Attachment K_10.07.25 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES October 7, 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 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Jorge Boone STAFF PRESENT: Chandler Van Schaack, Development Review Planner Principal Alison Blaine, City Planner Senior Deshawna Zazueta, Assistant City Attorney II 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: Lynn Segal 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 K. Nordback to postpone approval of the August 26, 2025 Draft Planning Board minutes until such time as staff has been able to update them. Planning Board voted 5-0 (M. Roberts abstaining due to absence at August 26 meeting). Motion passed. B. The September 2, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes are scheduled for approval.

K. Nordback made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to approve the September 2, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes. Planning Board voted 5-0 (M. Roberts abstaining due to absence at August 26 meeting). 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. Call-Up Item: FINAL PLAT to subdivide the 2.33-acre site including the properties generally known as 2504, 2506, 2536, and 2546 Spruce St., 2055 26th St., and 2537 Pearl St. into two new lots. The plat includes dedications of utility easements, drainage easements, public access easements, and an emergency access easement. This application is subject to potential call up on or before October 7, 2025. Reviewed under case number TEC202500009. This item was not called up by the board. B. Call-Up Item: A Final Plat to subdivide 600 Hawthorn Avenue into two lots and dedicate public access easement and utility easement along 6th Street and Hawthorn Ave., and a utility easement along the east side of proposed Lot 1. The proposed lots will be 10,632 square feet and 8,000 square feet. This application is subject to potential call-up on or before October 8, 2025. Reviewed under case number TEC2024-00054. This item was not called up by the board. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation on a petition to annex an approximately 0.96-acre property, generally located at 915 5th Street with an initial zoning designation of Residential Estate (RE) (case no. LUR2024-00062). (00:18:50) Staff Presentation: Chandler Van Schaack presented the item to the board. (00:30:00) Board Questions: Chandler Van Schaack and Charles Ferro answered questions from the board. (00:38:56) Applicant Presentation: Rochelle Woods presented the item to the board. (00:44:00) Public Participation: In Person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: Lynn Segal (00:47:30) Board Discussion:

(00:47:30) K. Nordback supported the proposed annexation overall. He thinks that it makes sense in a lot of ways. His only concern is about the amount of actual development potential that remains on this lot. He noted that he understands that the current property owners have no plans to develop it, but at some point, someone else is going to own it, and by his calculation, it would be about 10,454 square feet of floor area allowed under the compatible development rules, which is a lot. He noted that he is considering proposing an amendment to the annexation agreement to limit the allowable square footage to a small number, such as 3,000 square feet. (00:50:45) Ml Robles was curious about the property that’s above the blue line and the amount of buildable land that remains. She is not interested in limiting what the current people are able to do (i.e. get water and city services), but she thinks we are opening this for potential redevelopment into a “McMansion” up on the top of the hill, so she would be interested in supporting something along the lines of what Kurt mentioned. (00:52:00) M. McIntyre noted that he counted the area above the blue line as being undevelopable and that it should logically be excluded from a floor area calculation of what is developable. While he thinks the addition of a fire hydrant is an advantage to the city in that location, the connection to city water is a great advantage to the applicant, which adds significant value to the property over a property that is not connected to city water. He would be interested in supporting Kurt’s proposal at a higher square footage limit such as 4,000. (00:59:30) MOTION: K. Nordback made a motion that Planning Board recommends that City Council amend the annexation agreement to limit built floor area on the property to 4,000 square feet. Planning Board voted 5-1 (L. Kaplan dissenting). Motion passed. (01:02:00) K. Nordback believes this is most consistent with the BVCP policy 1.17. He thinks that allowing for a vast increase in housing size would not be consistent with that policy. (01:02:30) L. Kaplan noted that she won’t be supporting this. She shares her colleagues’ concerns but is concerned with fairness and equal application of policies. She noted that it does not sound like this has been required of past annexations and we have no guarantee that this would be required of future annexations, because this is not actually written into the policy in the BVCP, and it is not the way that staff has interpreted it in the past. She has some concern about what it might mean for future properties that we do actively want to annex, who might then become scared off of annexation because they don't want that limit on their development potential, which they wouldn’t have if they remain in the county. Many of these properties are already being served by city water, so they don't have that strong incentive to annex into the city. She also pointed out that, as other board members have mentioned, because we do not have occupancy limits, a single unit home can become home to many family units in the future. (01:04:25) M. McIntyre responded to L. Kaplan’s concerns and stated that annexations are a negotiation. He noted that this is not a site review or a use review, and as evidenced by the annexation agreements that he’s been involved in, they have each been unique and different and subject to the best advice of this board in relation to BVCP policies and benefit to the city. He understands the concerns about consistency but noted that we're dealing with the BVCP and annexation, not site review and code.

(01:07:13) MOTION: K. Nordback made a motion seconded by L. Kaplan to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed series annexation of the property located at 915 5th Street with an initial zoning designation of Residential – Estate (RE) pertaining to case number LUR2024-00062, incorporating this staff memorandum as findings of fact, subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the annexation as provided for in the proposed annexation agreement in Attachment D. Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. B. AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and consideration of a Site and Use Review for the redevelopment of 1840 and 1844 Folsom St. with residential uses. The proposal includes the demolition of two existing office buildings and proposes 144 units including studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units totaling 124,749 square feet. The proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for 55’ in height, modification to setbacks, number of stories, and bike parking standards. The applicant has requested Vested Rights. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024-00077 and LUR2024-00078. (01:11:45) Staff Presentation: Alison Blaine presented the item to the board. (01:23:29) Board Questions: Alison Blaine answered questions from the board. (01:56:50) Applicant Presentation: Bill Hollicky and Chris Jacobs presented the item to the board. (02:16:40) Board Questions: Bill Hollicky and Chris Jacobs answered questions from the board. (02:54:00) Public Participation: In Person: 1) Jonathan Singer Virtual: 1) Lynn Segal 2) Beach Helterbrand 3) Sonya Christian Bendt 4) Mark Thompson 5) Jacqueline Chavez 6) Alex Weinheimer (03:19:30) Board Discussion: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed project consistent with the Site Review Criteria, section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981? Key Issue #2: Is the proposed project consistent with the Use Review Criteria, section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C.

1981? Key Issue #3: Is the proposal consistent with the vision for the area as shown in the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) design guidelines and Boulder Plaza Subarea Plan? (03:34:15) M Roberts finds that the proposed project is consistent with the site review criteria under 92-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. He believes the project aligns with the Buller Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Boulder Plaza Sub-area Plan, advancing goals of compact, walkable, and transit-oriented development. He finds that the proposed high-density residential use supports housing diversity and efficient land use while maintaining compatibility with surrounding commercial and residential areas, that the site design provides strong pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through multi-use path connections, detached sidewalks, and landscape buffers, and that the Transportation Demand Management Plan demonstrates a clear commitment to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips. The building design meets standards for quality and urban character, using durable materials, articulated facades, and defined entries to create a human-scaled, active streetscape. Parking is enclosed within structures, minimizing visual and environmental impact. Open space is well distributed, accessible, and programmed to meet residents' needs Regarding height and land use intensity, the proposal qualifies for a height bonus under 914(h)(6), allowing additional stories from FAR in the BR-1 district. The project will be required to meet the inclusionary housing increase of 11% for bonus units, with compliance verified at the building permit stage. He finds that the ground floor residential amenity programming, lobby co-working and residential offices, meets the use review criteria. It provides direct on-site services for residents, reduces off-site trips, and offers a compatible transition between nearby lower-intensity residential to the west and higher intensity commercial to the east. The scale and operating characteristics are compatible with the area, infrastructure impacts are addressed with onset utility, drainage, and streetscape improvements, and the use is consistent with the character established in the Boulder Plaza Sub-Area Plan and BVRC design guidelines. He believes the proposal is consistent with the vision for the areas described in the Boulder Valley Regional Center Design Guidelines and the Boulder Plaza Subarea Plan. Both documents call for high-quality, pedestrian-oriented redevelopment that strengthens the BVRC as a cohesive and memorable place. The proposed residential use adds vitality and supports the mixed-use goals of the sub-area plan, while the building's placement, height transitions, and enclosed parking aligns with the BBRC's intent for compact, well-integrated urban form. Along Folsom Street, the project reinforces the transitional role of the corridor between higher-intensity commercial use to the east and lower-scale residential to the west, consistent with the Folsom transitional objectives. (03:37:47) K. Nordback agreed with M. Roberts’s statements. He find that it is consistent with site review criteria with one exception, and that is the lack of a curb cut for the multi-use path at Folsom. He will have a condition related to that due to site review criteria 9-2-14 (h)(2)(a). He agreed that the ground floor uses are consistent with the criteria and that the proposal is consistent with the area plans. (03:38:50) Ml Robles agreed with her colleagues and noted that there's potentially a good pedestrian experience in spite of the hike. She believes it's unfortunate that the neighbors lose their view, which somewhat explicitly is required to be protected by the sub-area plan. She is concerned by only 11% permeability and the heat sink that much of the site retains. She’s not going to condition this project but thinks it could have been done better.

(03:39:42) C. Hanson Thiem agreed that this project is consistent with both the BVCP land use map and policies, and supports jobs, housing balance, compact development, infill, and walkability. She thinks it's further consistent with the relevant portions of the BVRC design guidelines and the Boulder Plaza Sub-area Plan, particularly those portions emphasizing pedestrian movement, streetscape and building orientation, structured and screened parking, and the anticipation of additional housing and height in this area, but expressed her belief that it is ridiculous that we are subjecting proposals to plans that have not been revised since the 1990s. She thinks the proposal is, with possible minor exceptions, consistent with the site design criteria, including improvements required by the TMP, requirements for open space, and for a height bonus. She anticipated some concerns around bike parking and access and open space. She noted that it sounds like the bike issues are being addressed by others, and she is receptive to well-crafted conditions that formalize that. She is less receptive to concerns about open space on the site, and stated that the board has had some extensive discussion recently about open space requirements, and particularly whether that space is ground level and/or visible from adjoining public rights-of-way, as addressed in the criteria for additional height in 9-2-14(h)(4)(B)(i)(4)(7). She thinks that given that, the open space on this site is of the quality demanded by our code. She also thinks what the elevated courtyards here facilitate is also critical to meeting other site review criteria. Namely, that they allow the applicant to place parking under the building, thus reducing surface parking and pavement and the many environmental and design problems that surface parking causes. She stated that the BVCP and other adopted plans talk extensively about making a higher quality development for all members of our community, and she thinks the problem-solving expressed in the site and building design here makes a higher quality livable place and sociable spaces for apartment dwellers. She believes the use review meets the criteria, noting that the ground floor residential use provides a convenience to residents of the area and that it reduces adverse impacts that could be created by vacant commercial space if required here. She noted that the board has also had this discussion before in areas that are clearly saturated with retail and office uses and has provided relief. (03:42:00) Ml Robles noted that the premise of this impact fee, that larger houses pay for their out-ofproportion impact, does resonate with her. However, the impacts that she found most significant are to the environment, not to the economy - Impacts such as the increase of the heat island by the huge footprint and associated paving, the loss of original trees because they were inconvenient, the significant amount of vehicle use, if you include all the deliveries, the commutes of window washers, house cleaners, landscapers, dog walkers, etc. She isn’t sure if the impact fee is going to capture this, but she thinks it's going to open the door to discussing the real impacts. (03:43:20) L. Kaplan believes the proposal is consistent with the vision for the area as shown in the BBRC design guidelines and the Boulder Plaza sub-area Plan with one slight modification that she plans to propose as a condition. She noted that based on the code that we have, the site review criteria, and the land use map, she disagrees that 100% residential projects are encouraged or a good thing in a general business land use category. The description in the BVCP clearly states that, “…general business consists of a mix of business uses and compatible housing will be encouraged and may be required as a transition. The area should continue to be used without expanding the strip character.” She reads this as encouraging adding residential to commercial uses in general business, and fully supports that. She fully supports having four floors of residential above some commercial space and parking, but thinks that Folsom corridor deserves to still be general business, not 100% residential. She is sensitive to the

concerns about vacant retail, agreeing that we definitely don't want that. She noted that one solution in some other projects allowed a resident-serving amenity space to also be shared with the public. She thinks that that is a good solution to include some neighborhood-serving commercial uses. So, for example, people paying a membership fee or a daily use fee to use that co-working space, or whatever that resident amenity space along Folsom turns out to be. She thinks that encourages the social mixing, and it makes sure that this is not a space that is removed from access to the public completely. She doesn’t think that a 100% residential building provides any kind of useful transition between small-scale residential and more intense commercial. She thinks it's the use that needs to transition, so having even just a little bit of mixing along Folsom there, she thinks, would bring it into compliance with that Folsom transitional area in a way that makes her feel very comfortable supporting that it is consistent with that plan. She thinks it clearly meets the Use Review criteria. She had some significant concerns about the criteria for a height bonus that relate to the open space courtyard and the 200-foot building length. She objects to framing those as mere suggestions that can be discarded without a lot of analysis. She believes the board has to do their due diligence and that they are required to treat those design factors as more than just suggestions. She thinks that Bill (Hollicky) gave very persuasive answers about why, in this context, the longer building facade makes sense on this long, skinny right-of-way, and that, in this context, in this area of town, with such intensity, having that courtyard at ground level doesn't make sense on this site. She thinks we're seeing a lot of projects that are making an argument that a ground-level courtyard doesn't make sense, especially for a residential building. Now, not all site review projects are residential, some of them are commercial, and so a courtyard might look different and have different uses. She thinks that if we are finding that we're getting more exceptions than projects where it does make sense in context, we might want to revisit that criterion in the site review criteria, because it doesn't make any sense for us to have a criterion that we're making exceptions to basically with every project. She noted that she came into this hearing not knowing which way it was going to go on these criteria, and she does think the applicant made a good contextual argument, so she will be supporting the project. She stated that she will also be proposing that one condition about the commercial potentially sharing that amenity space with the public. (03:51:18) M. McIntyre found the project consistent with the site review criteria and noted that the applicant has done a good job taking a site and making it work for the residents while still fulfilling the broader site review criteria and how it relates to the public right-of-way, Folsom, and the multi-use path. He thinks it is consistent with the Use Review criteria and has no desire for additional transition between the commercial uses immediately to the south and the very dense residential use immediately to the north. He questioned the value of these transitions and noted that he sees some of our most lively and activated spaces where residential uses meet commercial uses. He agreed with Claudia regarding dated plans. (04:02:00) MOTION: K. Nordback made a motion seconded by L. Kaplan to approve Site Review application #LUR2024-00077 and Use Review application #LUR2024-00078, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed.

(04:03:08) MOTION: K. Nordback made a motion seconded by M. McIntyre to propose a condition that an additional 20% of the bike parking spaces be wired for charging but not subject to the 10’ x 3’ space requirement. This would be offered above and beyond the required 5%. Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. (04:05:04) MOTION: M. Roberts made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to propose a Reservation Agreement for the northern multi-use path that contains an option for the City to convert the path to a Public Access Easement once the connection to 26th street is completed. Applicant requests the ability to temporarily gate the multi-use path and restrict access to residents only for safety and security reasons. Planning Board voted 0-6. Motion failed. (04:15:20) MOTION: K. Nordback made a motion seconded by L. Kaplan to add a condition of approval that public improvements will be completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. (04:17:08) MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by ml Robles to amend the Site Review to require one or more resident amenity spaces along Folsom to be a shared amenity with the public that will be a neighborhood-serving commercial use for the public, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of TecDoc. Planning Board voted 0-6. Motion failed. (04:22:18) MOTION: K. Nordback made a motion seconded by M. McIntyre that plans will be revised to show a curb cut for the north-side multi-use path at Folsom Street. Planning Board voted 6-0. 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 10:31 PM. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE