Attachment C - Written Public Comment

Attachment C – Written Public Comment Written Public Comments LUR2026-00006

From: Mark S. Johnson To: Defoe, Julie Subject: Opposition to Proposed Vacation of Ponca Place Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 12:45:29 PM

Dear Julie, Thank you for your work as case manager on the proposed vacation of Ponca Place. I am writing as a resident of the Frasier Meadows neighborhood to express clear opposition to the removal of Ponca Place as a public street. I understand that public street vacations are rare in Boulder, and for good reason. Ponca Place serves an important function in our neighborhood—not just as a roadway, but as a contributor to connectivity, parking, and overall neighborhood flexibility. Converting it from a public street into a privately controlled space with only conditional access represents a meaningful and permanent loss of public benefit. The current proposal suggests that access will “usually” be allowed, but that is not equivalent to a public right-of-way. Over time, “usually” can easily become “selectively” or “restricted,” particularly as ownership and priorities evolve. Once a public street is vacated, that access is effectively gone for good. There are also practical, day-to-day impacts that appear to be underestimated. Ponca Place is consistently used for parking, and its removal will displace a meaningful number of vehicles into surrounding streets. Based on lived experience in the neighborhood, this impact is not reflected in the traffic and parking analysis. The result will likely be increased congestion, reduced safety, and additional strain on nearby streets that are already heavily used— particularly in conjunction with school-related traffic. Additionally, recent utility work associated with the project has already demonstrated how disruptive changes to this area can be. The extended traffic rerouting has created ongoing inconvenience for residents and offers a preview of how sensitive this part of the neighborhood is to circulation changes. More broadly, I would urge careful consideration of the precedent this sets. Vacating a public street to accommodate a private development—particularly when the benefit to the public is unclear—raises important questions about long-term planning priorities and stewardship of shared infrastructure. Finally, I want to note that while you may not have received a large volume of feedback specifically on the Ponca Place vacation, there is significant concern within the neighborhood about this issue. I expect that more residents will be reaching out as awareness increases. I respectfully ask that the proposed vacation of Ponca Place be reconsidered, and that the City prioritize preserving this public asset for the benefit of the broader community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mark S. Johnson -Mark S. Johnson Children’s Book Author & Visual Storyteller

Attachment C – Written Public Comment Explore my books: amazon.com/stores/Mark-S.-Johnson Digital Art & Photography: www.msjphotography.com 303-653-1933

From: marshamccl@icloud.com To: Council Cc: boulderplanningboard; Defoe, Julie Subject: Vacation of Ponca Place - LUR2026-00006 Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 5:35:40 PM

External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. I am strongly opposed to the vacation and sale of Ponca Place to Frasier Meadows Manor. That street is a vital access route for most of us in the nearby neighborhood. Especially during the drop off and pick up hours for Horizons K-8 school, which is a commuter school not a neighborhood school, Ponca Place is the only way to avoid the backed up traffic around the school on Pawnee, Sioux and Mohawk. The plan for the FMM expansion includes bollards in Ponca Place which will bar all use of that street once it is taken over despite what they have said to the neighbors. Ponca Place currently offers a safe street for bicyclists and pedestrians who want to avoid the busier thoroughfares of the other streets and to take a direct route home. To take our street and force us to take a less direct route to reach our homes is unfair. Please do not approve the vacation of Ponca Place. Marsha McClanahan Pawnee Drive

From: Elaine Halax-Winans To: Defoe, Julie Subject: Public street vacation Date: Thursday, March 26, 2026 5:57:53 PM

External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hi Julie, I’m writing as a concerned neighbor that lives on Sioux Dr near Ponca Place in Boulder, 80303. My spouse and I would like to voice a concern and opposition for vacation of Ponca Place. Ponca Place is a short street that we utilize frequently, in walking, driving and taking an electric scooter to get to & from the nearby park close to our home. I cannot imagine a public street being encapsulated with apartment high rises that will shadow the sidewalks as well as short term school parking. I fear for any fire emergency & limited access already on Sioux Dr. Please keep me informed of any public hearings, In gratitude for your time, Elaine Elaine.halwin@gmail.com 303-981-7142 Sent from my iPhone

From: Carolyn Martin To: Defoe, Julie Subject: Frasier Meadows Manor expansion comments Date: Sunday, April 5, 2026 12:03:54 PM

Hello Ms. Defoe, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed construction of high-rise apartments by Frasier Meadows Manor (FMM) in my neighborhood. My husband and I purchased our home at 4965 Ricara Drive in Boulder last year, after searching for a reasonably affordable single-family home with a yard for quite some time. As you know, Boulder home

Attachment C – Written Public Comment prices are extremely expensive, and our home was one of the most affordable. We love many aspects of it, not the least being the integration of our single-family neighborhood between the apartments further south off Thunderbird Dr. and the retirement residences further north. There is both an age and wealth gradient as you progress north from Table Mesa up Thunderbird Drive and thus, it is an interesting and equitable place to live. We love our backyard which offers privacy within the city, a rare commodity. The proposed expansion of FMM breaks many societal rules. It prioritizes development and the acquisition of wealth by any means possible, no matter how much collateral harm it causes. It proposes numerous building exceptions to rules that were previously codified to keep Boulder a preeminently livable city. It prioritizes housing the wealthy rather than housing the needy (the >$1 million move-in fee for FMM residents is astonishing). It proposes to change the skyline in our neighborhood, which will diminish the living experience of those of us in the small, single level homes that we love. And it proposes to demolish the goodwill and co-existence of the members of this diverse neighborhood. If the expansion of FMM is granted, many other developers will follow suit with proposed building exceptions. The Boulder City Council and Boulder Planning Board will be accused of bias if this expansion is approved but other developer’s proposals are denied. That could set off a domino effect, one that would change the very character of Boulder itself. I do not believe you want that to be your legacy. The default maximum building height of 35’ needs to be respected. Please do not allow FMM to build a monstrosity reaching 55’. Residents would be looking down into our backyard and our view of the skyline would be blocked. Approval of this project would render the categories of low, medium and high-density neighborhoods irrelevant. Setbacks from the curb are also essential for safety and should therefore remain at the established 75’. The requested exemptions to 18’ (along Ponca) and 25’ (along Sioux) are audacious. The proposed privatization of Ponca Place is also an extraordinary request from my standpoint. Has the city of Boulder sold public streets before and if so, why? For these reasons, I am requesting to be informed of any upcoming hearings, and am opposed to the FMM apartment expansion proposal. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Carolyn Martin 4965 Ricara Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 (563) 340-7069

From: Dea Lovy To: Defoe, Julie Subject: Privatization of Ponca Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 10:47:05 AM

Hi Julie, I wanted to follow up on my concerns re. the privatization of Ponca Drive. I remain concerned about: -No precedent for removal of a public street without support of the adjoining property owners -Proper egress for neighborhood residents in event of emergencies. Ponca and surrounding streets were significantly impacted in the 2013 flood, and public access is critical. -Community use of street parking, access to public park will be completely removed Can you confirm if Ponca privatization will be addressed in the late May council meeting? Are there any other public meetings I can be made aware of? I hope you have heard from additional community members recently. Thanks, Dea

Attachment C – Written Public Comment From: David W. Foster To: Van Schaack, Chandler Cc: Defoe, Julie Subject: Re: LUR2025-00056 (350 Ponca Pl.) Site Review Date: Thursday, May 14, 2026 10:02:49 PM Attachments: Outlook-e1mqgmip

Hi Chandler, Thanks for your reply. Can you tell me if the postponement of Planning Board public hearing for LUR2025-00056 was at the request of Planning Staff, Planning Board, City Council or the Applicants? Or maybe this is an acceleration of City Council's plan to consider the privatizing of Ponca Place? Also, are the many public comments regarding LUR2025-00056 shared with Julie Defoe? Since these issues are completely interrelated, it's very confusing to the public to know who to contact. My email today is primarily seeking information, but I want to go on record saying that, selling a public street to a private institution, by definition, cannot be in the public good. I'm told (correct if I'm wrong) that, somewhere within Boulder Municipal Code, it is legally required that any such "vacation" of public property must be in the public good. Ponca Place is fundamental to the flow of traffic in our access-limited neighborhood, especially during Horizons charter school drop-off and pick-up. Gridlock otherwise. The public needs Ponca Place, while the private institution merely wants it. The choice seems obvious. Thanks, David Foster 4790 Sioux Dr., Boulder

From: Dea Lovy <dea.molly.lovy@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 12:20 PM To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: Comments on LUR2025-00056 (Frasier Meadows Site Review) and LUR2026-00006 (Ponca Place Vacation)

External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hi,

Attachment C – Written Public Comment I live with my family at 4630 Sioux Drive and am writing about two related applications on the Board's August 25 agenda: the proposed vacation of Ponca Place (LUR2026-00006) and the Frasier Meadows expansion under site review (LUR2025-00056). I support thoughtful redevelopment of this site, but as proposed, neither application meets the City's own approval criteria. I'm asking the Board to adhere to the city's own requirements and require substantial revisions, or deny the requested vacation and height modification, until these problems are fixed and community feedback is solicited and incorporated. There is no point to city code if we do not hold business and private interest accountable. I. Ponca Place Vacation (LUR2026-00006) Boulder Revised Code 8-6-9 sets three mandatory criteria for vacating a public right-ofway, and the applicant has to meet all three. As proposed, this application doesn't meet any of them. 1. The right-of-way still serves a valid public purpose. Ponca Place and the surrounding streets provide public parking, pedestrian and bicycle access to the neighborhood park, and a second way out for residents in an emergency (floods and fires are a real concern in our neighborhood). Ponca and the adjoining streets were significantly impacted in the 2013 flood, when having more than one route out mattered. Removing this public street takes that away from everyone nearby, not just from Frasier's campus. The addition of occupants will only exacerbate this issue. 2. I understand the main may have already been relocated, but I'm asking the Board to confirm this on the record: that relocation is complete, not just planned, and that Public Works and Utilities have formally signed off before this criterion is treated as met. 3. Adjoining owner consent. City code requires that all owners of property adjacent to the right-of-way consent to and sign the vacation application. I'm asking the Board to state how many adjoining owners that are NOT FMM have signed on and how many haven't, and to treat anything short of unanimous consent as disqualifying, not as a formality to work around later. There is no precedent in this neighborhood for removing a public street over the objection of the people who live on or adjacent. Unless the applicant can show all three criteria are actually met, including documented, unanimous adjoining-owner consent and a resolved utility conflict, I'm asking that the vacation be denied. II. Frasier Meadows Site Review (LUR2025-00056) 1. The requested height doesn't fit the code allowance

Attachment C – Written Public Comment The proposal calls for a 55-foot, four-story building, 20 feet above Boulder's 35-foot base height limit in this zone. Under Site Review (BRC 9-2-14), height above the by-right limit is only available in narrow, specific circumstances: pitched-roof allowances up to 10 feet, documented topographic constraints, flood-elevation requirements, or developments where 40% or more of units are affordable, among a short list of others. Has FMM identified the provisions it's relying on? Is a market-rate luxury senior housing addition one of them. I'm asking the Board to require the applicant to identify, in writing, the specific code provision that justifies this height, and to reject the request if none clearly applies. Separately, the code requires that any building approved above the by-right height limit provide community benefits identified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, beyond what the underlying zoning already requires. I'm asking the Board to require a specific, itemized accounting of what community benefit is being offered in exchange for the added height. General value to the applicant's own project isn't a substitute for that. 2. Inadequate transition between RH-5 and RE zoning In addition to the height above the code limit, it is even more egregious due to the RH and RE transition. This site sits right at the interface between the higher-density RH-5 zoning of the Frasier campus and the low-density RE zoning of the adjoining neighborhood. RH-5 doesn't carry simple minimum yard setbacks the way many zones do. Transition to lowerdensity neighbors is instead controlled through the bulk-plane standards in BRC 9-7-9, which limit building mass based on distance from adjacent lower-density property lines, along with the Site Review compatibility criterion in 9-2-14. There is no consideration of this given on the setbacks (FMM has proposed the minimum allowed on the RE side, and significantly more on the park side) for the lower three stories to comply where the building sits closest to RE-zoned lots. I'm asking the Board to require: • • •

A published bulk-plane analysis under 9-7-9 specific to the RE-adjacent property line, not just the single fourth-floor step-back Increased setbacks and/or additional step-backs on the lower stories closest to neighboring RE zone. FMM can move closer to park side. Enhanced buffering and landscaping at the edge. Note we do not just want this consolation- it would not be enough.

3. Flood risk and site history Part of the existing Frasier campus is already within the mapped floodplain, and 355 Ponca Place experienced real flood impacts in 2013 regardless of current mapped boundaries. The proposal includes two levels of underground parking, built through excavation that will likely require blasting and will generate roughly a thousand truck loads of excavated soil moving through residential streets over an estimated two-year construction period. Given this history, I'm asking the City to require, before any approval:

Attachment C – Written Public Comment • • •

A detailed drainage and hydraulic analysis A clear demonstration of no adverse drainage or runoff impact to neighboring properties, including cumulative effects of grading and added impermeable surface Independent review of blasting and excavation impacts on nearby foundations and groundwater. Our home had significant flood damage in 2013 requiring additional foundational mitigation. We need to know our home will be safe.

4. Traffic and safety on neighborhood streets Sioux Drive is a designated bike route and safe-route-to-school corridor for Horizons K-8 and Manhattan Middle School. The proposed construction traffic shouldn't route through Sioux Drive- and if Pawnee is privatized- this will be even worse. I'm asking the Board to require a binding commitment, not just a stated intention, on the final garage access location, plus a real Transportation Demand Management plan given the hundreds of additional vehicles this project would add to the area. I'm not opposed to Frasier continuing to serve Boulder's senior community, and I understand the need for more senior housing in this city. But this proposal should be held to the same standards every other applicant is held to: demonstrated compliance with the narrow height-modification criteria, a genuine transition to the adjoining low-density neighborhood, resolved flood and drainage risk, and, for the Ponca Place vacation, documented adjacent property consent and a resolved utility conflict, as the code requires. Without that, I respectfully ask the Board to require substantial revisions and to deny the requested height modification and street vacation. Thank you, Dea

-Dea Lovy Johns Hopkins University M.S. Engineering Management 2011 B.S. Materials Science & Engineering 2010