Attachment B - Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES September 16, 2025 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: Mark McIntyre, Chair Laura Kaplan, Vice Chair (virtual) Kurt Nordback ml Robles (virtual) Claudia Hanson Thiem Mason Roberts Jorge Boone PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Alison Blaine, City Planner Senior Sloane Walbert, Inclusionary Housing Principal Planner Chris Ranglos, City Planner Senior Adam Olinger, City Planner Laurel Witt, Assistant City Attorney III Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Thomas Remke, Senior Operations Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, M. McIntyre, declared a quorum at 4:30 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In person: no one spoke. Virtual: Lynn Segal 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A. The August 19, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval. K. Nordback made a motion seconded by L. Kaplan to approve the August 19, 2025 Draft Planning Board minutes. Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS

There were no call-up items. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to the City Manager and City Council on the Recommended 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Staff Presentation: Board Questions: Public Participation: Board Discussion: 2. B. AGENDA TITLE: Concept Plan Review and Comment for 5469 and 5515 S. Boulder Rd. to develop 35 residential homes on a combined 2.8-acre site. Dwelling units will contain a mix of duplex, triplex, and townhouses. A height modification will be requested due to site grading associated with drainage and floodplain. Reviewed under case no. LUR2025-00057. Staff Presentation: Alison Blaine presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Alison Blaine answered questions from the board. The Q&A session and meeting ended early due to a power outage in Council Chambers. The Board voted 6-0 to continue the item to the September 30, 2025 Planning Board meeting. 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 9:30 PM. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES September 30, 2025 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: Mark McIntyre, Chair Laura Kaplan, Vice Chair (virtual) Kurt Nordback ml Robles (virtual) Claudia Hanson Thiem Mason Roberts Jorge Boone (absent until Item 5B) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Alison Blaine, City Planner Senior Sloane Walbert, Inclusionary Housing Principal Planner Chandler Van Schaack, Development Review Planner Principal Laurel Witt, Assistant City Attorney III Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Thomas Remke, Senior Operations Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, M. McIntyre, declared a quorum at 4:30 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Moved to 6 PM prior to Item 5B. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS There were no call-up items. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. A. AGENDA TITLE: (Continued from Septmber 16, 2025 due to power outage) Concept Plan Review and Comment for 5469 and 5515 S. Boulder Rd. to develop 35 residential homes on a combined 2.8-acre site. Dwelling units will contain a mix of duplex, triplex, and townhouses. A height modification will be requested due to site grading associated with

drainage and floodplain. Reviewed under case no. LUR2025-00057.

Staff Presentation: Alison Blaine presented the item at the September 16, 2025 meeting. The item was continued due to a power outage. (00:06:35) Applicant Presentation: Mike Cooper with Boulder Creek Neighborhoods presented the item to the board. (00:21:30) Board Questions: The board asked questions to staff and the applicant. Alison Blaine, Sloane Walbert, Charles Ferro, Don Ash, and Mike Cooper answered questions. (00:49:00) Public Participation: In Person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: 1) Karen Farrelly 2) Rob Whitley 3) Rudy Fettig 4) Rob Wardell 5) Kathryn Wardell Board Discussion: Key Issue #1: Considering BVCP goals and policies, does Planning Board support a Land Use Map Change and Rezoning of the site in order to allow for the proposed residential density/intensity? Key Issue #2: Does Planning Board support the proposed Annexation Agreement Amendment described in the concept plan? Key Issue #3: Is the proposal consistent with policies of the BVCP? Key Issue #4: Does Planning Board have feedback to the applicant on the conceptual site plan and architecture? (01:05:00) K. Nordback supported the land use map change and the rezoning overall. He had a couple of concerns about the proposed changes to the annexation agreement, including the proposed threequarter access instead of a right-in, right-out, and he had some concerns about whether that will work in terms of the existing median on South Boulder Road. He is also concerned about the significant increase in allowable unit size to 3,300 square feet, noting a 50% increase over what was is in the original annexation agreement. He would support smaller units instead of the very large 3,300 square foot units. He thinks the flood implications certainly are a concern. He stated that it would be interesting to think about whether the drainage conveyance swale and the detention pond could be moved to the south side of the site, adjacent to South Boulder Road, and the dwelling units pushed north, which would keep that

detention pond away from the existing buildings. He encouraged minimizing the street and pavement area, including variances to the design and construction standards to allow for smaller, narrower streets. If possible, he would support allowing the emergency access as proposed. He urged the applicant to consider whether it would make sense to add a connection to the north. (01:08:15) M. Roberts believes the site is well-suited for additional density, given its proximity to helpful road transit, Community Center, and existing neighborhood services. He feels that the proposed land map change and rezoning to allow medium-density residential is consistent with BVCP policies, which encourage compact continuous development and infill. He is willing to accept the applicant's request to reduce the affordable housing requirements in order to see this project move forward, recognizing the challenges raised around condo construction and insurance and financing, and continued to encourage staff and the applicant to explore opportunities for allowing additional units with smaller square footages. While he understands the applicant's rationale, he feels that smaller homes would better align with the BVCP goals around compact sustainable development and broaden affordability in the long term. He thinks that this project is generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the BDCP, with the caveat that the proposed increase in maximum dwelling size should not foreclose future exploration of smaller unit alternatives. He thinks this project would better advance BVCP housing goals by adding a range of unit types in this compact, well-located site, and that additional analysis on how a great number smaller units could fit here would strengthen consistency with those principles of efficient land use and affordability. He would like to see the applicant and staff continue to explore whether the site could accommodate smaller units alongside the other ones. While the applicants had explained why it was not feasible, he still thinks more units could be possible, and feels that the location is worth fully exploring before site review. (01:10:40) C. Hanson Thiem agreed with the land use map change proposal. Regarding the annexation agreements, she had concerns about the specific way in which relief from affordable housing provisions is being proposed and to the total number of units allowed on this site, noting that modern, smaller family-type houses are, in fact, a missing housing type in Boulder, and in that sense, they provide some community benefit, even at full market rates. She thinks we should be asking for closer to the full housing potential of this site. Regarding compatibility with BVCP goals, she agreed mostly with staff's analysis regarding the appropriateness of providing middle and mixed-income housing at this site. She thinks it will be very important for the applicant and the city to work out a robust water management plan. She noted that the applicant is calling this a pocket neighborhood, and encouraged them to lean into that for site review, given that this site is going to be largely closed off from surrounding development, despite being very close, since it's only accessed through South Boulder Road. She encouraged thinking about the arrangement of open space relative to the homes, the relationship between the homes and the street, and whether more of the homes can have direct access to that central park area. She also questioned whether there are site designs that would allow that central area to be slightly larger in size to allow the shared open space to be more contiguous and thus more usable for residents, whether any more of the garages or car traffic can be moved more to the periphery of the community, and whether the internal streets and access drives can be designed to be safe and inviting for walking and crossing and playing and outdoor life. She also encouraged exploring ways to define the public realm or fronts of these buildings in a way that supports neighborhood life rather than focusing on an aesthetic along South Boulder Road. (01:14:30) L. Kaplan generally agreed with her colleagues’ statements. She would support the

proposed land use and zoning that is being proposed here. She thinks it is appropriate, given this site's location along a major arterial street, with access to shopping, to transit, to the Table Mesa RTD. She believes this is a location where density is appropriate within the city boundaries. She would also be glad to see this site have more smaller market rate units. She noted the proposal has a very suburban type of feel away from the public street and very internal-facing, and that is something that we're not wanting to see much in new development here in Boulder. We are looking for developments to front the public street to embrace the connection to the public realm, to embrace the walkability of walking out your front door and getting to those commercial areas, and getting to that public transit, rather than being so private and internal facing. She would very much support that concept of smaller units, and she supported staff's comments about changes needed to the site design to address criteria around addressing the public realm. In general, she supported staff's comments on building and site design in the packet. She agreed that the flooding issues sound significant on this site. She is glad to hear the very collaborative attitude of this applicant and looks forward to hearing how that gets worked out. Similarly, like Kurt, she would support the emergency access if that can be worked out with staff. She also feels that the 50-foot easement sounds like something to work out with staff. She was glad to see that in the applicant’s statement, they said the park and open space will be activated with passive amenities, such as a park shelter, outdoor cooking area, benches, and informal play areas. She would ask the applicant to please pay close attention to staff's comments about having programmatic elements, like a playground, a play area, a dog park, or community gardens. She noted that one of our criteria is that the site meets the needs of the residents for active and passive recreation and thinks those things are going to be important to consider. She does think it is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the BVCP and will be a fine addition to the City. (01:18:35) Ml Robles is in agreement with her colleagues. She supported the land use and zoning suggestions, noting the property gets a significant value and becomes developable through annexation. She encouraged the annexation agreement to maximize the amount of permanently affordable housing per the proposed MXR land use. She encouraged the annexation agreement to discourage the square foot increase, or at the very least, limit the increase in square footage to 7 market rate units. She encouraged the applicant to consider the significant concerns the neighbors have regards to height, views, wildlife, and most significantly, drainage. (01:21:07) M. McIntyre encouraged more smaller units and more market rate units. He is in support of changing the annexation agreement and thinks it is consistent with the policies of the BVCP. In regard to the conceptual site plan, he wanted to disagree specifically with Laura, and make the comment that he rides frequently along South Boulder Road, which is many times as busy and as loud as Arapahoe, east of 48th, and it's a very loud street. He is not supportive of trying to make those units successfully front on South Boulder Road. He supported the idea of exploring how to move more of the flood control south of the project site. He thinks the neighbors’ concerns are very real, and so at site review, he will be looking for robust engineering and robust site design that is able to support the development and the raised elevation, with data and science. B. AGENDA TITLE: Site Review and Use Review to redevelop approximately 7.96 acres of an existing 9.86-acre site at 2952 Baseline Rd. with five new buildings containing a total of 427 new dwelling units, including 122 units for students ranging from studios to six-bedroom units and 58,365 square feet of commercial space. The redevelopment retains the Broker Inn and a portion of the adjacent parking. Proposal includes a request for a Height Modification to allow for buildings to reach up to 55 feet in height. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024-00071 and LUR2024-00072.

Staff Presentation: Board Questions: Applicant Presentation: Board Questions: Public Participation: Board Discussion: 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 10:38 PM. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE