Attachment C - Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES March 3, 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 ml Robles Mason Roberts Jorge Boone (virtual) Claudia Hanson Thiem PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Moeller, Planning Manager Charles Ferro, Development Review Planning Senior Manager Deshawna Zazueta, Assistant City Attorney II Jay Sugnet, Housing Senior Manager Hollie Hendrikson, Housing Policy Senior Project Manager Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services 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 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. Call-Up Item: : Use Review for a Government Facility use (Fire Station #2) in an RH-5 zone. The proposal includes the replacement of the existing residential building at 2207 Baseline and the existing fire station at 2225 Baseline with a new fire station. The call-up period expires on Mar. 9, 2026.

This item was not called up by the board. B. Call-Up Item: Final Plat for the 3300 Penrose Place project, including the elimination of an existing parcel line and dedication of easements on the 4.75-acre property at 3300 Penrose Place. This approval is subject to call-up on or before March 10, 2026. This item was not called up by the board. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (00:12:30) 1. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a Site Review to redevelop the site at 1100 28th Street and 2895 E. College Avenue into a mixed-use student housing development with 149 units in three buildings. Reviewed under case no. LUR2025-00037. Staff Presentation: Shannon Moeller presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Shannon Moeller and Brad Mueller answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Andree Sahakian, Danica Powell, and Matt Post presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Andree Sahakian, Danica Powell, Brittany Sanders, Cassie Slade, Cody Gratney, and Matt Post Public Hearing: In Person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: Lynn Segal Board Discussion: (01:59:30) M. Roberts stated that he appreciated how responsive the applicant has been to city feedback, most significantly in bringing the commercial entries to grade, which he noted is essential to creating a vibrant pedestrian experience and positive public realm interface. He thinks the accommodations of Bova's market shows a commitment to the community, and its use as a neighborhood-serving convenience also reflects the mixed-use intent of the RH-3 district and is consistent with many of the BVCP policies. (02:00:11) M. McIntyre concurred with M. Roberts’ comments. He also appreciated the completeness of the applicant's application, as well as the various views, illustrations, 3D renderings from various elevations and angles, which makes it easier for those who are not design professionals to understand the elevations. He appreciated the responsiveness to design concerns from the board and the Design Advisory Board. He agrees that it supports 9-2-14 as well as the BVCP policies. (02:01:30) J. Boone echoed comments from M. Roberts and M. McIntyre, especially around the

completeness of the application. He read two written statements. The first was related to ADA issues and is reproduced below: “Since Boulder has eliminated the parking minimums, a project that chooses not to provide parking for commercial uses may also avoid providing ADA-accessible parking. This creates a clear gap in the current framework. Because ADA accessibility requirements are triggered when parking is provided, and developments that provide no parking at all can effectively bypass accessible parking requirements for public-facing commercial spaces, the result is that new businesses open to the public may provide no accessible vehicular access for people with disabilities. While the goal of eliminating parking minimums was to provide flexibility and reduce excess parking supply, it should not come at the expense of accessibility. This is not a theoretical issue. It means that someone who relies on accessible parking may simply have no practical way to access a new business. As able-bodied members of the Planning Board, this may not always be top of mind for us, but it's exactly the type of equity issue we should be attentive to. As the city continues to implement its revised parking framework, we should address this gap directly. If a development includes public-facing commercial uses, the city should ensure that accessible vehicular traffic access is still being provided in some form. Eliminating parking minimums should not inadvertently eliminate accessibility. And again, I don't side that totally on the developer. It's also a city issue that I think we need to work through that, may not have had full understanding, because ADA is a federal requirement that is triggered off of parking requirements.” The second written statement was related to the boards and commissions engagement process and is reproduced below: “Referral to the Design Advisory Board has clearly produced a better project than the one that we first saw. I appreciate the applicant's willingness to engage with the feedback from the various boards and continue refining the design. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than where we started. This stands in contrast to a recent project where the form-based code limited the board's ability to weigh in on design, and in my view, allowed for an inferior project to move forward with little opportunity for meaningful input. I'd encourage my colleagues to reflect on the differences between these processes and outcomes that they produce. To me, this project is a good example of what our design review process can accomplish when it allows for thoughtful iteration and constructive feedback.” (02:05:00) C. Hanson Thiem thinks this project is consistent with BVCP policies supporting compact mixed-use and infill redevelopment. She also believes it meets the intent and requirements of highdensity residential and RH-3 zoning, continuing to redevelop this area immediately adjacent to the CU campus for high-density pedestrian-oriented student housing. Like her colleagues, she also appreciated the significant changes to the project since concept review – in particular, design changes to elevate public entrances, and to improve the interface between ground floor units and the change in grade, particularly on the south side of the project. She thinks that grade change is a site design challeng that the applicant has risen to on a lot of levels. She also thinks it has the potential, in addition to being a challenge, to really create some kinetic and visual interest in the project, and she thinks the terraced nature of the rain gardens and the remaining stair and ramp features balance embracing some of that movement and differentiation on the site with accessibility requirements. She thinks there's a good balance there. In terms of the height modification that the project is requesting, she thinks it meets the requirements in our code for views. She thinks it, in fact, helps create some of them on the upper floors where they might not otherwise be available due to topography and the elevation of 28th Street and existing buildings on CU campus. She thinks the project also meets requirements for on-site open space,

including the courtyard with southern exposure and some visual permeability. She noted that the applicants have done a good job of working with the site and the slope to make that a useful and interesting space. She thinks that permeability for both lights and views and pedestrian mobility, as we've discussed with the Paseo, remains a bit of a challenge, but noted that the board has limited tools in the code to ask for much more than is being provided here, so she is happy to support this as is. (02:08:00) L. Kaplan thanked the applicant for their work and made a note for community members that Planning Board does not approve or deny projects based on personal preferences or desires for the site - rather, applicants have a right to develop their properties in accordance with the code, and the board’s job in looking at these large projects that go through site review is just to provide an additional check and balance along with staff in determining whether the code was met. She noted that language about height variances can be misleading and confusing. The height limit in the city, per the city charter that the voters approved, is 55 feet. That height is available for developments that meet the requirements that are specified in the city code. She noted that the board is looking at whether it meets the requirements in the code that are designed to make sure these taller projects have more community benefit and are better projects. She thanked staff, especially Shannon, for their diligence in making sure the proposal meets the criteria and honors the comments provided by DAB and this board. She stated that their efforts to make this process transparent and accountable are noted and sincerely appreciated. Overall, she thinks this project is an example of successful design. It does a good job of meeting city goals for resident quality of life, as well as pedestrian and bike-friendly living, lively and friendly streetscape design, and community-serving amenities. She commended the project team for bringing a project that pretty clearly meets the criteria, and that makes the board’s work easier. She highlighted the building massing, which can be an especially sticky problem, due to the balancing of goals including a high level of site utilization and building architecture that is not just a series of very large, plain boxes. She appreciates that this project is a great example of how to marry those two goals. She noted that the site massing is broken up into three separate but connected buildings with corridors in between, and she appreciated the pedestrian access for the public. Furthermore, she noted that each building's massing is broken up on the upper stories on all of the sides that front busy streets or other residential properties. She attributes much of that success to the specific requirements of the code for RH-3, which were different than almost every other zone in the city. She thinks RH-3 is one of maybe just one or two zones that requires that the upper floors have less massing than the lower floors, and that's part of why good design is seen here, which she thinks should be noted if that's a desired result in other parts of the city, for example, as Jorge pointed out, areas that are subject to form-based code in East Boulder. She noted that she did not love the way the main courtyard has been narrowed at the southern end since the concept review, and it's also now recessed below that Bova’s patio. She believes these factors compromise the access to sunlight, southern exposure, and visibility from a public street, as ML has noted, but does not think it can be said that it does not meet the criteria, so she does not have any conditions based on that. She also feels the project was a little bit less successful at breaking up the appearance of long frontages into what appears to be at least two distinct buildings. The use of different elements feels a little bit jumbled to her, and she doesn't really see a coherent visual appearance of two distinct buildings in the long frontages. She noted that she is not an architect, and that reasonable minds can disagree, so she will not be proposing a condition based on that. In her view, the design is still doing a better job of meeting the criteria than many, and maybe the majority, of the projects that come before this board. She noted that she will listen to the remaining comments of her colleagues with great interest and remain persuadable. She noted that she might have some language to propose regarding wayfinding signage for the Paseo cargo bike parking that the applicant has indicated can be included and regarding accessible on-street parking for the commercial uses.

(02:12:30) K. Nordback believes that the project does meet the site review criteria, including the requested modifications for height and stories and the minor setback modification. He agrees with Laura about the design of the facade, and that it is more complicated than ideally would be appropriate, but like Laura, he does not feel that it rises to the level of problem that justifies a condition. But in general, he thinks the more simplicity we can bring to our facades, and the more unity, the better. (02:13:30) Ml Robles concurred with her colleagues and appreciated their concise and clear responses to the key question. She has no concerns with it meeting the site review criteria. She appreciated the approach that none of the solutions are one-liners, and that they offer layers of response to complex criteria. She appreciated that the applicant provided ground-level pedestrian views, which she feels are critical for understanding how the project meets the human scale and experience, and not everybody brings those. Her one remaining concern is that it's unfortunate that the healthy, long-lived trees aren't being protected. She noted that sidewalks across the city often work around trees, and she would like to have a conversation with staff and see if there is any way to protect those trees. She noted that the board got some input from the public around the trees not only providing all the things trees do relative to the environment, but they also provide specific habitat. She would like to explore any way to retain those trees, or some of the trees. (02:18:30) MOTION: M. Roberts made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to approve Site Review application under #LUR2025-00037, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum, and as amended. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed. M. Roberts found that the project is consistent with the site review criteria section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, including the requested modifications. The height modification of 55 feet meets the additional criteria of 9-2-14(h), including building form and massing, open space, and views. Staff noted the height’s compatibility with the surrounding context as well. The north setback modifications and Colorado Avenue right-of-way vacation are both minor and appropriate. The TDM plan is sufficiently robust, incorporating Eco passes and significant bicycle infrastructure. (02:21:00) MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by ml Robles to include the condition that the applicant will include 1) way-finding signage for the public pedestrian paseo, 2) cargo bike parking, and 3) accessible on-street parking for the commercial uses, if feasible, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tec Doc. Planning Board voted 7-0. Motion passed. (02:32:49) MOTION: Ml Robles made a motion seconded by M. McIntyre to amend to include the condition that applicant and staff will work together to re-examine whether it is possible to preserve any of the healthy, mature trees along College Avenue to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tec Doc. Planning Board voted 6-1 (C. Hanson Thiem dissenting). Motion passed. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY

A. “All Things Affordable Housing” HHS Presentation and Q&A Jay Sugnet and Hollie Hendrikson gave a presentation to the board and held a related question and answer opportunity. B. INFORMATION ITEM: Proposed Ordinance 8742 1100 28th St. Vacation of ROW An information item was provided to the board in the meeting packet. There was no presentation or discussion. 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:20 PM. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair _______________ DATE