Attachment B - Draft February 3, 2026 Planning Board Meeting Minutes

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES February 3, 2026 Hybrid Meeting A permanent set of these minutes and an audio 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/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Kaplan, Vice Chair Kurt Nordback ml Robles (virtual) Jorge Boone (virtual) Claudia Hanson Thiem Mark McIntyre, Chair Mason Roberts (virtual) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Moeller, Planning Manager Hella Pannewig, Senior Counsel Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Thomas Remke, Senior Operations Specialist Brad Mueller, Planning and Development Services Director 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, M. McIntyre, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In Person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: Lynn Segal 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A. The February 25, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval. M. Roberts noticed an error to correct in the draft minutes; M. McIntyre tabled the approval to a future meeting. B. The April 15, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval.

L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to approve the April 15, 2025 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed. C. The May 6, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval. L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to approve the May 6, 2025 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed. D. The January 20, 2026 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval. L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by Ml Robles to approve the January 20, 2026 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed. 4. CALL UP ITEMS There were no call up items to review. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. AGENDA TITLE: Concept Plan Review and Comment Request for a proposed redevelopment of 3550 and 3850 Frontier Ave. as an urban neighborhood anchored by a 2,500-person capacity events venue and rehearsal space, a hotel, approximately 500 apartments, 30,000 square-feet of commercial uses such as restaurants, coffee shops, and retail, and structured parking. The proposal would involve a rezoning and height modification. Reviewed under case no. LUR202500086. (00:19:40) Staff Presentation: Shannon Moeller presented the item to the board. (00:36:30) Board Questions: Shannon Moeller, Charles Ferro, and Brad Mueller answered questions from the board. (01:09:20) Applicant Presentation: Daniel Eisenman, Carly Sieff, and Danica Powell presented the item to the board. (01:29:20) Board Questions: Daniel Eisenman, Carly Sieff, and Danica Powell answered questions from the board. (02:32:30) Public Hearing: In-Person: 1) Jan Burton

Virtual: 1) Lynn Segal (02:40:00) Board break. Meeting resumes at (02:50:30). Board Discussion: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed concept plan generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP)? Key Issue #2: Does the Board have feedback on the conceptual site plan and building design’s consistency with the Site Review Criteria in 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981? Key Issue #3: Does the Board have feedback on a preferred approach for rezoning the property from IS-1/IS-2 to a new zoning district? Key Issue #4: Other key issues identified by the Board. (02:51:48) M. Roberts agreed with the applicant that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and that's why he believes it's extremely important to anchor this project on the BVCP and the TVAP. He stated that the MU-TOD framework is very clear that the goal of that use is to transform existing, disparate uses into a mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhood rich with amenities and services. At a concept level, what matters most to him is whether the project is structured to function as a neighborhood, not just as a collection of individual uses that may or may not fully materialize over time. He understands the realities of phasing and market conditions that were spoken to tonight. That said, he does have concerns about a scenario where the initial phase delivers the entertainment and hotel components, while the residential elements that are central to the MU-TOD vision are deferred or uncertain. From a neighborhood planning perspective, housing is not just one use among many, it is the foundation that allows transitoriented development, local serving amenities, and strong TDM strategies to work. He is also encouraged by the applicant's commitments related to parking supply and their focus on a strong TDM strategy. As this moves forward, he would strongly encourage staff and the applicant to treat TDM as foundational infrastructure, rather than as a mitigation measure added later in the process. Regarding Key Issue #3, he does not have a preferred approach and will be looking to hear more comments from staff around the solutions that they have. (02:54:45) L. Kaplan said that she loves the overall concept of a project in an MU-TOD area that fills the need for a performing arts venue, a practice space, adds needed hotel space, and creates a walkable mixed-use neighborhood with varied housing units in an extremely connected part of town, near future rail service, which is ripe for redevelopment and has this beautiful parks spine. The concept checks a lot of boxes. She reviewed the TVAP and TVAP2 and agreed with staff that the proposal is generally consistent with those plans as well as the BVCP. She noted that she read the applicant statement with great interest. She appreciated the vision of creating “a real Boulder neighborhood with a world-class performing arts and events venue, exceptional

placemaking, an energized streetscape, and great urban design and architecture.” She looks forward to seeing the final design. She noted that in Concept Review, the Board looks at the details that have been provided and gives input, especially to help the applicant foresee anything that is not going to be smooth sailing if it comes back in Site Review. She said she would try to address that here. She said the Board does this dispassionately, based on its reading of the code. It does not depend on personal feelings about how cool the project is or personal opinions about the applicant team. All projects are special and based on site-specific context. And also, all projects are not special in terms of consistent application of the code. She noted that the project team is asking for a lot of exemptions or flexibility. A non-comprehensive list includes partnership on a flood project, the ability to do metro district financing, which staff has previously said is not typically supported within city boundaries, though that may be changing, changes or exceptions to the sign code, extension of the HOP, and some curb-cut exceptions for a Mobility Hub, among other things. It may require a new flex zoning district or special ordinance, since none of the city’s current zones will accommodate every feature laid out. She noted that there are also many concessions requested in terms of the planning code and Site Review criteria, including exemption from the normal community benefit cash-in-lieu; an extremely flexible interpretation of the criteria for height benefit, such as the courtyard requirement, rooflines that add detailing above the height limit, and a phasing plan that puts the applicant’s most desired structures in place up front while not guaranteeing housing outcomes, which, as M. Roberts pointed out, are central to the MU-TOD district in both the TVAP and the land use code. She noted that some of this is not within the purview of the Planning Board, such as the flood project, Metro District financing, HOP extension, or boring geothermal under utilities, which the applicant indicated may require a code exception. She said she would not comment further on those, as they are up to staff and Council. She would comment on the other topics one at a time. She said staff did a stellar job commenting on the project, and she generally supports all of staff’s comments. She deferred to her colleagues on transportation elements, which she noted are not her area of expertise. On the sign code, she is not inclined to modify it for this project, though she would consider any proposal brought forward. To justify that, the applicant would need to explain why this project merits an exemption from the sign code that applies to every other building in Boulder. On the Mobility Hub, she noted that it sounds like staff is working with the applicants. If the team can work out a solution that benefits mobility without unacceptable impacts, such as backed-up streets and dangerous intersections, she would gladly support that. On zoning, she noted that MU-4 seems to be the closest fit and may be obtainable with a few modifications. She does not see the use review issue as problematic in this location, surrounded by major thoroughfares, the railroad tracks, and industrial buildings. She noted that staff has said the square footage limit can be modified in Site Review. The major hurdle seems to be the 2.0 FAR. She thinks that if the applicant addresses some of the other concerns raised by staff—such as usability of open space, building façade lengths, appropriate courtyards for the height modification, and varied building heights and rooflines—this may naturally bring the FAR down to 2.0 for the MU-4 designation. She would like to see that explored, and that would be her preference. She believes it would be the simplest solution and seems very doable and that it is also consistent with the TVAP. She is not very amenable to the argument that a zoning modification beyond MU-4 is required to comply with the TVAP. She does not support creation of a new zone for this project, nor an ordinance that would effectively jump the line of staff work for other needed updates, such as the East Boulder form-based code. On height and community benefits, she is very glad staff will be bringing forward a code change

to create a pathway so that 55-foot-tall buildings do not have to have four or five stories. It seems appropriate for a performing arts center to have fewer stories and still achieve that height, and she is supportive of that. However, she is not so sure that being a for-profit performing arts venue is a sufficient community benefit so that it would not have to pay the normal inclusionary housing benefit. She does not think that is a precedent the city should set. As staff noted, no alternative benefit package has yet been agreed to. The applicant can still propose one, but she would be reluctant. She would want to see that when the code change is brought forward to allow buildings not to be more than three stories at 55 feet, it includes a way for structures like this to pay into the affordable housing program. She said she would personally be more apt to entertain an alternative benefit proposal if the offer included a permanent, very low-cost performance or rehearsal space for nonprofits, or if one or more retail spaces were designated as permanently affordable arts space. That has not been done before and would require creativity to work out the details, but she finds it intriguing and potentially something the city may want, either in addition to or as an alternative to providing inclusionary housing. Regarding the extra Site Review criteria for height, including building façade length and a courtyard not elevated above the first floor, she is not especially flexible. She would be looking for the applicant to clearly meet the Site Review requirements. This is her approach for all Site Review projects, as she has articulated in the past. She generally only considers flexibility if there is some site-specific constraint that cannot be readily overcome. She noted that project economics do not generally do that for her. On open space, she agreed with staff that the applicant needs to pay close attention to how open space is used. Utilities commented that structures, including boardwalks and playground equipment, would not be allowed within detention or water quality pond easement areas. Structures are also not allowed on top of storm sewer lines within public easements. This creates a challenge in sharing that space with things that cannot exist in those required areas. She also agreed with staff’s comment that some of these spaces are quite narrow. If the Paseo is shaded all winter, as analysis may show, it may not be very usable at its current narrow width. She agreed as well with staff comments about the survivability of trees and other landscaping. On roofline features above 55 feet, she understands the applicant’s position that this may be a matter of interpretation related to hiding rooftop equipment but pointed out the city has never done that before. In terms of consistency, she would have a hard time approving what has been designed. She agrees with staff that varied rooflines need to be accommodated within the height limit. If the limit were 40 feet, applicants would want to go above it; if it were 60 feet, they would want to go above it. Buildings need to be accommodated within the height limit approved by voters in 1971, unless voters choose to change it. Regarding the phasing plan and scope of Site Review, she said there is a lot of concern about the long vested rights period and the fact that the phasing does not guarantee residential development, especially considering the reminder that any phase could be the last phase. She advised the applicant to take that into consideration when returning for Site Review. She understands the desire for flexibility, but noted that from long experience with negotiation, giving one party everything it most wants up front is not a good negotiation strategy for the other party. She would like to see the applicant come back with a proposal that gets to residential much more quickly. She said the devil is in the details, and overall thinks this is a wonderful project, looks forward to being able to approve it at Site Review, and hopes these comments are helpful in bringing back something the Board can very easily say yes to. (03:05:32) K. Nordback agreed with most of what he has heard already from Mason and Laura. Starting with key issue number one, he stated that he agrees with Laura, and that Mason also said

this is a fantastic project. He stated that overall, the concept is wonderful. He noted that it seems very consistent with MU-TOD land use and with the TVAP. He stated that he is very happy with that and that he thinks it will be a great benefit to the city. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, he stated that his main concern relates to the Transportation Master Plan and the connection on the west side of Foothills Highway to the south, specifically the multi-use path he asked about. He stated that he thinks it is important that it be constructed, and he expressed concern that if it is not built as part of this project, it will not get constructed. He noted that one of the big constraints on the site is access to the south and west. He stated that there is currently no formal way to get across the long expanse of railroad tracks. He shared that when he visited the site and was heading to King Soopers, he crossed the railroad tracks, as any reasonably rational person might do, though he joked not to tell BNSF. He noted that this informal access will not be possible after development due to fencing and other barriers. He stated that providing access to the south is really important, otherwise, people walking or biking would have to go to the east side of Foothills to access the existing multi-use path or go all the way up to Junction Place. He stated that having something more intermediate is important, that there is a reason it is in the Transportation Master Plan, and that it should be part of this project. Regarding Key Issue #2, he noted he would address that through the applicant’s questions. On rezoning, he stated that he heard L. Kaplan say her preference would be to modify MU-4, and he stated that he agrees. He noted that the zoning code is already very complicated and that he does not want to see another zone district or a flex district that would make it unclear what is allowed. He stated that, if at all possible, MU-4 should be modified to make this project a success, and he noted that doing so would also set a precedent for the future. On the phasing and vesting plan, he stated that this is a key concern. He stated that the city does not want to end up with a great event space and no housing. He acknowledged that the applicant likely does not want that either, but he stated that the city needs to figure out a way to maintain some control over that outcome. He stated that he does not have a specific solution but that it will be a concern when the project returns for Site Review. Regarding the height exemption, he stated that he may have a slightly different take than Laura. He stated that, as he reads the Charter, what is requested appears consistent with the Charter. He noted that it may not be consistent with the current code, but he stated that he thinks that is something that could appropriately be changed. He stated that he agrees with changing the code to allow going to 55 feet with fewer stories. He stated that signage is super complicated, referencing Voodoo Donuts as an example. He stated that he does not support the very large sign being requested. He noted that the application suggested people need to see it from Foothills, but he stated that he is not sure about that. He stated that he is less amenable to changes to the sign code. He noted that staff expressed serious concerns about the design of the mobility hub and how it would affect mobility on Pearl Parkway and the effectiveness of the HOP. He stated that he agrees that this is a big concern. He stated that the mobility hub, as currently designed, would not be very successful and could be detrimental to the effectiveness of Pearl Parkway. He noted the idea of mimicking the frontage road design west of the railroad tracks. He stated that while that design has not been very successful, it might still be better than the current mobility hub design. He stated that this element needs more work. He addressed the mid-block crossings. He stated that he supports the mid-block crossing east of the railroad tracks. He noted that staff raised reasonable concerns about the crossing at the railroad tracks and stated that while it would be great to have it there, it would not be appropriate. He stated that the other crossing would be appropriate. However, he noted that the code requires it to be a HAWK signal, and that the renderings show an RFB. He stated that a HAWK would be much more prominent and advised

the applicant to be aware of that. On reducing speeds on Pearl Street, he stated that it would be great to reduce existing speeds, but he agreed with staff that the current design does not reflect a 25-mile-per-hour design speed and would not ensure that vehicles travel at 25 miles per hour. He noted that the DCS allows 10- and 11-foot lanes on streets with transit and 9- and 10-foot lanes on streets without transit, and he stated that narrower lanes would help. He observed that the plan shows 11-foot lanes and stated that narrower lanes and significant trees placed close to the street would help reduce speeds. He noted that traffic counts of 21,000 vehicles per day are within the threshold for a 4-to-3 conversion, though he acknowledged that neither the applicant nor the city may want to pursue that. On additional curb cuts, he noted that the plan shows three allowed at the west private street access. He stated that because it crosses the multi-use path, he is concerned about allowing both an exit across the path and a left turn in. He explained that vehicles tend to queue across multi-use paths, especially when large numbers of people leave a venue at once and wait for traffic on Pearl Street, potentially blocking the path. He stated that this is concerning. He also expressed concern about the left turn in, referencing a similar design at Grandview near the convention center crossing the multi-use path on the east side of Broadway. He noted that no one has been killed there so far, but he stated that it is a dangerous design and not something he would support. On bike parking, he noted the request to reduce requirements. He stated that reducing from two to one space for studio and one-bedroom units might be appropriate, but not for larger units. He stated that short-term bike parking placement depends on the details and could potentially be workable, but he would need to see exactly where things are being placed. He urged the applicant to consider whether the private streets could be further narrowed. He stated that he understands they are intended for access to and from the venue, but generally traffic will be inbound before events and outbound afterward. He stated that they could potentially function as queuing streets, which would allow them to be narrower, provide more design flexibility, reduce impervious surface, and still function adequately, since large volumes of traffic would not typically move in both directions at the same time. He referenced the DCS access street typology calling for approximately 26 feet curb face to curb face, including parking, and stated that even less could be successful in this case. Overall, he stated that he agrees with nearly all of staff’s transportation comments, except for the final comment about not building the multi-use path on the west side of Foothills. (03:18:39) J. Boone began by stating that he wanted to second L. Kaplan’s comments. He stated that rather than repeat what she said, the Board should count him in support of all of it, because he believes she articulated her points very well and he was supportive of basically everything she said. He noted that there were a few items he wanted to underscore and a few additional things he wanted to raise. He stated that one of the items he wanted to underscore was the 55-foot height Charter limit. He noted that this is a hard, mandated maximum in Boulder. He explained that while the Charter allows for limited appurtenances and associated shielding, those allowances do not authorize extending rooflines, building mass, or other features that would normally be considered part of the building above 55 feet. He stated that the proposed approach of extending rooflines above 55 feet has no precedent in Boulder and is inconsistent with longstanding interpretations of the Charter. He noted that this issue has been expressly raised as a concern in prior design review proceedings. He recalled a prior project on Walnut, which he believed was a Conscience Bay life sciences building, and stated that even in that case, the discussion centered on ensuring that rooflines fit within the applicable height limits. He noted that the applicant in that case acknowledged that requirement. He stated that, in his view, this

issue has already been deliberated and settled. He echoed Laura’s comments, stating that these matters could be addressed through FAR and project design within an MU-4 framework. He further stated that if the community wants to change the height limits in Boulder, that should be put to a vote through a Charter amendment, but he stated that it is not appropriate to reinterpret the Charter for this or other projects based on past interpretations and community expectations. He stated that if the applicant wants to vary rooflines, he would suggest keeping them within the 50-foot height limit, noting that there is considerable flexibility within that limit. Regarding zoning, he stated that he believes MU-4 is likely the most appropriate designation, echoing L. Kaplan’s earlier comment. He stated that he was glad to hear that the number of stories within the Performing Arts Center might be resolved by staff rather than through a height increase, and he stated that he thinks that approach is appropriate. He stated that he believes it is a great project overall. He noted that while it may not be within the Board’s purview, he is personally very concerned about the absence of for-sale residential units. He stated that this has the potential to be a great Boulder neighborhood and that it would be positive if Boulder residents had the opportunity to own homes there in some form. He also expressed concern about phasing. He stated that he is concerned that residential neighborhoods may never get built. He further stated that he is concerned that the promise of an active Paseo could be undermined if only part of the second phase is constructed, while the other side, commercial and retail uses, might not be built for many years. He acknowledged that he understands the Paseo itself would be constructed, but he noted that the surrounding activating uses may be delayed significantly. He encouraged the developer to consider ways to create an active Paseo corridor in the first phase, even if that requires rethinking how the project is sequenced. He noted that it sounds like there is already a way to separate the hotel and residential components on what he understood to be Parcel 3, and he encouraged the applicant to explore that further. He concluded by stating that beyond those points, L. Kaplan’s comments covered his views, and he thanked the applicant for presenting what he described as an overall great project. (03:24:06) ml Robles began by stating that she agrees with just about everything that has been said. She noted that given the level of detail already provided, and because she supports those comments, she would not elaborate extensively. She stated that she had a few brief comments, beginning with number one. She acknowledged that the zoning and phasing introduce a great deal of complexity and with it, unknowns. She stated that she would be concerned about a project that does not establish all the requirements of the guiding documents in a timely manner. She noted that others have discussed the possibility of residential development lagging behind the performing arts center and hotel, and she stated that she shares that concern. At the same time, she stated that she appreciates the proposed site program and the intent to create an arts district. Turning to number two, she stated that she would offer some general comments about the site plan. She stated that she finds the landscaping proposal intriguing. She noted that the outdoor interface component shows a great deal of promise, and she stated that she appreciates the thoughtful and intentional experiences being proposed. On number three, she stated that she agrees MU-4 appears to be the most promising zoning designation. She stated that she does not believe a special district needs to be created. She stated that her primary comment relates to number four and is directed toward placemaking. She reiterated that she agrees with the direction of the interstitial spaces. However, she noted that her concerns relate to the architecture itself, which she stated is unusual for her, as she does not typically focus on architectural critique. She stated that the application places significant emphasis on placemaking and on creating something

that is about Boulder. She stated that what is currently shown appears to be a collection of somewhat forgettable urban buildings and noted that they could be located anywhere. She acknowledged that this may be due to existing unknowns. However, she stated that if the goal is to develop this into a true Boulder place, then context should play a stronger role. She noted that the site is within a long-standing industrial area and suggested that this history could inform more specific placemaking strategies. She noted that the project must address real water issues and suggested that water management could potentially be expressed in an experientially meaningful way. She stated that she saw promising elements within the landscape proposal and suggested that similar thinking could be translated into the buildings themselves. She noted that she currently sees photovoltaic panels placed on the roof. She suggested that the design team consider integrating such elements architecturally, rather than treating them as add-ons. She stated that true sustainability is not a one-line statement, but rather integrated multifunctionality. Overall, she stated that the intent of the project, the siting, and the way the user experience is being shaped are all very promising. She noted that the team clearly has significant talent and stated that she looks forward to seeing the continued development of the proposal. (03:27:29) C. Hanson Thiem began by stating that this is a very complex proposal and acknowledged that upfront, noting that she would not get into as much detail as some of her colleagues and asked for understanding if she left out important items. On Key Issue #1 regarding compatibility with the BVCP and the Transit Village Area Plan, she stated that she believes the concept checks almost all the boxes for compact, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development that the BVCP and this area of the TVAP call for. She noted that it also addresses BVCP economic policies related to industry clusters, tourism, and support for the arts, which are specifically identified in the plan. She stated that it proposes a regional anchor for what planning documents indicate should evolve into a new urban center in Boulder. She stated that, in her view, the proposal is well aligned with those policy frameworks. She stated that at the time of Site Review, if the applicant intends to receive credit for providing a mixture of housing types or housing for a range of household types, she would expect to see that more clearly articulated through site and building design elements. She noted that she is unsure how that interacts with the proposed phasing plan, but she stated that she would want to see the BVCP analysis match what is actually being presented in the design. On Key Issue #2, regarding the site plan and building design, she stated that she typically focuses her comments on the site plan and on producing what she perceives to be a high-quality public realm. She stated that she appreciates design elements such as the Paseo that keep cars out of the center of the development and urged the applicant to go further in that direction if possible. She referenced prior discussion about the area along the rail corridor and stated that if that area is intended to function as public realm, then circulation and streetscape design should discourage vehicular traffic, even if emergency access must be maintained. She suggested considering controlled access to that road and avoiding the inclusion of parking spaces within it. She emphasized that the Board will be looking for high-quality open space at Site Review and stated that the rail corridor strip appears to be an important component of that. She stated that a strong public realm should not include empty storefronts. She noted that, to the extent zoning allows and in coordination with the city, the proposal should ensure activation at the street level along both interior and exterior corridors. She acknowledged concerns raised about the phasing of the Paseo in that regard. She also noted that the Board has previously discussed the merits and requirements of groundlevel versus elevated open spaces. She noted that some elevated open spaces are shown in the

preliminary design and stated that there may be site-specific reasons for that; if so, she encouraged the applicant to articulate those reasons at Site Review and to look for ways to connect elevated spaces to ground-level open spaces. On transportation, she stated that the proposed changes to Pearl Parkway are a critical component of the project’s success if it moves forward. She stated that at build-out, this concentration of uses and activity will likely generate a significant amount of vehicle traffic to a single site, despite strong multimodal planning and TDM strategies. She emphasized that it is important to make the flow of traffic safer and less hostile to people. She supported reducing speeds, adding signal control where feasible, investing in safe crossings, and exploring stronger transit connections. She noted that the memo referenced challenges related to queuing at the railroad crossing identified in the traffic study. She stated that this will likely be an issue for any mixed-use, transit-oriented development in this area and is therefore something worth working through as part of this proposal. On Key Issue #3, regarding the approach to rezoning, she noted that the second phase of the TVAP was approved more than two years ago and that compatible zoning for mixed-use transit-oriented development has not yet been developed. She stated that staff indicated such zoning is not immediately forthcoming. She stated that in this case, the city may need to be flexible, and based on her understanding of the available pathways, she suggested that a special ordinance may be the appropriate direction. She acknowledged that adopting a special ordinance while a proposal is already in the pipeline can be complicated. She noted that there may be pressure to craft zoning rules to accommodate everything the applicant is requesting, or conversely, to create rules specifically to address perceived faults. She stated that she does not believe either approach is appropriate. She stated that while the Planning Board may not have the authority to direct the city toward a particular approach, she urged that the original intent of the TVAP be kept in mind, specifically to create active, high-density, mixed-use areas within a connected part of the city. She stated that the city should focus on regulating what truly matters to achieving that intent and be willing to let go of what does not. She stated that whatever zoning rules or pathway are adopted, there should be sufficient flexibility to allow for creative or even iconic architecture at the performing arts facility. She noted that a city the size of Boulder has limited opportunities for highly visible community hub buildings such as an event center, and she stated that the existing code does not fully anticipate such structures. She acknowledged that this is understandable, given their rarity, but stated that it would be a loss to force a singular structure like that into an overly prescriptive framework. She expressed concern that applying MU-4 zoning across the entire site could create that risk and noted that the city has an opportunity to do something different in this case. She stated that given the transitional state of regulations in this area, her primary point is that Boulder should be able to accommodate both a performing arts center and a mixed-use village within one of its highest-intensity districts. She stated that when existing codes cannot readily imagine that outcome, the city should work to find a way to make it possible. She noted that the code was not designed for special-purpose buildings or large mixed-use zones and stated that this should be recognized as a barrier to innovative development rather than something to double down on in an area that the city has identified for change over the course of two decades. She concluded by recommending flexibility. (03:35:15) M. McIntyre stated that C. Hanson Thiem had already said what he wanted to say, and had done so with more detail and more effectively. He stated that when he looks at this project and considers the vision contained in the current BVCP, he believes the proposal aligns strongly with that vision. He stated that the city should not punish creative design and creative

elements. He noted that without someone truly wanting this, caring about it, and advancing a clear vision, the city could end up with another well-developed area with significant housing that is ultimately forgettable. He stated that without a project like this, the city would continue relying on its limited existing event spaces, whether on campus, at the Dairy, or elsewhere. In his view, this does not fulfill the artistic vision that the BVCP, the arts organizations, and the broader arts community desire and deserve. He emphasized that local artists deserve more. He stated that he fully believes the project fulfills the BVCP and TVAP plans. He also pointed out that at the Board’s last meeting, it disapproved a service area expansion plan study into Area III, partly on the basis that the city should focus on infill development rather than expanding outward. He stated that this proposal represents infill development at its best. He noted that the Board also expressed a desire not to develop Area III with “more of the same,” and he stated that this project is not more of the same but rather infill development with a difference. He clarified that he is not serving as a cheerleader but stated that when something special comes before the Board, it should be acknowledged and accommodated. On site design and building design, and consistency with site review criteria, he noted that this is a concept review and stated that this is the most complete set of documentation he has ever seen at a concept review. He observed that typically the Board is working with vague outlines and materials that are subject to interpretation, and he commended the applicant for presenting a highly detailed concept submission. He stated that he appreciates the way the buildings are oriented to the south, and the way they have been articulated to create spaces. He acknowledged that some of those spaces are elevated rather than at ground level but noted that they cannot all be at grade because of parking constraints. He stated that it is not possible to have everything, and that when parking minimums are eliminated, parking levels are determined by lenders, tax increment financing, and similar constraints. He stated that in this case, open spaces are located where they are most usable and accessible, which is above the parking. He stated that he appreciates the street cross-sections and noted that it is time for the city’s DCS to catch up so that there is not continued tension between private and public streets, access issues, and concerns about closing private streets. He stated that the code and DCS need to catch up with the city’s goals. He also addressed the discussion about narrow streets and shade. He noted that on one hand, the city wants narrow streets and slow speeds, but on the other hand, there are concerns about shaded streets. He stated that it is not possible to design narrow streets, tall buildings, and good density without creating shade. He observed that shade is a reality. He pointed out that during this time of year, the southern twothirds of the downtown mall is in shade, yet snow is removed, sand and snowmelt are applied, and it functions well. He noted that ski towns like Vail deal with snow and shade as a normal condition. He stated that the city must decide what it wants between narrow, intimate streets with maintenance to address shade, or wide, unshaded roads. He stated that he would choose narrow streets and address maintenance as needed. Turning to the height limit and code issues, he noted that the city has enshrined a 55-foot height limit yet has allowed what he described as unattractive screening to extend 10 to 15 feet above that limit to conceal mechanical appurtenances. He stated that in this case, the applicant is creatively attempting to work within the charter and code to design roof forms that are more interesting and contribute to the aesthetic quality of the building. He stated that requiring the applicant instead to return to a minimal parapet and then erect a tall mechanical screen that becomes visible from a distance strikes him as wrong. He stated that this presents an opportunity to examine how the code is interpreted, not to change the charter, but to interpret the code in a way that allows for creativity and good design. On zoning, he stated that, like C. Hanson Thiem, he supports creating a zoning district

that accommodates this proposal. He noted that he supports BVCP map changes that simplify zones and stated that if an existing zone must be eliminated to create a new one, he would support that. He stated that this project does not fit neatly into any zone currently on the books and that it represents something special. He stated that the city should acknowledge that and create something new, if necessary, rather than force-fitting the project into existing code and then wondering why outcomes always look the same. He commended the applicant and stated that the project represents an opportunity for the arts community and an opportunity to demonstrate what Area III can become. He expressed hope that the project will move forward and stated that while he hopes it does not take 20 years, he acknowledged that many great projects take time to realize. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:53 PM. APPROVED BY

________________ Board Chair _________ DATE