Attachment B - Draft May 5, 2026, Planning Board Meeting Minutes

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES May 5, 2026 Virtual 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, Chair Claudia Hanson Thiem, Vice Chair Maxwell Lord Mason Roberts Ml Robles Kurt Nordback Mark McIntyre PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:

STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Moeller Karl Guiler Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Thomas Remke, Senior Operations Specialist Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Deshawna Zazueta 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, L. Kaplan, declared a quorum at 6:30 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. Lynn Segal (Virtual) 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES a. April 7, 2026 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval. b. April 21, 2026 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. Call Up Item: Site and Use review for an Essential Municipal and Public Utility Service use in an RL-1 zone. The Site Review is to allow a second principal building on the subject site. The proposal is for the installation of one prefabricated, 360 square-foot structure and screening at 1190 S. Lashley Ln. The

call-up period expires on May 7, 2026. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” to create new use standards for special festival events, amend mobile food vehicle standards related to organized events, and amend the city’s sign code to regulate signs that may be erected for the duration of a special festival event and associated review and approval processes, and setting forth related details. ----B. AGENDA TITLE: Concept Plan Review and Comment on a proposal to redevelop the existing Unity Church property at 2855 Folsom with 21 detached dwelling units. Reviewed under case no. LUR2026-00015. Staff Presentation: (01:27:13) Shannon Moeller presented the item to the board. Board Questions: (01:43:47) Shannon Moeller answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: (02:29:00) Pete Weber and Mike Shadle presented the item to the board. Board Questions: (02:41:00) Pete Weber and Mike Shadle presented the item to the board. Public Participation: Virtual: 1) Tigger Park 2) Peggy Bashlein 3) Lynn Segal 4) Michael Smith 5) Luke Sanzone 6) Bruce Davis 7) Devin Riker Board Discussion: (03:23:06) M. McIntyre stated that he is, in concept, in favor of the redevelopment, but the puzzle is the access and

frontage on busy streets combined with a desire for privacy, quiet, and a sense of community. He said this could be a very nice small community, and that the design puzzle is primarily focused on how to minimize pavement and make the street a place where kids can be out playing and people can be on their porches relating to one another. He said he thinks that is really the puzzle with the project and that, with more work, the flexibility of a private street, and creativity regarding how to either join or further separate the multi-use path access on Edgewood from access into the site, a creative streetscape design between 24th and the project entrance, along with movement through the project with a woonerf-type feel, could make this a lovely place to be. He noted that he lived for 20 years on Balsam, walked through the Goose Creek area many times, and described it as a lovely wildlife corridor. He said he finds that the current concept maintains and rewards that corridor and encouraged the design team to create even more of a human connection to it. He added that he hopes kids will be playing near the creek and the remnants of the trout farm and have opportunities to observe wildlife there. K. Nordback stated that, overall, he finds the project as designed is not consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies, specifically regarding housing diversity. He cited Policies 7.07 (mixture of housing types), 7.10 (housing for a full range of households), 7.11 (balancing housing supply with employment base), 7.17 (market affordability), and Site Review Criterion 9-2-14(A)(4) regarding housing diversity. He expressed concern that the proposed 2,400- to 3,600-square-foot houses would likely be in the $2–3 million range. He stated that while they may be smaller than the average new detached single-unit house currently being built in the city, they are significantly larger than the overall average. He said the project would increase the overall average size and cost of detached singleunit houses, and housing units overall, which is not the direction envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan policies. He stated that, in his view, the units need to be significantly smaller and provide a greater diversity of sizes and costs to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed with many of Mark McIntyre's comments regarding access and particularly liked the idea of separating parking and housing. He said some of the best projects in the city and elsewhere work that way. He expressed support for a private street, not because it is private, but because it allows flexibility beyond DCS restrictions and can result in friendlier, better, and less impactful streets. He stated that better pedestrian connections are needed, both on the west side to Edgewood and/or the Goose Creek Path, and on the east side to Folsom. He noted that, under the current design, a resident on the southeast side of the project wanting to travel south on Folsom would have to walk around via the 25th Street alignment, effectively adding a couple of blocks to the route. He said direct eastbound and westbound connections are important for pedestrians and bicyclists. C Hanson Thiem stated that she agreed strongly with many of Kurt Nordback's comments and believes the code is working against many of the goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. She said the applicant correctly identified that, under the current code and open space calculations, more units can be built on the site as detached homes with private driveways than as attached homes. She characterized this as a failure of the code, not of the applicant or individuals involved in the project. She stated that the site is in a highly accessible location with access to schools, recreation, and employment opportunities, but the current code does not allow it to provide housing for people who cannot currently access those locational advantages. She noted that there are already many seven-figure detached homes in the area and that large, expensive homes are likely to continue expanding through redevelopment. She said the proposed homes are not small homes and, given local housing needs, dedicating more land to this housing type does not support compact development or housing diversity. She said that incorporating some attached dwelling units, as suggested by staff, does not address the underlying issue of open space

requirements that cap the number of homes on the site. She stated that adjusting the unit mix or typology may improve design but would not significantly affect per-unit development costs or housing needs. She similarly noted that adding ADUs is a creative suggestion but does not necessarily lower purchase prices or substantially address housing needs. She stated that by the time the project returns for site review, there may be a new land use map and schema if the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is approved. She encouraged the applicant to consider a rezoning request that aligns with any new categories and provides better consistency with Comprehensive Plan goals and urban design objectives. She said that could improve alignment with city goals and provide greater flexibility for a community-oriented design and site layout. If the project proceeds under the current concept, she agreed with suggestions for a pedestrian and bicycle connection on the west side to the bike path and a similar connection on the east side to Folsom. She stated that these connections would provide residents easier access without requiring vehicle trips or additional travel distance. She also agreed with Mark McIntyre's suggestion to reduce pavement associated with garages and parking access, stating that it is worth exploring and could help meet multiple site review criteria by creating more community-oriented and usable open space. She noted staff's expectation for shared open spaces and gathering areas and stated that reducing pavement could provide more opportunities for those spaces without encroaching into the environmentally sensitive creek and bluff area. She expressed support for maintaining that project boundary and stated that this is where she is landing on the proposal. M. Lord noted that there are many complexities involved. He noted that it was difficult to fully understand all the constraints and that the discussion could continue at length. He stated that it seems obvious there could be connections to the bike path, while acknowledging that the church may still be interested in retaining its property and that, because this is a concept review, there are limits to how much design work can be completed at this stage. He agreed with Kurt Nordback that, at first glance, the project does not meet the current Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. He also agreed with Claudia Hanson Thiem that it may align better in the future if the BVCP changes, and said the project highlights the importance of having more Neighborhood 2 designations along arterial roads. Regarding noise along Folsom and Edgewood, he stated that he does not believe attached units creating a wall necessarily solve the problem and may simply shift it elsewhere. However, he urged consideration of greater diversity of housing forms, even if that requires tradeoffs. He agreed that the proposed homes are generally larger and rejected the notion that the project addresses affordability, noting that he does not think middleincome earners are buying 3,000-square-foot houses in Old North Boulder. He suggested exploring a greater variety of housing forms, even if that means not every unit has its own garage or driveway. He stated that there may be creative ways to make the project work that would attract residents interested in different transportation options, including those who value proximity to the bike path and may be willing to use shared parking. Ml Robles stated that she concurred with the majority of the comments, even though some seemed to be in conflict with one another. Regarding the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, she said she does not believe the project yet meets the BVCP, particularly the policies identified by staff, and noted that others had already addressed those concerns. She stated that her primary concern is that both the BVCP and RM-1 medium-density land use and zoning designation refer to medium density rather than single-unit development. However, she acknowledged that the open space and solar access requirements make a strong case for detached units and said those constraints had shifted her thinking because they are real and must be addressed. She said she would support more units rather than the density of fewer plexes. She noted that the city is in a period of transition as BVCP updates move forward and that zoning and

code changes may affect how the project develops. She referenced potential updates regarding driveways as open space and opportunities to explore streetscape design, as suggested by other board members. She stated that, at the end of the day, she would focus on achieving the most units possible and the smallest units possible. She said that approach better targets the market and creates the kind of vibrancy that is missing in the city. She noted that while single houses may be considered a housing type that is not readily available, small single houses are what is truly missing, whereas large ones already exist. She said that should be the target in meeting land use, zoning, and density objectives. Regarding the street, she supported staff's position that it should not be a public street, noting that it primarily serves a private use. She said she appreciated the ideas discussed for creating a streetscape that could change the dynamics of density and open space. She described the site as a unique and attractive location because of its adjacency to Goose Creek while still being in an urban setting. She acknowledged the site's challenges but said the application contains language that is hopeful, particularly the goal of providing a housing type that is not readily available. She reiterated that the focus should not simply be on detached units, but on small detached units, which she believes are not currently available. She concluded those were her comments and wished the applicant good luck moving forward. M. Roberts stated that he did not have much to add and generally agreed with staff's suggestions and the comments made by Kurt Nordback, ML Robles, Claudia Hanson Thiem, Max Lord, and Mark McIntyre. He noted one area where he somewhat disagreed with some of his colleagues, stating that while attached housing along Folsom may not necessarily solve the noise issue, he believes it would help address the transition from a highly active street. He noted that this point had already been discussed and did not elaborate further. He expressed support for the woonerf concept discussed by Mark McIntyre, supported the bike connection suggestions, and agreed with comments that the code is working against the project's goals in this case. He stated that he finds it hard to believe there is not a better solution that would provide missing-middle housing on the site, which he described as an ideal location for that housing type. He clarified that he was referring to housing type rather than price point. He expressed hope that when the project returns for site review, it will include some missing-middle housing and said that doing so would help address concerns that the project does not fully meet the goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. L. Kaplan stated that her colleagues had made important and thoughtful remarks and that she did not disagree with any of them. She noted that there is a great deal to balance in the project and that their comments were well taken. She added that the project would convert a significant amount of impervious pavement into either open space or dwelling units and stated that she believes the project would be beneficial to the neighborhood and the city if it moves forward. She expressed appreciation that the church is considering moving the project forward if it decides to give up that space. She emphasized Claudia Hanson Thiem's comments regarding a potential rezoning, stating that many board members are disappointed that current zoning limits the number of units that can be achieved on the property. She noted that many would prefer to see more numerous and smaller units, but the project is capped at 21 units. She suggested that rezoning, if possible, could allow a higher unit count and would likely be supported by the board. She stated that she agreed with all of staff's comments and particularly emphasized the importance of common open space amenities. She said open space should be usable and that the board supports protecting the wildlife corridor, environmentally sensitive areas, and steep slopes, while also providing shared common open space amenities for future residents. Regarding ADUs, she noted that while the project cannot exceed the 21-unit cap, incorporating ADUs could allow

more families to live on the site and could provide more affordable rental opportunities. She encouraged consideration of attached ADUs that would not affect open space calculations, suggesting that portions of larger homes could be designed to function either as ADUs or as part of the primary dwelling. She stated that ADUs could serve a variety of purposes over time, including home offices, accommodations for family members, college-age children, or rental units. She noted that while there is no guarantee ADUs will be rented, they can support different household needs and multi-generational living arrangements. She encouraged incorporating ADUs to the maximum extent possible and stated that doing so would add housing types to the project, even if the units remain technically detached dwelling units. 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 10:56 PM. APPROVED BY Laura Kaplan ___________________ Board Chair

________________ DATE