around fire resistant materials being used. B. Holicky said that we focus more on fire resistant materials in the WUI, but there is an overlap between durable building materials. Theres’ a lot of brick, metal and composite siding. Building with those durable materials will also reduce fire risk. H. Villanueva shared his appreciation for the positive aspects of the site design. He appreciated all electric, building codes, recycling materials, circular economy, and nature-based solutions. The project matches the efforts of the city. This is a project that our community needs and you’re meeting that need while also addressing our environmental goals.

5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None 6. OLD BUSINESS/UPDATES 7. MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, STAFF, CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Council Calendar Preview i J. Koehn highlighted the upcoming Xcel Partnership SS on March 13, the manufactured homes strategy B. J. Koehn gave an update on Board appointments, they will be March. 20. 8. DEBRIEF MEETING/ CALENDAR CHECK A. The April 2 EAB meeting will be repurposed for required training. The training will be from 6 – 8:30 PM and will not be open to the public. HEATHER BRING CAFFEINE. B. The next EAB meeting is scheduled for May 7 at 6 PM. 9. ADJOURNMENT A. The Environmental Advisory Board adjourned at 6:54 PM. Approved:

Chair

Date

CITY OF BOULDER DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES March 12, 2025 Virtual A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ DAB MEMBERS PRESENT: Brendan Ash (Chair) Matthew Schexnyder Stephen Eckert Harriet Ingham DAB MEMBERS ABSENT: Rory Bilocerkowycz (Vice Chair) STAFF PRESENT: Kalani Pahoa, Principal Urban Designer Amanda Cusworth, Internal Operations and Board Support Manager Chandler Van Schaack, Principal City Planner Amelia Harvey, Project Coordinator and Board Support

1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, B. Ash, declared a quorum at 4:06 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. On a motion by H. Ingham and seconded by M. Schexnyder, the board approved the September 11, 2024 minutes as submitted. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There was no participation. 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. PROJECT REVIEW: LUR2024-00071 2952 BASELINE ROAD Staff Introduction: C. Van Schaack, provided a summary and background on the project. Applicant Presentation: Katherine Vanderspek and Bill Holicky with Coburn Architecture, representing the applicant, presented the item to the board. Public Participation: There was no participation.

Board Recommendations: 9-2-14 (h)(3)(A) Site Design Criteria: (iv) Defined entries connect the building to the public realm. Unless inconsistent with the context and building’s use, along the public realm, one defined entry is provided every 50 feet. Buildings designed for residential or industrial uses may have fewer defined entries. Board Recommendation: - The board recommends more entries both for the grocery retail space and the three additional retail spaces, encouraging as many entries as possible. - Additional wayfinding on the exterior of Building B, at Baseline and 30th St. would be helpful, emphasizing the northeast corner of the building that can be called out with additional detailing both at the ground level and roof level massing. - Additionally, the board recommends taking a second look at the narrow retail space on the northeast corner of the plan. Additional entries have bee added to Building B’s Retail spaces and the entries into the grocery have been re-introduced. The corner of Building B at Baseline and 30th has gotten a more pronounced entry treatment and additional brick detailing at the pedestrian level. The retail on the northeast corner has been revised and entries have been added that support dividing that retail space into smaller, more affordable retail shops. 9-2-14(h)(3)(B) Building Design: (i) Larger floor plate buildings and projects with multiple buildings have a variety of forms and heights. Board Recommendation: - Discussing the general massing of all buildings being around 55 feet with somewhat uniform roof lines and parapet lines, the board feels that the interior or courtyard portion does not need to be addressed. - However, it should be revisited on the perimeter of the site and particularly in locations where the buildings will be viewed from a longer distance vantage point. - In these areas, the roof lines can most likely be addressed through material changes and detailing. Additional Roof detailing has been added, as well as stepping the building mass at the exterior of the site, specifically the Northeast corner of Building B where staff noted the increased distance of the vantage point. 9-2-14(h)(3)(B) Building Design: (v) Balconies on buildings with attached dwelling units are integrated into the form of the building in that exterior walls partially enclose the balcony. Balcony platform undersides are finished. Board Recommendation: - The balconies and materiality will be revisited during Tec Doc, but the board would agree with the applicant that some opacity for the balcony rails is encouraged. Balcony opacity will be maintained 9-2-14(h)(4) Additional Criteria for Buildings Requiring Height Modification or Exceeding the Maximum Floor Area Ratio: (i) The building does not exceed 200 feet in length along any public right-of-way. (ii) All building facades exceeding 120 feet in length along a public street, excluding alleys, are designed to appear as at least two distinct buildings. To achieve this, façade segments vary in at least two of the following design elements: a. Type of dominant material or color, scale, or orientation of that material; b. Facade recessions and projections; c. Location of entrance and window placements;

d. Roof forms; and e. Building height. Board Recommendation: - Building A: The board feels the East elevation of Building A successfully meets criteria. - Building B: The board acknowledges that the North and East elevations of Building B are in redesign, and encourages the applicant to consider additional wayfinding, additional detailing, human factor elements on the ground floor, bringing in additional elements of wood facade, and design resolution at the northeast corner to help address the criteria. - Building E South elevation: the board agrees that the length of the elevation is acceptable given the material changes, plane changes, and relief in the design, and feels these successfully break up the floor plan. A possible consideration would be to add a two story plinth, that can be seen from the vantage point of Highway 36. Building A has been largely unchanged on the East elevation Building B has incorporated additional entries and wayfinding into the North and East elevations, adjusting the materiality to help break down the scale of the East façade in particular. The North façade includes an additional entry with pedestrian level detailing by way of plane changes, brick coursing changes, awnings and window detailing, and additional wood material. Building E has been largely unchanged, but includes additional height on the parapet walls and screening at level 2 which will increase the visibility of the ‘plinth’ from 36

Additional Criteria or Discussion B. Ash feels that as a whole, the site has been a controversial area in Boulder. This site has been very well thought out and is generally a successful design. She is excited to see how the retail, particularly on the interior path, can be invigorated and is excited to see what retailers will be there. The housing will be a success because Boulder needs more. There is a lot of diversity in the design of the buildings. H. Ingham is excited about the site and appreciates how the design is pedestrian and cycle focused, while still recognizing that people drive. M. Schexnyder would have enjoyed spending some time discussing the interior area and woonerf feature, and thinks it’s a great design. He is curious about where the Dark Horse is going, but thinks it’s a wonderful project. Dark Horse is currently proposed to be in either D or A but those conversations are ongoing. S. Eckert thinks the applicant is on the right track, and feels confident that the applicant will find resolution on the northeast corner of Building B. 5. BOARD MATTERS A. APRIL BOARD TRAINING The board will meet in person in April for a Racial Equity training session with city staff. 6. CALENDAR CHECK 7. ADJOURNMENT The Design Advisory Board adjourned the meeting at 6:36 p.m.

APPROVED BY Board Chair:

DATE

A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/