Attachment I_09.30.25 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes

Special Meeting, October 23, 2025 · item 3B: Consideration of a Site Review and Use Review to redevelop approximately 7.96 acres of an existing 9.86-acre site at 2952 Baseline Rd. with … · 8 pages

This is the text extracted from the file, without its layout, tables, or images. Use the original for anything that matters.

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 PM and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Chair McIntyre moved this item 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.

(00:49:00) Public Participation: In Person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: 1) Karen Farrelly 2) Rob Whitley 3) Rudy Fettig 4) Rob Wardell 5) Kathryn Wardell

Board Discussion:

(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.

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 agreed 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: Chandler Van Schaack presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Chandler Van Schaack answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Andy Bush, Katherine Van Der Spek, and Bill Hollicky presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Bill Hollicky, Andy Bush, and Katherine Van Der Spek answered questions from the board. (04:32:00) Public Participation: In Person: 1) David Ensign 2) Bill Rigler Virtual: 1) Eliza Grace 2) David Batcheldor (04:45:40) Board Discussion:

Key Issue #1: Is the proposal consistent with the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, including the Additional Criteria for Buildings Requiring Height Modification? Key Issue #2: Is the proposal consistent with the Use Review and Specific Use Standards criteria of section 9-2-15 (e) and 9-6-3(e), B.R.C. 1981?

(04:47:00) K. Nordback thinks that this is an outstanding project overall. He thinks that it has improved tremendously from what we saw at concept review. He loves the diversity of the architecture. He thinks that there's outstanding public space design within the project, especially with the woonerfs and the plaza area. He appreciated that the developer is demonstrating a commitment to bring back beloved businesses while providing significant housing and urban spaces. He feels the proposal is consistent with the site review criteria.

(04:48:53) M. Roberts found the proposal consistent with the site review criteria. He feels that it advances BVCP goals by providing density infill near transit, offering a broad mix of unit types, and incorporating sustainable design with energy efficiency and expanded green space. He believes the site plan promotes safe multimodal access, functional open space, and high-quality landscaping. He noted that the building design is oriented to the public realm, uses durable materials, and manages massing effectively, even where lengths exceed 200 feet. He feels height modifications are appropriate, with preserved views and well-designed courtyards. Overall, he feels that the project creates a strong urban edge along Baseline Road and meets the standards of review. He agreed that the proposal is consistent with the use review and specific use standards. He believes it strengthens the character of the area as a neighborhood-serving business district by expanding ground floor commercial space, improving pedestrian access, and adding residential density that will support those businesses. In his view, the project enhances rather than detracts from the intended function of this area.

(04:50:10) L. Kaplan generally echoed the comments of her colleagues. She wanted to emphasize that she thinks this is an incredibly well-done project. She appreciated the applicant's desire to create a real neighborhood center, despite the challenges of retail and other challenges of this site. She thinks it is mostly consistent with the site review criteria. She has a couple concerns including e-bike and cargo bike parking as well as the lack of active use open space areas such as play areas or dog parks. With regard to the building lengths over 200 feet, she did have concern about that on first read but feels the applicant has done an outstanding job of addressing the concerns around visual permeability with varied rooflines, angles of buildings, façade recessions. She also believes the site has good physical permeability with the incorporated travel pathways. In this case, she is okay with the building lengths over 200 feet. She agreed that the Use Review criteria were met and appreciated the additional analysis that staff did, showing that retail uses on the ground floor will still predominate in this triangle between 36th, Baseline, and 30th Street. (04:53:45) J. Boone agreed that the project has improved significantly. He thinks the height modification is generally consistent with the Site Review criteria. He is concerned that we are taking a grocery store that serves a neighborhood out of order and introducing a large gap of time without these businesses. He isn’t sure that it meets the criteria and feels the developer lacks certainty that this will remain a neighborhood center. He doesn’t believe that he can be sure that this will function the way it's intended with the tools available.

(04:57:00) Ml Robles agreed with Jorge’s concerns regarding unknown factors around the construction phases. She finds this proposal greatly improved from the concept review proposal. She appreciated that the input from this board, City Council, and the advising boards has impacted the current application. Her remaining concern has to do with the requested height of between 51 feet to 55 feet across every building, along with the requested modifications to the setbacks. She feels that both of these will have significant impact to the public experience on baseline, 30th, and the southeast public multi-use path. She appreciated the public space activation and diversity of buildings but had concerns about the human scale and experience.

(05:00:26) C. Hanson Thiem thinks this is a completely appropriate location for infill development and high-density student housing and other housing due to its location near CU and major transportation corridors. She thinks it also fully satisfies the vision of community business and mixed-use business that we have in the BVCP. She feels that the proposal strengthens the functioning of this location as a neighborhood center by making it a site to, not just shop, but to gather, and adding population to support for retail in the more difficult environment that we're now seeing. She thinks it further shows many of the characteristics of sustainable urban form that we claim to be looking for in the BVCP, including a strong public realm, pedestrian interest, and minimal surface parking. She thinks the transportation connections and approaches to mobility are great and appreciated all of the efforts to hide cars and to preserve most of the shared interior spaces for pedestrian and bike use. She has a few concerns about vehicle traffic calming on the private streets. She supports additional height for additional housing in this area. She noted that overall this proposal is adding commercial space, and in sizes and configurations that she thinks are going to enhance this desired neighborhood center function. She thinks allowing some of this ground floor housing a helps to prevent a glut of retail space and allows… the existing commercial activity to be concentrated in an area to enhance activity.

(05:03:52) MOTION: M. McIntyre believes the allowance of ground floor residential under the use review is much more likely to make the ground-level commercial successful, along with the building height, combination of density, number of units, number of people, and attractiveness of the design. He supported the additional height. He shared Laura’s concerns about bike parking. (05:08:24) MOTION: C. Hanson Thiem made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to approve Site Review application #LUR2024-00071 and Use Review application #LUR2024-00072 with conditions as recommended by staff, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and as amended by the Planning Board. Planning Board voted 6-1 (J. Boone dissenting). Motion passed. (05:11:45) MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by ml Robles that to meet the open space needs of residents and visitors to the site, applicant shall add an active programmatic element to the site such as a playground, play area, dog park, or community garden, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tec Doc. Planning Board voted 5-2 (K. Nordback and C. Hanson Thiem dissenting). Motion passed. (05:19:15) MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by ml Robles to amend the above motion to read, “active outdoor ground-level programmatic element…”. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed.

(05:30:53) MOTION: M. McIntyre made a motion seconded by L. Kaplan to require that the number of long-term bike parking spaces that accommodate charging is increased to approximately 20%. The accommodation of cargo bikes be increased to approximately 10% of total bike spaces, and all cargo bike spaces be electrified. Electrified cargo bike space can be counted toward the total electrification requirement. In addition, all long-term bike parking rooms will have conduit provided for future bike charging electrification. This condition will be met to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tec Doc. Planning Board voted 0-7. Motion failed. (05:53:39) MOTION: M. McIntyre made a motion seconded by M. Roberts that an additional 15% of required bike parking spaces over and above the 5% electrified spaces required in 9-9-6(e)(4)(g) shall be electrified. These additional spaces shall not be subject to the 10 x 3 space requirement. This condition will be met to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tec Doc. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed.

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 10:40 PM. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair

___________________ DATE