Call-Up Agenda Memo

City of Boulder City Council Call-Up Agenda Item Meeting Date: September 17, 2026 Agenda Title Consideration of a Nonconforming Use Review at 969 10th St. for the expansion of an existing duplex

Staff Contact • •

Alex Pichacz, Senior City Planner, Planning & Development Services (P&DS) Brad Mueller, Planning Director, Planning & Development Services (P&DS)

Executive Summary Consideration of a Nonconforming Use Review for the property located at 969 10th Street. The application proposes an expansion of the duplex by converting interior attic space to habitable floor area and the addition of one new bedroom to each unit through interior renovations. No exterior expansion or addition to the building is proposed. Reviewed under case number LUR2025-00091.

Council Action Options Option

Outcome

Call up the application

To call up the application, council has to pass a motion. Suggested motion language: Motion to call up Nonconforming Use Review application #LUR202500091. Called-up item will be scheduled for a public hearing at a future council meeting within 60 days.

Do not call up the application No council action is needed. Decision of the lower body stands.

Planning Board History At the public hearing on August 18, 2026, the Planning Board held a quasi-judicial hearing to review the proposed Nonconforming Use Review application. Following staff and application presentations and a public hearing, the Board deliberated on the applicable review criteria and asked clarifying questions to staff pertaining to interpretations of the review criteria. M. McIntyre, seconded by K. Nordback, moved to deny the application for failure to meet criteria 9-2-15(f)(1) and (2) B.R.C. 1981. The motion failed on a vote of 2:6 (ML Robles was absent) and additional deliberation followed. The Planning Board approved the request with the following motions: Motion by C. Hanson Thiem and seconded by M. Roberts to approve Use Review application #LUR2025-00091, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, subject to the recommended conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum, as amended by the planning board with the following motions: Motion to amend the main motion by K. Nordback, seconded by C. Hanson Thiem, to add a condition of approval to require that the applicant submit a trash management plan including separate trash cans for each unit, subject to city manager approval, and ensure that the development is in compliance with the approved trash management plan. Additionally, the owner will be required to post on the property prominent signage visible from the public way listing the property manager or management company and contact information. Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. Motion to amend by C. Hanson Thiem, seconded by M. McIntyre, to add a condition to require the accessory office/studio space have a dedicated use as bike parking and storage, and that this use be recorded with the County (similar to what is being required for the attic space), to meet the criteria in 9-2-15(f)(1) requiring reasonable measures to reduce or alleviate the effects of the nonconformity. Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. The board voted on the main motion made by C. Hanson Thiem, as amended with the additional conditions of approval noted above. Planning Board voted 5-1 (M. McIntyre dissenting, M. Robles absent). Motion passed.

Public Input Process Consistent with Section 9-4-3, “Public Notice Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981, staff provided notification to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject location of the application, and signs were posted by the applicant. Staff received comments from several neighbors as part of the Use Review process. Concerns were regarding existing

nuisance issues in the neighborhood and with previous tenants, neighborhood safety, the increased density of students in the neighborhood, investor-owned rental properties, traffic impacts, and broader housing policy questions for the City. Written public comments are included in the Staff Memorandum to the Planning Board, linked above. During the August 18, 2026 hearing, eleven people provided public testimony generally opposed to the project.

Analysis – Alignment with Relevant Portions of Boulder Revised Code The staff memorandum to Planning Board including the staff analysis and the applicant’s submittal materials are available on the Records Archive for the Planning Board. Review of this project is part of the P&DS team’s standard workplan and its impacts are incorporated into the approved 2026 budget. Therefore, review of the project will not have a meaningful fiscal impact to note.

Next Steps for City Council The City Council may call up the application. If the application is called up, the City Council will become the decision-maker on the application and will review it at a future public hearing. If the application is not called up, the Board’s decision is final.

Accessibility Statement The City of Boulder is committed to digital accessibility. Some content may not be fully accessible due to technical limitations or issues. For alternate formats or accommodations, please visit Accessibility | City of Boulder or contact accessibility@bouldercolorado.gov.

Attachments Attachment A: Applicant’s Plans and Written Statement Attachment B: Planning Board Notice of Disposition Attachment C: Draft Meeting Minutes