Attachment D_12.2.25 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES December 2, 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) Mason Roberts Jorge Boone (virtual) Claudia Hanson Thiem PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Alex Pichacz Chandler Van Schaack Kristofer Johnson Hella Pannewig, Senior Counsel Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services 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: Ed Byrne Virtual: Lynn Segal 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES a. The March 4, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval. L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by M. Roberts to approve the March 4, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed. b. The October 7, 2025 Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval.

L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by M. Roberts to approve the October 7, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes. Planning Board voted 6-0 (J. Boone abstaining due to absence at October 7th Meeting). Motion passed. c. The October 28, 2025 Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval. L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by M. McIntyre to approve the October 28, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes. Planning Board voted 5-0 (K. Nordback and J. Boone abstaining due to absence at October 28th Meeting). Motion passed. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS (00:15:00) A. Call-Up Item: An expansion of a nonconforming use at 929 11th Street to convert an existing attached garage into one additional bedroom within an existing tri-plex unit. Work includes a new basement walk-out entry in the back yard and interior renovations to existing units. The property is considered a nonconforming use because it has more dwelling units than what is allowed by the current zoning code. The call up period expires on December 3, 2025. This item was not called up by the board. B. Call-Up Item: Minor Site Review Amendment at 2445 Bluff Street for the replacement of a detached dwelling unit with a new detached dwelling unit with a basement accessory dwelling unit. Site is located in the Residential Mixed 1 (RMX-1) zoning district. This item was not called up by the board. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of the following: a. Recommendation to City Council regarding a request to rezone two parcels containing approximately 2.65 acres of land, generally located at 5501 and 5505 Arapahoe Avenue, and adjacent rights-of-way from Business-Community 1 (BC-1) to Mixed-Use 4 (MU-4) zoning and adjacent 56th Street right-of-way from Industrial General (IG) to Mixed-Use 4 (MU-4) zoning. Reviewed under application LUR2025-00016 AND b. A Form-Based Code Review application for redevelopment of the properties located at 5501 and 5505 Arapahoe Ave. with a new, five-story mixed use building containing 300 dwelling units and 2,918 square feet of retail and production business space. Reviewed under application LUR2025-00027.

Staff Presentation: (00:30:00) Brad Mueller introduced the item to the board and Chandler Van Schaack presented the item to the board. Board Questions: (00:55:00) Chandler Van Schaack answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: (01:31:30) Dan Kennelly and Erin Bagnall presented the item to the board. Board Questions: (01:53:00) Chandler Van Schaack answered questions from the board. (02:35:25) Public Participation: In Person: Jonathan Singer Virtual: 1) David Ensign 2) Lynn Segal BREAK – 02:45:45 – 02:57:30 (02:57:30)

Board Discussion: Key Issue: Is the rezoning request consistent with the rezoning criteria is Sections 9-2-19(e) and (f), B.R.C. 1981? (03:00:00) L. Kaplan is supportive of the rezoning and believes it is consistent with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan’s Intention for this site, and she believes it meets the criteria. M. Roberts agreed with L. Kaplan. C. Hanson Thiem agreed with L. Kaplan. K. Nordback agreed with L. Kaplan. J. Boone agreed with L. Kaplan. Ml Robles agreed with L. Kaplan. M. McIntyre agreed with L. Kaplan. MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by M. Roberts to recommend to City Council approval of the application to rezone 2.65 acres of land located at 5501 and 5505 Arapahoe and adjacent righ-ofway from Business – Community 1 (BC-1) to Mixed Use 4 (MU-4) zoning and a portion of 56th Street right-of-way from Industrial General (IG) to Mixed Use 4 (MU-4) zoning. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed.

Key Issue: Is the Form-Based Code application (LUR2025-00027) consistent with the regulations of the Form-Based Code (FBC) of Chapter 14 of the Land Use Code? Key Issue: Does the Planning Board find that the requested exceptions to the FBC and requested modifications to the Land Use Code meet the standards of Section 9-2-16(i), 9-9-5(c)(1) and 9-9-6(e)(6) B.R.C. 1981? (03:04:00) K. Nordback finds the increase in impervious area justified based on the increase in fully pervious area above the amount required. He finds the storefront height of 10 feet justifies. He finds the stepback appropriate given the location and the configuration of the multi-use path, especially on 55th, which provides some additional space. His main concern is about the requet for secondary access off of 55th Street. He stated that as redevelopment occurs along 55th Street, access management should be considered, and new driveways or access should only occur on side streets, like Western Avenue and Conestoga Court. Given, however, the street configuration that exists, he can understand the need. (03:08:49) J. Boone thinks this is an interesting first look at what form-based code is doing here. He noted that it feels like, even with form-based code as a tool, the developer is still choosing to push the envelope to try to maximize the cube that they have to work with. He doesn’t find this particularly palatable against site review and is not supportive of the exceptions that the developer has proposed with exception of the access. He thinks the developer could easily retool this project, not lose a whole lot of housing, and come into compliance. (03:11:15) L. Kaplan noted that she is excited to see the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan turn into a reality on the ground and recognized the difficulty of being first out of the gate. She appreciated the high degree of housing including repurposing some underutilized surface parking lots. She also appreciated the open space courtyards and streetscape plazas that are connected to the public realm, which was a very important concept in the East Boulder Sub Community Plan of creating high-quality public spaces. She appreciated the mobility hub and the incorporation of public art and production business space. She does not think that the project follows the form-based code in two very important regards. The first is the building articulation section. The form-based code requires variation for each 90-foot segment along type A, B, and C frontages, so that's the west, south, and east. She thinks that the project largely accomplished this on the Type A frontage on 55th Street, but not very well currently on the Type B or Type C frontages, and would argue they fail this requirement in the code, noting that the applicant did not present variations in facade that are distinctive, legible, and meet the design quality that was expected in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and the Stamp Plan. She would argue that the shifts are negligible to a layperson on the ground. She is concerned about the requirements related to roof type, plane, and material, and doesn’t believe that 6 inches qualifies as a change in building height. Another main concern is the location of the entrance and window placement, and doesn’t believe that Juliet balconies are a change in window placement. She is concerned with building height and stepback requirements. She referred to the STAMP plan, which notes that, along with step-backs, attention should be given to the overall building form and the placement of doors and windows, especially along street fronts, that continue unbroken for a longer distance. The building phase should not extend more than 300 feet along the same plane without some sort of notable change in volume, setback or material along both 55th and Arapaho. Internal to the development, so not along 55th and Arapaho, the building phase should not extend more than 200 feet unbroken to create a greater level of urban texture and variety in

the user experience. She noted that the East Boulder Side Community Plan and the STAMP both recognized a concept that is very important to her, which is that we desperately need increased density, and that should not come at the expense of design quality and placemaking, because that's what makes these places desirable places to be, to walk around, and to have in our city. She does not think it meets the, form-based code sections about design articulation on frontages. She can support most of the exceptions that the applicant requested. She is, however, concerned about lowering the ceiling height in the proposed production business space. She is not inclined to grant an exception for the street wall plazas along Arapahoe and believes they need be set further back. She is fine with the second access point and the shift in bike parking standards to have more long-term than short-term. Her two “sticking points” are the form-based code standard on frontage articulation, and those setbacks on Arapahoe needing to go back to the maximum setback of 20 feet. (03:21:05) Ml Robles agreed with Jorge and Laura. She is note a fan of form-based code and this project confirms her dislike for this method of planning, nothing that she believes it doesn’t address a lot of the concerns and values that we want to see as we make buildings in our city. Her enthusiasm is low for these projects because quality of experience is not a factor that can be applied to criteria on the formbased code. (03:23:44) C. Hanson Thiem noted that, as questions and discussion about outdoor spaces, the interior courtyards, and impervious surfaces suggested, she thinks the code itself may have some deficiencies in terms of tools to provide high-quality residential spaces, even as we want high-density housing in this area. And so we may not have adequate site-by-site requirements for usable open space, and the larger area plan is not providing for public open spaces nearby. She doesn’t feel that arguing against the imperviousness percentage exception is worth the fight. She is not inclined to support an exception for lower ceilings on the production business space due to the needs of many business types that may fill this space. She doesn’t object to changing the ratios of bike parking. She supports the second access point. (03:28:40) Mason Roberts noted that within form-based code, you give more leeway and put more trust into the folks building these spaces, that they'll create something a little more interesting. He noted that he finds himself struggling between Laura’s comments and Claudia’s comments on the requested modifications. He has no issues with the bike parking exception. He doesn’t feel that arguing against the impervious percentage exception is worth the fight. He struggled with the shop front height, recognizing that we want more housing but not wanting to set a precedent of allowing that exception. He is not supportive of the exception related to the street wall plazas along Arapahoe. (03:31:45) M. McIntyre noted that he has been involved in conversations around form-based code for some time in the development community before it was developed, and noted that it was, “Held out as a way for developers to be innovative, to be creative, to create beauty in design, if they could only be freed from the capricious planning board clawing away at their designs, a highly prescriptive staff, and the ambiguous site review process.” He noted that he felt disappointed with this being the first case reviewed under the form-based code. He has concerns about the quality of life for residents. He believes there is a missed opportunity to design superior open spaces that also comply with the form-based code. He thinks this is a project that would have benefited from a concept review, and thinks we as a city need to consider whether or not concept review should be part of form-based code. However, he wants to be sure that the board is operating outside of the requirements of form-based code, or letting personal

preferences drive things. He noted that a 10-foot ceiling height in a production space would generally be considered inadequate. The board allowed the applicant a chance to respond to clear up potential misconceptions. The board conducted a series of straw polls regarding the proposed exceptions and held discussions about the individual exceptions. (04:29:45) MOTION: M. McIntyre made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to approve Form-Based Code Review application #LUR2025-00027, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval with the following sentences added to condition 3.b.: final plans shall show the production business space with a minimum floor to ceiling height of 12 feet, and: The final site plans shall note an exception for the streetscape plazas along Arapahoe Avenue to allow them to extend from the right-of-way to where their northern boundary is shown on the Applicant’s plans dated October 10, 2025, where otherwise the streetscape plazas would have to extend to the 20foot maximum setback. And addendum to the written statement shall be filed with these final plans describing how the standards applicable to the exception are met; And finding, additionally, that the proposed streetscape plaza exception is generally consistent with the goals and intents of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and STAMP plan in that the proposal assists in the creation of a mixed-use, transit oriented neighborhood rich with amenities and services and that this exception will not create any adverse impacts on residents of the development or surrounding properties beyond what is ordinarily expected through implementation of the standards within Chapter 9-14, “Form-Based Code,” B.R.C. 1981, because the project creates interesting variety in the Arapahoe Avenue streetwall. Planning Board voted 4-3 (L. Kaplan, J. Boone, ml Robles dissenting). Motion passed. . 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Letter to Council Discussion 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:56 PM. APPROVED BY

Mark McIntyre ___________________ Board Chair _09/16/25__________________ DATE