Attachment C - 04.07.26 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES April 7, 2026 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 Mason Roberts ml Robles Claudia Hanson Thiem Maxwell Lord

FT

PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Jorge Boone

RA

STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Moeller Alison Blaine Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Thomas Remke Brad Mueller Deshawna Zazueta

1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, M. McIntyre, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted.

D

Deshawna Desouza swore in newly appointed Board Member Maxwell Lord. The board appointed Laura Kaplan to serve as chair and Claudia Hanson Thiem to serve as Vice Chair. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. Max Fearer 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 4.

DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS There were no call up items.

5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Concept Plan Review and Comment on a proposed redevelopment at 1050, 1004, 990, 986, and 976 Arapahoe Ave. for permanently affordable senior housing. The existing Presbyterian Manor building at 1050 Arapahoe Ave. would remain. The project would involve combining four existing lots with the larger parcel and constructing a new 60-unit, three-story structure. Reviewed under case no. LUR2026-00001. Staff Presentation: S. Moeller presented the item to the board. Board Questions: S. Moeller answered questions from the board.

Public Participation: 1. Tim Plass 2. James Pollock 3. Lynn Kendall Wilson 4. Mark Fearer 5. Lynn Segal Board Discussion:

FT

Applicant Presentation: Mark Levitrau, Tom Ottenson, and Catherine Bean presented the item to the board.

D

RA

C Hanson Thiem started by commenting on consistency with the BVCP, noting that the proposal contained many competing goals and policies, and that the board was asked to make determinations on the balance. She explained that the question posed in the staff memo was how to weigh the preservation of up to four, or possibly just one, everyday bungalows against creating modern, accessible, permanently affordable homes for a much larger number of senior households. She emphasized that there was an acute and documented need for this type of housing in Boulder, reflected in multiple BVCP policies. She noted that the area was designated as high-density residential, zoned RH2, allowing apartments without limitation, and was located a block from the transit backbone, the main public library, and a senior center. She noted that the site was owned by an established non-profit housing provider, which she saw as a rare opportunity. She argued that the opportunity and city priorities far outweighed the benefits of retaining the bungalows. She said aesthetics did not justify the trade-off, and that arguments about preserving a mix of housing types, natural affordability, or embodied carbon felt weak compared to the proposed concept. She acknowledged that the planning board could not control the landmarking process, but saw a strong argument for maximizing senior housing at this location, especially with affordability guarantees and sustainable design features. She strongly opposed using the site review process to force landmarking on the property. On other site review criteria, she agreed with staff that there were serious issues with parking and its interaction with the public realm on Arapahoe. She said ground-floor parking detracted from street activation, and the uninterrupted facade might worsen that problem. She noted the board generally preferred conservative parking counts, especially if it allowed for more housing or better design. She acknowledged financial constraints and floodplain limitations and expressed sympathy. She suggested improving the building’s interface with Arapahoe through measures like adding entrances with stairs or ramps, and adding individual or shared balconies. While these might be private amenities,

she believed they could enhance the pedestrian experience and create more activation along that side of the building. Ml Robles noted that the concept of the project was well aligned with BVCP goals. However, she said she completely agreed with staff comments around historic preservation and design as they relate to the public experience, which she felt were not being met at that time. So in regard to the BVCP, she described it as “yes and no.” She noted that even if the board did not find the historic houses significant under the formal site criteria, that did not mean they were not significant in the context of the site. She noted that she would expand on that further under key question number two. She also pointed to another BVCP criterion, saying she would look for the significant trees along the north side, specifically two along the property line, to be retained if possible. Regarding key question number two, she said her main concern was with building siting and design, particularly the public interface. She noted that the street was characterized by a complexity of scale and materials, while the proposal showed a generic, monolithic structure. She acknowledged it was only a concept review but said she would be looking for more compatibility to meet site review criteria. She added that staff comments on these issues were detailed and valid and should be taken into consideration. She explained her perspective on the historic question, saying that what was historically relevant was the street cadence and streetscape created by the houses. She believed this could be addressed through building siting and architectural design. She concluded that this approach, designing a building with a public interface informed by the historic street cadence, was how to address landmark concerns and get ahead of the site review criteria.

D

RA

FT

M. Roberts said that on the first question, he emphatically agreed with what Claudia said and that this project was exactly what Boulder needed. He noted that the community was facing what has been termed a “silver tsunami,” and said that permanently affordable senior housing in a walkable, transit-rich location near the library, the Age Well Center, and Boulder Creek Path was precisely the kind of agingin-place infrastructure that serves the community’s long-term health. From a BVCP consistency standpoint, he said the high-density residential designation, the proposed density, and the policy alignment on special needs populations and a full range of households all pointed in the same direction. He said he believed the project belonged at this location and that it met the BVCP on balance. On the landmark issue, he agreed with Claudia and said he did not believe landmarking the structures would serve the community’s interests as well as providing 60 units of permanently affordable senior housing. He also expressed appreciation for the applicant’s efforts, including supporting the moving of the houses. Regarding the second key issue, he agreed with his colleagues regarding the building design and was looking for something more active on the streetscape. He noted that others had already made strong comments on that topic and did not expand further. He added that he was looking forward to seeing the TDM plan under the new requirements and expected it to be tailored specifically to the needs of senior residents, given the intended occupants and the site’s transit access. K. Nordback noted that he mostly agreed with his colleagues. He stated that it was great to see a proposal for affordable senior housing and that it was exactly what was needed. He said he appreciated the flexibility shown by Historic Boulder and the applicant regarding the relocation of the buildings. He noted that whether relocation would be possible was uncertain, as finding receiving sites is always a challenge, but said that if it were possible, it would be a great outcome. He said he agreed with his colleagues that the biggest challenge was the design of the pedestrian-level facade on Arapahoe. He added that while what was currently there did not meet housing needs, from a design and pedestrian experience standpoint it was outstanding. He raised the question of how to create something with that

same level of interest and complexity while still achieving the project’s needs. He mentioned a point raised earlier about the possibility of a reduced setback on Arapahoe, and said that if it allowed for more complexity in pedestrian interaction, he would be fully supportive and suggested it as something to consider. M. Lord agreed with other board members that it's a very good project, and he appreciated that it meets a need in our changing community. He firmly agreed with ML that part of the historical importance of those buildings is not the buildings themselves, rather the pedestrian interactions. Just to get a little bit more nitty-gritty with it. He noted that we live in a world where we still rely on cars, and if we don't start to make active choices against that, we'll continue to. He noted that one of the magnificent parts of this project is the amount of accessibility to public transport. He recognized that this is an incredibly unique location, so this would be a great opportunity to investigate setbacks and break visual continuity. He appreciated the input about the singular entrance and thought that was illuminating, and answered a lot of questions, but he would encourage a little bit of creativity to create more visual breaks, and consider moving the patios towards the street face so that the public that's interacting along Arapaho is engaging with the center in a more welcoming way.

D

RA

FT

M. McIntyre noted that concept reviews are often frustrating for applicants and the board, and this one is especially frustrating for him. He finds the design presented “thin” and weak, which makes it hard for him to weigh in. He noted the usual conundrum of concept reviews, where adding more detail and expense can risk wasted effort if the board ultimately rejects it, but reviews are still necessary. He emphasized that this case is particularly challenging given the possibility that one of the houses on site could be landmarked, which could “blow the design up.” Regarding the houses, he supports working with Historic Boulder and prefers moving them, seeing it as a positive example of reuse, cooperation, and collaboration. However, if it comes down to it, he believes the project should take priority over the potentially landmarked house and would support demolition if necessary. He said the project meets many BVCP goals and policies, more than most. He highlighted that no project must meet all of them, but this one “ticks many, many boxes.” He strongly supports the inclusionary housing ordinance and noted that, unlike typical projects that may pay cash-in-lieu while building market-rate units, this project directly increases the number of permanently affordable units. He said it advances the city’s housing goals faster and further than any project he has seen to date. He said the massing and the Arapahoefacing side do not feel like they relate to or contrast with nearby iconic buildings such as the 1050 building and the library. While he is not asking for mimicry, he believes the design should either acknowledge or thoughtfully contrast with these structures, using materials or other design elements. He concluded that it would be a shame if a project providing 60 affordable units ended up being architecturally unmemorable or failed to enhance the area. He warned that a weak design could reflect poorly on the affordable housing exemption. He encouraged the applicant to elevate the design into an example of excellence for both the city and its residents. L. Kaplan agreed that consistency with the BVCP is generally strong, and she has no issues there. She agreed with her colleagues that the project fulfills many of the plan’s goals. She also said it is generally consistent with site review, though she has a few comments. She expressed strong support for the applicant as a mission-driven nonprofit, Boulder Presbyterian Housing, and their goal of providing affordable senior housing. She noted that, unlike other projects where there may be concern about whether promised affordable housing will be built, she is confident this project will deliver unless something unexpected happens. She appreciated their values and said the project will broaden access to

RA

FT

housing for historically underserved populations. She said the site is a perfect location and represents the kind of 15-minute neighborhood the city aims to create, with many nearby amenities. She also appreciated the shared campus concept between the existing and new buildings, especially the open space and amenities, which she said would enhance efficiency, strengthen social connection, and reduce transportation demand. She noted that the project focuses on households earning at or below 60% of AMI, noting that many affordable projects serve higher income levels, and said this is a meaningful service to the community, especially seniors. She also appreciated the reduced parking ratio and the explanation of LIHTC constraints. She said her initial impression of the ground-level parking was positive, calling it an elegant way to conceal parking, work within FAR, and elevate units out of the floodplain. However, she acknowledged staff concerns about how the parking affects the street and pedestrian experience. She appreciated the preservation of mature trees and support for reviewing additional ones on site. She agreed with staff that the project should show stronger architectural cohesion with the existing tower and consider the library as part of its neighborhood context. She also supported adding more programming detail for open spaces, including terraces, shared areas, ADA access, and reviewing how the vehicular hammerhead might impact those spaces. She raised concern about the ground-level parking along Arapahoe lacking activity and vibrancy. While she understands the floodplain constraints, she encouraged making the frontage more active, referencing ideas such as increased articulation, public-serving uses, or even additional height if needed. She suggested design strategies like varied rooflines, parklets, benches, awnings, murals, or other features to create a more engaging street presence, while noting these are just ideas. She strongly disagreed with staff’s comments regarding landmarking. She said landmarking decisions should be made by the Landmarks Board, which is responsible for weighing historic value against private property rights. She described the process as arduous and uncertain and said site review should not be used to avoid those decisions. She stated clearly that she would not support requiring a property owner to pursue landmarking through site review. She added that she would not weigh in on whether the building should be preserved, as she does not see that as her role. She also cautioned against creating “Up-style” scenarios where a small house is left surrounded by a much larger development, saying that would not serve preservation or city interests well. She appreciated Historic Boulder’s recommendation to relocate the buildings and said the applicant is going above and beyond by donating the structures and contributing toward relocation costs. She expressed hope that relocation is successful but reiterated that she would not support landmarking through site review.

D

B. AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and consideration of a Site Review for a Height Modification only for a detached dwelling unit located at 1039 Mapleton Ave. The height modification is necessary to add habitable space above the by-right height and to document the changing low point due to a proposed building expansion. No other modifications are proposed. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024-00028. Staff Presentation: Alison Blaine presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Alison Blaine answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: George Watt presented the item to the board. Board Questions: George Watt answered questions from the board.

Public Participation: 1) Lynn Segal Board Discussion: C Hanson Thiem made a motion seconded by ml Robles to approve Site Review Application #LUR2024-00028, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of facts, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed.

6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. East Boulder Subcommunity Plan Form-Based Code Discussion

8. ADJOURNMENT

FT

7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK

The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:42 PM.

RA

APPROVED BY

Mark McIntyre ___________________ Board Chair

D

________________ DATE