Quasi Judicial Memo

City of Boulder City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Agenda Title Consideration of a Concept Plan Review and Comment Request for proposed development of the Boulder Storage site at 4880 and 4898 Pearl Street with four residential buildings containing 281 apartment units and a new 85,000 square foot commercial storage building. Reviewed under case number LUR2025-00035.

Staff Contact • •

Chandler Van Schaack, Principal Planner, Planning and Development Services Brad Mueller, Director, Planning & Development Services Department

Executive Summary The purpose of this item is for City Council to review and comment on the Concept Plan for the above referenced project. Per Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981, the project requires Concept Plan review and comment prior to Site Review because the site is over 5 acres and the proposal is greater than 100,000 square feet in size (Table 2-2 of Section 9-214, B.R.C. 1981). On October 28, 2025, the Planning Board held a hybrid meeting and reviewed and commented on the proposal. At its meeting on November 20, 2025, City Council voted to call the item up for review and comment at a public hearing. The staff memorandum to Planning Board, recorded video, and the applicant’s submittal materials along with the meeting minutes are available in the city archives for Planning Board. The recorded video from the hearing can be found here: October 28, 2025 Planning Board Meeting (item starts 14 minutes into the video). The applicant’s submittal package is provided in Attachment A.

1

Concept Plan Review is intended to give the applicant feedback on the proposal and provide the applicant direction prior to submitting a Site Review application. No action is required on behalf of the City Council. Input and comments by the public, staff, Planning Board, and City Council will be documented for the applicant’s use. Generally, in a City Council discussion of a Concept Plan, the council reviews the key issues that were discussed by the Planning Board. In addition to a public hearing at City Council, City Council has authority to refer Concept Plan Review proposals to the Design Advisory Board (DAB) and/or Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) for their respective opinions. The purpose of such a review by DAB is to encourage thoughtful, well-designed development projects that are sensitive to the existing character of an area, or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans for the area. TAB’s opinion can be requested by council on transportation matters implicated in a Concept Plan Review proposal.

Council Action Options No action is required on behalf of the City Council. Input and comments by the public, staff, Planning Board, and City Council will be documented for the applicant’s use.

Key Issues Staff has identified the following key issues to help guide council’s discussion: 1. Is the proposed concept plan consistent with the BVCP land use map and, on balance, with the goals and policies of the BVCP particularly those that address the built environment? 2. Is the project generally consistent with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan? 3. Does the Board have feedback on the proposed use and conceptual site plan?

Background Property Description & Site Context The approximately 7.1-acre (309,250 sf) project site is located just east of Foothills Parkway on the south side of Pearl Street, and west of 49th Street. The site currently contains a self-storage business with two large, one-story buildings on the northern portion and approximately 32 one-story storage buildings dispersed across the remainder of the site. There are a few trees scattered along the boundary of the site, but otherwise the site is completely paved with no natural features. Adjacent uses are a mix 2

of manufacturing, car sales, personal service, restaurants, gyms and other small businesses. The southwest corner of Valmont Park sits across the Goose Creek Greenway, which runs along the northern property boundary. There are no existing residential uses within close proximity to the site, the nearest being north of Valmont and west of the railroad tracks in Boulder Junction. See Figure 1 below for vicinity map.

BVCP Land Use Designation The Site Review criteria of the land use code section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, will be used to evaluate the project and to make findings for any future Site Review approval. Among the findings that must be made is a project’s consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies and Land Use designation. As shown in Figure 2, the BVCP land use designation for the site is General Industrial. Per the 2020 BVCP, the General Industrial land use designation is shown where industries are located or planned. Anticipated uses consist of more intensive manufacturing and may include outdoor storage or warehouses. The site is adjacent to Community Industrial (CI) and General Industrial (GI) land use designations to the south, east and west, respectively, with the Goose Creek Greenway and Valmont City Park having a land use designation of Park, Urban and Other (PKU/O). The Park, Urban and Other Land Use designation is described as “public lands used for a variety of active and passive recreational purposes or flood control purposes. 3

Urban parks provided by the city include pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks and city parks, as defined in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.” The land use designation for the area across the Goose Creek Greenway to the northwest is Mixed Use Industrial (MUI), which is intended to integrate “diverse housing, commercial and retail options into industrial areas to create vibrant, walkable, working neighborhoods that offer employers, employees and residents a variety of local services and amenities. MUI areas will often provide a transition between existing or planned residential or mixed-use neighborhoods and Light, Community or General Industrial land use areas.” Existing residential is located to the north of the MUI area.

In addition to consistency with the BVCP land use designation, Section 9-2-14(h)(1)(B), “Subcommunity and Area Plans or Design Guidelines,” requires that “if the project is subject to an adopted subcommunity or area plan or adopted design guidelines, the project is generally consistent with the applicable plan and guidelines.” The project site is located within the boundaries of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan (EBSP), which identifies the future use of this area as "General Industrial." Adoption of the EBSP resulted in BVCP Land Use Map changes for approximately 250 acres that were previously designated as “Light Industrial” to Mixed Use Industrial (MUI) and Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development (MUTOD). These areas are identified in the EBSP as “Areas of Change,” and are intended “to bring new opportunities for integrating residential, commercial, and retail spaces and 4

places with existing subcommunity businesses and workplaces” (pg. 24). See Figure 3 below for the EBSP Areas of Change Map. The subject property is not located in an Area of Change. In describing the Industrial land use areas outside Areas of Change, the EBSP states: “The land use changes proposed in the East Boulder Land Use Plan are intended to guide redevelopment and identify needs for investments in strategic locations of the the subcommunity. The land use plan maintains 320 acres of land for Light Industrial use, 80 acres for Community Industrial use and 180 acres for General Industrial use. East Boulder is the only subcommunity in the city with land designated for General Industrial use. As other areas of the subcommunity evolve to more mixeduse environments, the value of the industrial lands and how they continue to contribute to the city becomes more precious [emphasis added]. Today, the uses of these industrial areas offer a wide variety of businesses, including everything from car mechanics to research and development offices. Community members have described the value these places offer to the city as employers, industrial service providers and contributors to the local economy. As the city continues to evaluate and guide change across the city, future subcommunity and area planning may utilize the Mixed Use Industrial (MUI) land use designation to indicate priority areas for integrating residential uses into industrial neighborhoods, while preserving Community, Light and General Industrial designations for areas of the city that will continue to offer primarily industrial, manufacturing, flex, and supporting service uses [emphasis added]. Directing residential density to key areas of the city that can be well served with amenities and transportation options will help to balance housing and jobs in the community while still offering local business the space to operate” (pg. 33).

5

Zoning. As shown below in Figure 4, the subject property is zoned IG (Industrial – General), defined in Section 9-5-2(c)(5), B.R.C. 1981 as “General industrial areas where a wide range of light industrial uses, including research and development, manufacturing, service industrial uses, media production, storage, and other intensive employment uses are located. Residential uses and other complementary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations.” Adjacent zoning includes Industrial- Service 1 (IS-1) to the west, IS-2 to the south, IG to the east, and Public (P) to the northeast where Valmont Park is located. The area to the northwest (Valmont Park West) is subject to the East Boulder Form-Based Code overlay, which was adopted for Areas of Change identified in the EBSP. Per Section 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981, the maximum by-right height for principal buildings in the IG zone is 40 feet, and the maximum number of stories for a principal building is 3 stories. The subject property appears to meet the conditional height standards in Section 9-7-6(b), which allow an additional five feet of height for properties that are not adjacent to a residential zone district or residential land use designation in the BVCP. Residential uses are allowed in the IG zone through conditional use review subject to the conditions in Section 9-6-3(a), B.R.C. 1981. For properties in the IG zone eligible for 6

residential development, residential floor area is limited to a 1.0 FAR and nonresidential floor area is limited to a 0.5 FAR. If at least 0.3 FAR of certain light industrial or research and development uses is on the lot or parcel, the residential FAR may be increased to 1.25 FAR in the IG zone.

Section 9-6-3(a)(2) requires in the IG zone that either the residential use is consistent with the land use plan or map in an adopted subcommunity or area plan or at least onsixth of the perimeter of the lot or parcel proposed for residential development is contiguous with a residential use that includes one or more dwelling units, a residential zoning district, or a city- or county-owned park or open space. This contiguity must be established for each parcel or lot that is developed. This could be done by creating new contiguity within the same development proposal, provided that each IG or IM lot or parcel that is created and developed with residential uses under 9-6-3(a)(2) can independently meet the contiguity requirement of 9-6-3 (a)(2)(A)(iii) when constructed. In this location, for the purposes of establishing contiguity, city staff has determined that only Valmont Park is considered a city- or county-owned park or open space. The northern channel of Goose Creek is primarily a stormwater and flood conveyance channel. While it is under City ownership, the Goose Creek channel is not a designated park or open space per the 2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and staff therefore 7

finds that it cannot be used to establish contiguity. Staff does consider the Goose Creek channel a right-of-way that does not affect contiguity to the Valmont Park to the north where such contiguity exists per Section 9-6-4(a)(2)(A)(iii). Staff notes, too, that contiguity is only one of several applicable criteria. Section 9-6-3(a)(2) includes additional standards for residential uses in the IG zone, including buffering from adjacent land uses, demonstration of environmental suitability, construction standards for noise mitigation and declaration of use requirements. In addition to demonstrating consistency with the EBSP land use map or contiguity requirements, the proposed project would be required to meet all conditional use standards for residential uses in the IG zone described above.

Application Description The proposed project would redevelop the existing 7.10-acre site with an arrangement of five buildings containing 281 residential units and an 85,000 sq. ft. commercial storage space. The residential buildings are organized around a central green spine, while the new storage building is along the western property line to provide a buffer to the northwest neighbor. The green spine runs north/south through the project, providing residential open space and community gathering, as well as connecting the community to Valmont Park and Goose Creek Greenway. Parking is at grade, and much of it is located inside an existing Xcel easement. Per the Applicant’s written statement, “The project will have a unique approach to the amenities provided. There will be a string of home occupation units along the 49th street side, allowing for small-scale home businesses to have 2 story units with store frontage along 49th and living on the second floor above. Additionally, among the amenity space in the project will be workshop areas, usable by the residents for anything from sewing to building guitars. The project will embrace the home-grown small scale makers spaces in the area and add to that tradition. The apartments will be comprised of studios, 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units with the final mix and counts to be determined as the demands evolve. The buildings are proposed to be 3 to 4 stories tall. While the design is still in the concept stage the desire for sculptural buildings and moving roofs on site make it likely that we will be seeking some additional height through Site Review.” As shown on the conceptual site plan below, in order to meet the use standards in Section 9-6-3(a)(2)(A) of the Land Use Code requiring at least one-sixth of the perimeter of the lot or parcel to be contiguous with a residential use that includes one or more dwelling units, a residential zoning district, or a city- or county-owned park or open space, the applicant is proposing a phasing plan wherein the property would be

8

subdivided to 1) establish a parcel with one-sixth contiguity with Valmont City Park and 2) establish two additional parcels to achieve additional contiguity within the subdivision. The applicant is requesting that, if the use is approved, that a phased approach be approved through the Site Review process and that submittal of a permit application for the first phase be allowed to constitute the establishment of a residential use on that site, allowing the submittal of the permit for the second phase immediately thereafter. Staff has expressed concerns with this approach, as outlined in the staff response to the Concept Review criteria below.

Site Design As shown in Figure 5 above, the proposed site design would place the proposed commercial storage building along the northwest corner of the site. Residential buildings are shown on the northeast corner and in the middle of the site. Two vehicular access points are shown, from Pearl Street and 49th Street, respectively. Internal vehicular circulation would occur primarily along the south and western boundaries of the site, with the northern portion of the drive separating the proposed commercial building from the residential buildings to the east. New detached sidewalks are shown along the 9

property boundaries fronting Pearl Street and 49th Street. Within the site, sidewalks are shown along the main drive and are separated from the drive aisle by on-street parking spaces. A new multi-use path connection is shown running from the sidewalk on the southern portion of the site between the residential buildings to the sidewalk along Pearl Street to the north. As mentioned above, all of the proposed parking is surface parking, with a mix of 50 carport spaces, 63 garage spaces and 213 uncovered surface spaces located along the sides of the private drive as well as in a surface parking lot on the south side of the site. 326 total spaces are shown. The application materials do not provide specific information on bike parking or TDM measures but states “ample bike parking facilities will be provided throughout the site. It is possible that Eco-passes will be provided to residents to encourage use of the bus system.” Regarding on-site open space, the conceptual drawings show a total of 109,708 square feet of open space (approx. 35%) where 92,775 square feet (30%) are required. The open space is shown primarily along the proposed multi-use path and within two central plaza areas located between the residential buildings. The site plans depict a swimming pool in the southern open space plaza and seating and other amenities along the multiuse path. See Figure 6 below for open space and parking diagrams.

10

Building Design The application materials include conceptual renderings of the proposed buildings intended to show the general design character of the development. No materials list has been provided, but the buildings appear to use a mix of metal paneling, wood or woodlook paneling and EIFS or stucco paneling. Please see below for renderings of the proposed project.

11

12

Figure 7 below shows the proposed building massing as well as the proposed land uses and unit types.

13

Application History At the public hearing on October 28, 2025, the Planning Board heard presentations by staff and the applicant and asked questions following each presentation. One nearby business owner spoke during the public comments portion of the hearing expressing opposition to the project based on concerns over potential traffic and safety impacts and neighborhood compatibility issues. The five members of Planning Board in attendance discussed three key issues at the public hearing: 1. Is the proposed concept plan consistent with the BVCP land use map and, on balance, with the goals and policies of the BVCP particularly those that address the built environment? 2. Is the project generally consistent with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan? 14

3. Does the Board have feedback on the proposed use and conceptual site plan? Regarding Key Issue One, three board members felt that the project as proposed would likely not be consistent with the intent of the General Industrial land use designation in the BVCP or the BVCP policies regarding Revitalizing Commercial & Industrial Areas (Policy 5.01) and minimizing the potential mutual impacts of residential and industrial uses in proximity to one another in Light Industrial Areas (Policy 2.21). Two board members recognized that the project may be inconsistent with the BVCP but indicated that they did not find the site to be an objectively unsuitable location for housing. Regarding Key Issue Two, the Planning Board discussed a number of issues related to the project’s consistency with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan (EBSP). In general, the board agreed that the project does not appear to be consistent with the desired land use outside of the “Areas of Change” designated in the EBSP. Board members agreed that the EBSP places a high level of importance on maintaining the existing General Industrial areas and recognized the potential for the proposed project to result in adjacent lots with General Industrial land use designations to become eligible for residential development. Regarding Key Issue Three, the Planning Board discussed the proposed use and site design primarily in terms of the proposed subdivision and phasing. The board agreed with staff’s interpretation that the conditional use standards for residential uses in IG zones are intended to provide for incremental development on lots with one sixth contiguity to existing (i.e., occupied or occupiable) residential units but expressed a desire for more information on the potential impacts city-wide of allowing the Goose Creek Greenway to count as “City-owned park or open space” for the purpose of establishing contiguity. Several board members indicated that they recognized the Goose Creek Greenway as a critical piece of the city’s open space system but recognized that it is not considered a park per the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Public Comment Consistent with Section 9-4-3, Public Notice Requirements, B.R.C. 1981, staff provided notification to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject location of the application, and signs have been posted by the applicant indicating the review requested. Staff has not received any written public comments on the application.

15

Criteria for Review Applicable Boulder Revised Code Sections •

Section 9-2-13, “Concept Plan Review and Comment,” B.R.C. 1981.

Applicable Plans and Guidelines • •

Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan East Boulder Subcommunity Plan

Analysis CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA, SECTION 9-2-13(e), B.R.C. 1981 Guidelines for Review and Comment: The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board’s discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the Concept Plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan: (1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; See description under “Background” above for characteristics of the site and surrounding area. Staff notes in particular the MUI designation to the northwest and its existing function as a transitional area to the existing residential uses north of Valmont Road. (2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, sub-community and sub-area plans; BVCP Conformity. The Site Review criteria of the land use code section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, will be used to evaluate the project and to make findings for any future Site Review approval. Among the findings that must be made is a project’s consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies and Land Use designation. The existing land use designation on the site is General Industrial (GI), defined in Chapter III of the 2010 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as follows:

16

The General Industrial Land Use designation is the most intensive of the Industrial designations in the BVCP and is the most limited in terms of characteristics and anticipated uses. It is also worth noting that there are only a few locations in the city where this designation exists: the area including and immediately surrounding the subject site and several large parcels along 63rd Street which currently contain an Xcel power station, the Boulder County Recycling Center and the Western Disposal Waste Management facility. The total land area in the city with a GI Land Use designation is approximately 120 acres, with approximately 19.5 acres of that land located between Pearl Parkway and the Goose Creek path. See Figure 3 above for location of GI Land Use designations within the city. In terms of policy guidance for General Industrial areas, Policy 5.01, Revitalizing Commercial & Industrial Areas, states: “Revitalization should support and enhance these areas, conserve their strengths, minimize displacement of users and reflect their unique characteristics and amenities and those of nearby neighborhoods. Examples of commercial and industrial areas for revitalization identified in previous planning efforts [include]…the East Boulder industrial area.” The Light Industrial and Mixed-Use Industrial Land Use designations are the only designations that mention residential uses in their definitions. Furthermore, Policy 2.21 includes policy direction for Light Industrial areas and supports housing and retail infill in appropriate locations, stating, “Housing should occur in a logical pattern and in proximity to existing and planned amenities, including retail services and transit. Analysis will guide appropriate places for housing infill within areas zoned Industrial General (IG) (not those zoned for manufacturing or service uses) that minimize the potential mutual impacts of residential and industrial uses in proximity to one another.” This policy has been implemented in East Boulder where several IG, IS-1 and IS-2 zoned areas identified within the EBSP as “areas of change” were changed to the new MUI (Mixed Use Industrial) land use designation. Per the EBSP, these areas are intended “to indicate priority areas for integrating residential uses into industrial neighborhoods, while preserving Community, Light and General Industrial designations for areas of the city that will continue to offer primarily industrial, manufacturing, flex, and supporting service uses.” The subject property is not in one of these locations. The stated intent in BVCP Policy 2.21 is to “minimize the potential mutual impacts of residential and industrial uses in proximity to one another” in IG zones, and the intent of Policy 5.01 is to support and enhance industrial areas while minimizing displacement of 17

existing uses. Because most of the site is not currently eligible for residential development under IG zoning standards and is surrounded by manufacturing, light industrial and service uses with residential uses being prohibited in the IS-1 and IS-2 – zoned areas to the south and west, the proposal to redevelop the site with 281 residential units is very likely unable to demonstrate consistency with relevant BVCP goals and policies. EBSP Conformity. In addition to conformity with BVCP policies and Land Use designation, Section 9-2-14 (h)(1)(B), “Subcommunity and Area Plans or Design Guidelines,” requires that “if the project is subject to an adopted subcommunity or area plan or adopted design guidelines, the project is consistent with the applicable plan and guidelines.” The project site is located within the boundaries of the recently adopted East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, which identifies this area for future use as an area for "General Industrial" uses. As shown above, the BVCP describes General Industrial uses as consisting of "more intensive manufacturing and may include outdoor storage and warehouses." Areas where community members supported a combined residential and industrial (re)development are identified in the subcommunity plan and the BVCP Land Use Map with the Mixed-Use Industrial land use designation, as described on pages 33-34 of the subcommunity plan. As noted in the staff review comments included in the staff memorandum to Planning Board, a major policy issue surrounding this proposal is that while the Land Use Code may provide a potential path to meet the contiguity requirement for each lot or parcel in the development via subdivision and development phasing, at a broader level, the project as proposed would likely not meet the intent of the EBSP regarding industrial areas outside areas of change and would therefore not be supportable through the Site Review process. The EBSP places a high level of importance on maintaining the existing General Industrial areas and specifically discusses utilizing “the Mixed Use Industrial (MUI) land use designation to indicate priority areas for integrating residential uses into industrial neighborhoods, while preserving Community, Light and General Industrial designations for areas of the city that will continue to offer primarily industrial, manufacturing, flex, and supporting service uses” (pg. 33). This particular site, given its size and adjacency to large number of Industrial -zoned parcels that are currently not eligible for residential development, would fundamentally change the development character and potential of the surrounding area in a way that is not anticipated or supported by adopted EBSP policies. There are currently 18

approximately 19.5 acres of land between Pearl Parkway and the Goose Creek path that have a GI Land Use designation in the EBSP, all of which are zoned IG. Staff has calculated that development of the subject site with residential uses as proposed would immediately result in approximately three acres of adjacent IG- zoned land becoming eligible for additional residential development. Combined with the subject site, this would total about ten acres, which is over half of the total contiguous IG-zoned/ GIdesignated land area south of Goose Creek. Depending on which parcels were subsequently redeveloped with residential, it is feasible that the entire IG-zoned and GI-designated area between Pearl Parkway and the Goose Creek path, which represents approximately 16 percent of the total GIdesignated land area in the city, could consequently become eligible for residential development. While this scenario is theoretically possible without the redevelopment of the subject site, there are currently only three other parcels within the area south of the Goose Creek Greenway that are eligible for residential development, and they are all significantly smaller in size and are currently owned by the City of Boulder, so the likelihood of redevelopment as residential is minimal. Similarly, the GI-designated land along 63rd Street is almost exclusively owned by either the City of Boulder or Xcel and currently contains critical public infrastructure facilities, so the likelihood of redevelopment of those parcels with residential is low. The potential impact of the proposed development could therefore be that nearly all of the privately owned land with a GI Land Use designation in the city could become eligible for residential development. Considering the EBSP policies and implementation measures related to housing in industrial areas as well as the broader context of the area surrounding the site staff finds that because most of the site is not currently eligible for residential development under IG zoning standards, is not within an EBSP area of change, and is surrounded by manufacturing, light industrial and service uses, the proposal to redevelop the site with 281 residential units would likely be unable to demonstrate consistency with relevant EBSP goals and policies. Conditional Use Standards. Staff finds that the proposal to subdivide the site and begin construction of each phase prior to the previous phase being completed would not meet the use standards in Section 9-6-3(a)(2)(A) of the Land Use Code. The intent of these standards to allow for incremental residential development to occur on IG-zoned parcels with one sixth contiguity to existing (i.e., occupied) residential units or city-owned parks or open space. By allowing a site that is currently ineligible for residential development under IG zoning standards to develop a residential project in phases through the Site Review and subdivision process, the city may create a scenario where any parcel with any amount 19

of existing contiguity is eligible for residential development, simply and only because it is eligible for Site Review and able to be subdivided to create additional contiguity between lots. Section 9-6-3(a)(2)(A) reads: “Dwelling units may be constructed only on a lot or parcel that meets one or more of the following requirements (i), (ii), or (iii).....: (iii) At least one-sixth of the perimeter of the lot or parcel is contiguous with a residential use that includes one or more dwelling units, a residential zoning district, or a city- or county-owned park or open space. Contiguity shall not be affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, or a public or private transportation rightof-way or area. Staff’s interpretation of the conditional use standards in Section 9-6-3(a) is that “a residential use that includes one or more dwelling units” means an existing, occupied (or occupiable) residential use. Therefore, staff finds that if the board determines that a phased approach to residential development on the site is supportable through site review, at a minimum, issuing permits for construction of any buildings in Phases 2 and 3 should be contingent upon first issuing a certificate of occupancy for one or more dwelling units in the previous phase. Additional Zoning Considerations. In the Applicant’s written statement, they indicate that there will be live-work units along 49th Street; however, no floor plans are provided which show the total makeup of these units. It should be noted that Live-work units are only allowed as conditional use in the IG zone district, and are subject to the following standards: Section 9-6-3 (g) Live-Work Unit: (1) General Standards: The following standards apply to live-work units: (A) The commercial or industrial activity may be any nonresidential use allowed in the same zoning district, subject to any applicable specific use standards or review process for that use. (B) The residential use is located above or behind a ground floor space for nonresidential use. (C) A resident of the live-work unit must be responsible for the work performed in the nonresidential use. (D) Only one kitchen is permitted. (2) In the Industrial Zoning Districts: 20

(A) Review Process: In the industrial zoning districts, live-work units may be approved as a conditional use if at least fifty percent of the floor area of the building is for nonresidential use. Floor area within the live-work unit is considered residential floor area. Based on the data provided by the applicant, it appears that roughly 25% of the proposed floor area across the development would be for nonresidential uses, with nearly all of nonresidential floor area being contained within the storage building (Building C1). Section 9-6-3(g) requires that at least 50% of the building in which livework units are located has to be for a nonresidential use, this nonresidential floor area requirement is not looked at development wide. Therefore, it does not appear at this time that live-work units would be permissible as a conditional use. Building Height: The proposed buildings exceed the permitted building height in Section 9-7-5, "Building Height," B.R.C. 1981. Per Table 7-1 of the land use code, buildings are limited to three stories and 35 feet in the RH-5 zone. A modification to Section 9-7-5, "Building Height” would be required as part of site review to allow the height of the structures to exceed 45 feet. In addition, a modification to Section 9-7-1, “Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards,” would be necessary to allow four and five stories where three are permitted. Per Section 9-2-14(g) a public hearing before Planning Board is required for an application that includes a height modification. Please see comments under “Height Modification” under Criterion #3 below for additional information regarding requirements for approval of a height modification. (3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; Per Table 2-2, “Site Review Threshold Table,” section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981, Concept Plan and Site Review are required in the IG zone district for properties over 5 acres in size or that include over 100,000 square feet of floor area. Therefore, if the applicant moves forward with the proposal, approval of a Site Review application would be required. Decision on the application would be based on the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. Submittal requirements are based on those specified in the land use code, including but not limited, detailed site plans, landscape plans, floor plans and elevations, preliminary storm water and utility plans etc. Site Review is required due to the size of the site and proposed project and the modifications to the land use code being requested.

Applicable Criteria. At the time of Site Review the proposed project will be evaluated for conformance with the following: 21



Site Review criteria in Section 9-2-14(h) of the Land Use Code;



The land use designation in the BVCP;



All relevant policies of the BVCP;



IG Zoning regulations;



The City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS).

Submission Requirements. At the time of site review, the following items would be required: 

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development with implementable measures for promoting alternate modes of travel.



Traffic Impact Study is required since the project’s trip generation is shown to exceed the residential development threshold of 20 vehicles trips or greater during any single hour in the peak period.



Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan to address storm water runoff, water quality treatment issues, and detention ponding.



Utility Report to establish the impacts of this project on the City of Boulder utility systems and outline water main and wastewater main construction necessary to serve the development and perpetuate the overall system.



A water system distribution analysis in order to assess the impacts and service demands of the proposed development and to demonstrate conformance with the Treated Water Master Plan, October 2011.



A collection system analysis to determine any system impacts based on the proposed demands of the development and to demonstrate conformance with the city’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, July 2016.



A detailed tree inventory including the species, size and condition of all existing trees on the site.



Landscape plan that is consistent with, and exceeds, city code requirements, including a landscape requirements table as described in Section 9-9-12(d)(1)(j), B.R.C. 1981, to verify that the development is meeting and exceeding the minimum landscape requirements. The applicant is responsible for designing and implementing a comprehensive landscape plan, including a functional, efficient, and appropriate plant palette, plant layout, water conservation strategies, hardscape layout, and open space program in keeping with site review and 22

landscape criteria outlined in the land use code. All rights of way will be required to be planted with street trees and understory shrub plantings in conforming to the site review criteria and the landscaping and screening standards and streetscape design standards in the land use code. Site Review: In terms of the project’s likely consistency with the Site Review criteria, it should be noted that in addition to the standard Site Review criteria, the project as proposed would be required to comply with the “Additional Criteria for Buildings Requiring Height Modification” found in Section 9-2-14(h)(4) of the land use code. While the concept review materials do not provide much detail in terms of architecture and building design, staff finds that based on the preliminary sketches it appears that the project may not meet Criterion 9-2-14(h)(3), in particular, considering the following factors: 

9-2-14(h)(3)(A), Building Siting and Public Realm Interface



(ii) Wherever practical considering the scope of the project, parking areas are located behind buildings or set back further from the streetscape than the building façade.



(iii): Along the public realm, building entries are emphasized by windows and architectural features that include one or more of the following: increased level of detail, protruding or recessed elements, columns, pilasters, protruding bays, reveals, fins, ribs, balconies, cornices, eaves, increased window glazing, or changes in building materials or color.



(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.



(v): If the project is adjacent to a zoning district of lower intensity in terms of allowable use, density, massing, or scale, the project is designed with an appropriate transition to the adjacent properties considering adopted subcommunity and area plans or design guidelines applicable to the site, and, if none apply, the existing development pattern.



9-2-14(h)(3)(B), Building Design



(iv): Simple detailing is incorporated into the façades to create visual interest, without making the façade overly complicated. This detailing may include cornices, belt courses, reveals, alternating brick or stone patterns, expression line offsets, window lintels and sills, and offsets in window glass from surrounding materials. 23



(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.



9-2-14(h)(3)(C), Building Materials



(iii) The number of building material types is limited, and the building materials are applied to complement the building form and function. The organization of the building materials logically expresses primary building features, such as the spatial layout, building entries, private and common spaces, anchor corners, stairwells, and elevators.



(iv) Building cladding materials turn convex corners and continue to the inset wall. This criterion does not apply to changes that occur at an interior corner nor to detailing elements, such as cornices, belt courses, reveals, offsets in expression lines, lintels, and windowsills. Building cladding materials do not change in-plane unless there is at least a 12-inch wall offset.



9-2-14(h)(4)(A)(i) The building does not exceed 200 feet in length along any public right-of-way.



9-2-14(h)(4)(A)(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.

Height Modification. The proposed buildings exceed the permitted building height in Section 9-7-5, “Building Height,” B.R.C. 1981. Per Table 7-1 of the land use code, buildings are limited to three stories and 40 feet in the IGRH-5 zone. A modification to Section 9-7-5, “Building Height” would be required as part of site review to allow the height of the structure to exceed 40 feet. In addition, a modification would be necessary to Section 9-7-1, “Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards,” to allow four stories where only three are permitted by right. Per Section 9-2-14(g), a public hearing before Planning Board is required for an application that includes a height modification. Per Section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E) of the land use code, properties within the IG zone districts are currently eligible for height modification requests. The project would be subject to the adopted Community Benefit requirements of Section 9-2-14(h)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981 as there is floor area above a third story, proposed in a fourth floor above the zoning district height limit. Conditions of approval for the Site Review would be applied to any approved development that would ensure compliance with the community benefit regulations. The additional floor area permitted with the height modification (“bonus floor area”) would be 24

used to determine the required number of “bonus units”, e.g., residential units above the 25% Inclusionary Housing requirement. This results in the number of additional permanently affordable units that must be in the building or included in the total calculation for in-lieu fees. The community benefit provisions of Section 9-2-14(h)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981, were adopted to implement Policy 1.12 of the BVCP which states that the city will consider additional height (up to the City Charter 55-foot height limit) as an incentive in exchange for community benefits that further other community objectives, such as the provision of permanently affordable housing and/or other acceptable benefits. The proposal indicates the project would provide a community benefit by providing an in-lieu fee payment that helps fund permanently affordable housing in the city. (4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; Following Site Review approval, if approved, the applicant is required to submit an application for Technical Document (TEC doc) Review prior to application for building permit. The intent in the TEC doc review is to ensure that technical details are resolved such as drainage and transportation issues that may require supplemental analyses. Review and approval of a Use Review would also be required for the proposed residential units, and subdivision would be required to create the three lots shown on the preliminary plans. (5) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; As noted in the staff review comments included in the staff memorandum to Planning Board, the project will be required to meet the Site Access Standards found in Section 9-9-5 of the Land Use Code which state: “One access point or curb cut per property will be permitted, unless a site plan or traffic study, approved by the city manager, demonstrates that additional access points and curb cuts are required to adequately address accessibility, circulation, and driveway volumes, and only where additional accesses and curb cuts would not impair any public use of any public right-of-way, or create safety or operational problems, or be detrimental to traffic flow on adjacent public streets.” Additional documentation will be required at time of Site Review if more than one access point is proposed. (6) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural 25

hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary. There are no wetlands, wildlife corridors, endangered or protected species and habitats located on the project site. Thar being said, the applicant should note that Section 9-63(a)(2)(E), Environmental Suitability, requires that “The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed use will not be affected by any adverse health or safety impacts associated with potential on-site pollution or contamination beyond that which is customarily acceptable for land that is used for residential purposes. This shall be demonstrated through the use of the environmental assessment required to be submitted with the application. If such environmental assessment identifies any potential adverse health or safety impacts on future residents of the site, the applicant shall also be required to submit further assessments that demonstrate that such concerns are not present or submit a plan for the mitigation measures that are necessary to alleviate any adverse impacts to public health, safety, and welfare.” (7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; As noted in the comments above, staff finds that while the IG zone district does permit residential uses under certain conditions, of which the project may technically be able to meet some, staff finds that the proposed project taken in its totality would not be consistent with East Boulder Subcommunity Plan goals and policies, nor with the intent of the General Industrial land use designation found in the BVCP.

(8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. The need for additional housing units in the city is well-documented; however, due to the issues outlined above, critical criteria cannot be met for this site to be an appropriate location for residential housing at this time.

Findings - Key Issues Please see below for Staff’s initial findings regarding the key issues identified above. Key Issue #1: Is the proposed concept plan consistent with the BVCP land use map and, on balance, with the goals and policies of the BVCP particularly those that address the built environment? Please see staff’s response to Concept Review criterion #2 above for information relevant to the project’s compatibility with BVCP goals, objectives and recommendations. As mentioned above, The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 26

(BVCP) Land Use designation for the site is General Industrial, which is described in the BVCP as:

Key takeaways from this discussion would be whether City Council finds that this project complies with BVCP goals and policies that address the built environment and whether there are any other BVCP goals or policies with which the board finds the project either consistent or inconsistent. In terms of how this criterion will be applied during Site Review, Section 9-2-14(h)(1)(A) of the Site Review criteria states, “In applying this, the approving authority shall consistently interpret and apply this criterion and consider whether a particular goal or policy is intended to be applied to individual development projects or is to guide city policy decisions, such as regulatory actions. The BVCP does not prioritize goals and policies, and no project must satisfy one particular goal or policy or all of them.” General BVCP policies that should be considered when discussing this project include: 5.01 Revitalizing Commercial & Industrial Areas: The city supports strategies unique to specific places for the redevelopment of commercial and industrial areas. Revitalization should support and enhance these areas, conserve their strengths, minimize displacement of users and reflect their unique characteristics and amenities and those of nearby neighborhoods. Examples of commercial and industrial areas for revitalization identified in previous planning efforts are Diagonal Plaza, University Hill commercial district, Gunbarrel and the East Boulder industrial area. 5.03 Diverse Mix of Uses & Business Types: The city and county will support a diversified employment base within the Boulder Valley, reflecting labor force capabilities and recognizing the community’s quality of life and strengths in a number of industries. The city values its industrial, service and office uses and will continue to identify and protect them. The city will evaluate areas with nonresidential zoning to ensure the existing and future economic vitality of Boulder while responding to the needs of regional trends and a changing global economy. To help guide the Council’s discussion, staff has also provided a list of BVCP Policies that address the built environment and are intended to apply to individual development projects: 2.10 Preservation & Support for Residential Neighborhoods: The city will seek appropriate building scale and compatible character in new development or 27

redevelopment, appropriately sized and sensitively designed streets and desired public facilities and mixed commercial uses. 2.25 Improve Mobility Grid & Connections: The walkability, bikeability and transit access should be improved in parts of the city that need better connectivity and mobility, for example, in East Boulder. This should be achieved by coordinating and integrating land use and transportation planning and will occur through both public investment and private development. 2.36 Physical Design for People: The city and county will take all reasonable steps to ensure that public and private development and redevelopment be designed in a manner that is sensitive to social, health and psychological needs. Broadly defined, this will include factors such as accessibility to those with limited mobility; provision of coordinated facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and busriders; provision of functional landscaping and open space; and the appropriate scale and massing of buildings related to neighborhood context. 2.37 Environmentally Sensitive Urban Design: For capital improvements and private development, the city and county will strive to ensure that buildings, streets, utilities and other infrastructure are located and designed to protect natural systems, minimize energy use, reduce urban heat island effects and air and water pollution and support clean energy generation. 2.41 Enhanced Design for All Projects: Through its policies and programs, the city will encourage or require quality architecture and urban design in all development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, provides a livable environment and addresses the following elements: b. The context. Projects should become a coherent part of the neighborhood in which they are placed. Special attention will be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of established residential areas that are adjacent to business areas. c. Relationship to the public realm. Projects should relate positively to public streets, plazas, sidewalks, paths and natural features. Buildings and landscaped areas—not parking lots—should present a well-designed face to the public realm, should not block access to sunlight and should be sensitive to important public view corridors. Future strip commercial development will be discouraged. e. Transportation connections. Projects should provide a complete network of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian connections both internal to the project and connecting to adjacent properties, streets and paths, including dedication of public rights-of-way and easements where required.

28

f. Parking. The primary focus of any site should be quality site design. Parking should play a subordinate role to site and building design and not jeopardize open space or other opportunities on the property. Parking should be integrated between or within buildings and be compact and dense. The placement of parking should be behind and to the sides of buildings or in structures rather than in large street-facing lots. Surface parking will be discouraged, and versatile parking structures that are designed with the flexibility to allow for different uses in the future will be encouraged. g. Human scale and art in public spaces. Projects should provide pedestrian interest along streets, paths and thoughtfully designed public spaces that support a mix of events, destinations and art. Projects should model investment in public art in the city, and the city should encourage individuals, businesses, organizations and developers to invest in improvements to public spaces through the addition of meaningful, innovative and quality works of art. h. Permeability. Create permeability in centers with a mix of semi-public and public spaces that are connected visually for intuitive navigation. Include civic and cultural uses as well as outdoor seating, shade trees and green spaces in the public spaces to create a unique identity and sense of place. Projects should provide multiple opportunities to walk from the street into projects, thus presenting a street face that is permeable. Where appropriate, they should provide opportunities for visual permeability into a site to create pedestrian interest. i.

On-site open spaces. Projects should incorporate well-designed functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably. Where public parks or open spaces are not within close proximity, shared open spaces for a variety of activities should also be provided within developments.

j.

Buildings. Buildings should be designed with a cohesive design that enhances the streetscape and is comfortable to the pedestrian. Buildings should demonstrate approachability and a relationship to the street, with inviting entries that are visible from public rights of way, multiple entrances and four-sided design. Foster appeal of buildings through attractive, well-designed architecture made of high-quality, longlasting materials and innovative approaches to design.

Key Issue #2: Is the project generally consistent with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan? Please see staff’s response to Concept Review criterion #2 above for information relevant to the project’s consistency with EBSP goals, objectives and recommendations. 29

As outlined above, the current proposal is not consistent with the underlying zoning at this time and would require approval of both a phasing plan through site review as well as subdivision of the existing site to create the required one-sixth contiguity between parcels. Given the EBSP’s detailed recommendations on protection of existing industrial land as well as the extensive land use map changes intended to encourage residential development in specific Areas of Change in East Boulder (which do not include this industrial area), staff concludes that the proposed development and its overall impact of on the surrounding area (i.e., leading to the remainder of the GI-designated land in the surrounding area becoming eligible for residential development) is generally not consistent with the EBSP.

Key Issue #3: Does Council have feedback on the proposed use and conceptual site plan? Staff’s initial assessment of the proposed use and conceptual site design is included under “Concept Review Criteria” above. As noted therein, staff has identified several significant policy issues with the proposed project. Staff has notified the applicant of the specific site review criteria that would be central to the review of the final project plans if the use is found to be supportable and has made clear that additional details would be required on several different project elements. Key takeaways from this discussion will be whether there are any building or site design considerations the applicant should take into account to improve or enhance the project’s consistency with the Site Review criteria. Council may also wish to focus on the design and operating characteristics of the proposed open space, the building design and massing along the rights-of-way, and any concerns related to the proposed access and circulation, if the use is found to be appropriate. CONCLUSION No action is required by City Council. City Council, Planning Board, Public and staff comments will be documented for use by the applicant. Concept Plan review and comment is intended to give the applicant preliminary feedback on the development concepts, and direction for site review applications.

Accessibility Statement The City of Boulder is committed to digital accessibility. Some content may not be fully accessible due to technical limitations or issues. For alternate formats or accommodations, please visit Accessibility | City of Boulder or contact accessibility@bouldercolorado.gov.

Fiscal Note 30

Review of this project is part of the P&DS team’s standard workplan and its impacts are incorporated into the annual revenue forecasting as part of the Budget office’s annual budget development. Therefore, review of the project will not have a meaningful fiscal impact past what has already been included in the approved budget. Current Year Estimated Fiscal Impact Fund(s): 2120FD Department(s): Planning & Development Services Program(s): All P&DS programs

Item Beginning Fund Balance Total Forecasted Revenue Total Estimated Expenses Ending Fund Balance(s) After Reserves FTE

FY 2026 Budget

FY 2026 Estimated Impact

FY 2026 Net Change

$18,200,885

$0

$0

$15,179,491

$0

$0

$17,735,173

$0

$0

$12,646,701

$0

$0

122.65

0

0

Three-Year Estimated Fiscal Impact

Item

FY 2026

FY 2027

FY 2028

Total Forecasted Revenue Total Estimated Expenses Net Estimated Impact

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Attachments Attachment A: Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement 31