Attachment F - Draft 10.28.25 Planning Board Minutes

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES October 28, 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 Kurt Nordback ml Robles (virtual) Claudia Hanson Thiem PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Jorge Boone Kurt Nordback STAFF PRESENT: Chandler Van Schaack, Development Review Planner Principal Hella Pannewig, Senior Counsel Brad Mueller, Planning and Development Services Director Adam Olinger, City Planner Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Thomas Remke, Senior Operations Specialist 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: Nobody spoke. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A. The August 26, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval. L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to approve the August 26, 2025 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes. Planning Board voted 4-0 (M. Roberts abstaining due to absence at August 26, 2025 meeting). Motion passed. B. The September 16, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval.

L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to approve the September 16, 2025 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes. Planning Board voted 4-0 (ml Robles was not present for vote due to technical difficulties with virtual participation). Motion passed. C. The September 30, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval. L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to approve the September 30, 2025 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes. Planning Board voted 5-0. Motion passed. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. Call-Up Item: Final Plat to subdivide the property at 2114 Violet Avenue to create three lots. Lot 1 is 18,200 square feet, Lot 2 is 9,898 square feet, and Lot 3 is 9,896 square feet (2114 Violet Subdivision, case no. TEC2024-00066). The Preliminary Plat was approved through case no. LUR2024-00079. This application is subject to potential call-up on or before October 28, 2025. This item was not called up by the board. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: 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. (00:13:30) Staff Presentation: Chandler Van Schaack presented the item to the board. (00:34:30) Board Questions: Chandler Van Schaack answered questions from the board. (00:53:30) Applicant Presentation: Pete Weber and Tony Kill presented the item to the board. (01:12:40) Board Questions: Pete Weber and Tony Kill presented the item to the board. (01:34:44) Public Participation: In Person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: Heather Mitchell (01:40:30) Board Discussion:

(01:40:30) M. McIntyre noted that we are in an area of great subjectivity and great conflict between goals including housing people, reducing in-commuting, honoring the code and the BVCP as they are written today, and maintaining true industrial spaces. He respects staff’s interpretation of the GI zone in the BVCP Land Use Map – that the definition there does not include residential without the contiguity issue. He noted it was clarifying for the applicant to discuss the one-sixth contiguity but noted there is some vagueness and subjectivity when it comes to the classification of the Goose Creek Path. He noted that some of our best neighborhoods have many mixed-up conflicting uses, including the West Pearl Street area. He noted that there is risk in pursuing this without additional clarification from Council about the 1-6 contiguity requirement in relation to the Goose Creek Path. (01:46:45) Ml Robles supported staff’s conclusions regarding zoning and contiguity. She also noted that she sees the primary issue here being one of setting a dangerous precedent for overriding land use and circuitously trying to achieve contiguity in IG zoning and thereby losing valuable industrial sites. She does not think that the idea of “area of no change” is to be taken literally as leaving the current use, in this case a storage facility, but rather to retain the zoning for industrial use. She suggested we look at the nature of industry in these small settings, as nobody’s building these today, yet the services we seek such as auto repair or printing remain vital to livability. She believes that destroying any chance of keeping services local by building residential in a contextually inappropriate site is not a path to meet the vision of BVCP or the intent of the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan. She would caution this project moving forward. (01:49:10) L. Kaplan noted that not being in an area of change, as Ml Robles said, doesn't mean that you cannot build something new, it just means your zoning and your underlying land use were not considered for change during that East Boulder Subcommunity planning process. She noted that the applicant has a big challenge in that this is an area that underwent rigorous area planning to define the most appropriate places for housing, and this was one of the places that was designated to preserve industrial. She does not think that turning this area over to primarily high-density residential is what was intended in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, and agreed with staff that if this parcel redevelops as high-density residential, it creates additional contiguity that can then cascade and turn that whole area, except for the land uses that are public into residential, which is certainly not what was intended by the zoning, and it is certainly not what is intended by the land use, and it is certainly not what was intended by the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. She noted that she would have a hard time approving this project at site review based on land use and consistency with the East Boulder Subcommunity plan. She can see the argument for this being a suitable area for residential but noted that we have to balance that with efforts to preserve some industrial land use (specifically south of Pearl). She noted that this is an appropriate area where you may make the decision to include residential if you have the contiguity. She would want to see staff’s analysis of what the citywide impact would be of starting to consider greenways for contiguity to industrial land. She thinks the barriers for this project are the land use definition, the consistency with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, and the zoning and contiguity requirements. She believes this would be an amazing project in another context and gave credit to the designers. (01:54:45) M. Roberts agreed largely with points raised by Mark and Laura. He noted that he differed a bit in his belief that a city is meant to adapt to the needs of its community. He could see himself supporting a version of this project that provides a more consistent approach, maybe a rebalancing of the proposed uses, preserving stronger industrial employment base while integrating limited compatible

residential components, particularly along that site-adjacent development park, something a little more incremental than what's been proposed today. (01:56:05) C. Hanson Thiem thinks the fate of this proposal seems to turn on the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and whether its designation of mixed-use industrial areas is intended to designate priorities for future change or limitations. By her reading of that plan, including the excerpts that are in the staff memo, the board could support both interpretations in the future. Aside from the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, she does not think this is an objectively bad location for housing. She credited the applicant for capturing a real phenomenon when describing this Goose Creek Corridor as a sort of bike and pedestrian main street. She noted that access to retail and services is very high and that Valmont Park is going to develop to be an exceptional environmental amenity. She noted that this proposal does not displace the existing uses at this site in a significant way and that there is a commercial storage use that would continue if this project were constructed, although in a more intense fashion on a portion of the site. She noted that she also understands staff’s analysis, an objection that putting housing in a space like this would crack open this larger industrial preserve, especially if we use that 1/6 contiguity rule in future applications. She questioned what future there actually is right now for general industrial uses in Boulder, and whether these uses, if they come forward, would be fundamentally incompatible with housing. She noted that she tends to lean towards flexibility when interpreting plans and codes, but that in this case, staff and a significant number of her colleagues may not be leaning towards flexibility in this location due to the context. (01:59:50) L. Kaplan mentioned staff’s interpretation that for the phasing plan to work, it would have to truly be phased and have a certificate of occupancy completed for the first phase before moving to the second, which links up with questions about the number of phases and whether the Goose Creek Greenway land counts towards contiguity. She would be uncomfortable using a phasing plan where all phases are constructed simultaneously to meet contiguity, because it feels like a workaround for the requirement to have 1/6 contiguity, and that does not appear to be what was intended by that piece of code. B. AGENDA TITLE: Use Review for three hotel suites in the existing carriage building and new 1,367 sq. ft. building at 1105 Spruce Street, totaling 6,522 sq. ft. Reviewed under case no. LUR2025-00032. Staff Presentation: Adam Olinger presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Adam Olinger answered questions from the board. Public Participation: Bill Rigler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Bill Rigler answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: In person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: 1) Lynn Segal

Board Discussion: (02:37:00) C. Hanson Thiem believes the proposal satisfies the Use Review Criteria, and agrees that the proposal is consistent with DT-2 zoning, noting that it accomplishes a transition from high intensity downtown to more residential uses. She believes it is reasonable compatible with surrounding development and the character of the area and should have no significant impact on existing infrastructure. (02:37:51) M. Roberts agreed with C. Hansom Thiem and believes the addition of high-quality open space and the adaptive reuse of the carriage house support the fit with the neighborhood. He believes the absence of on-site parking is appropriate given the location and the city’s updated parking standards. He believes the hotel use is well aligned with the regional business land use designation. Overall, he noted that the proposal mitigated impacts, promotes walkability, and maintains public welfare. (02:38:35) L. Kaplan noted that the hearing is being held because the item was called up by members of the public and appreciated their engagement. She is confident that the project meets the criteria for this use. She thanked the applicants for working with neighbors to address their concerns. (02:40:15) Ml Robles noted that this item was called up by neighbors, yet no neighbors gave testimony at the hearing, so she assumes their concerns have been met. She believes the project meets the Use Review Criteria. (02:40:30) M. McIntyre concurred with his colleagues that this proposal meets the Use Review Criteria. MOTION: M. Roberts made a motion seconded by L. Kaplan to approve Use Review Application #LUR2025-00032, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. Planning Board voted 5-0. Motion passed.

6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Council Letter Discussion 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:50 PM. APPROVED BY

Mark McIntyre ________________ Board Chair _10/07/25__________ DATE