Call-Up Agenda Memo

City of Boulder City Council Call-Up Agenda Item Meeting Date: November 6, 2025 Agenda Title 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 a setback, number of stories, and bike parking standards. The applicant has requested Vested Rights. Reviewed under case no. LUR2024-00077 and LUR2024-00078.

Staff Contact • •

Alison Blaine, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Brad Mueller, Director, Planning & Development Services

Executive Summary The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider whether to call up the Planning Board’s decision on an application for a Site Review to redevelop a site with residential uses. On October 7, 2025, the Planning Board held a public hearing and voted 6-0 (J. Boone absent) to approve the application with conditions. The Planning Board decision is subject to a 30-day City Council call up period, which concludes on November 6, 2025. City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its meeting on November 6, 2025. The staff memorandum to Planning Board and the applicant’s submittal materials along with other related background materials are available on the Records Archive for the Planning Board Part 1 and Part 2. The recorded video from the hearing can be found

here (item begins at 1:12:00). The applicant’s plan set and written statement is provided in Attachment A. The Applicant has requested vested rights for site and building design for three years, according to the provisions in 9-2-20, B.R.C

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 Site Review and Use Review applications #LUR202400077 and #LUR2024-00078. 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. If council does not call up the item, the decision of the lower body stands.

Planning Board History At the public hearing on October 7, 2025, the Planning Board held a quasi-judicial hearing to review the proposed Site Review and Use Review applications for the development of a residential development. Following staff and application presentations and a public hearing, K. Norback made a motion seconded by L. Kaplan to approve the applications. Four amendments to the staff recommended conditions of approval were proposed by the applicant at the hearing for Planning Board consideration. The first amendment proposed by the applicant was for an added condition of approval regarding bike parking electrification. On a motion by K. Nordback and seconded by M. McIntyre, the Planning Board voted 6-0 (J. Boone absent) 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%. The motion passed. The second amendment proposed by the applicant was to provide a reservation for the northern multi-use path instead of a public access easement. The proposed amended condition was not supported by staff. On a motion by M. Roberts and seconded by C. Hanson Thiem, the Planning Board voted 0-6 (J. Boone absent) 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. Following further Board discussion on the proposed amendment, the motion failed. The third amendment proposed by the applicant was to change the timing requirement to secure a financial guarantee for EcoPasses from “prior to issuance of any building permit” to “prior to Certificate of Occupancy.” The proposed amended condition was not supported by staff and was not considered by Planning Board. The fourth amendment proposed by the applicant was to change the timing requirement for public improvements along Folsom Street to avoid damage to the improvements as a result of building construction. On a motion by K. Nordback and seconded by L. Kaplan, the Planning Board voted 6-0 (J. Boone absent) that public improvements will be completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy. The motion passed. Planning Board then proposed two additional conditions of approval. On a motion by L. Kaplan and seconded by ml Robles, the Planning Board voted 0-6 (J. Boone absent) 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. Following further Board discussion on the proposed amendment, the motion failed. On a motion by K. Nordback and seconded by M. McIntyre, the Planning Board voted 60 (J. Boone absent) that plans will be revised to show a curb cut for the north-side multiuse path at Folsom Street. The motion passed. The Planning Board Disposition can be found in Attachment B. Refer to Attachment C for the draft meeting minutes from the Planning Board meeting.

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 Site Review process. Concerns were regarding the proposed height and construction and traffic impacts. Written public comments are included in the Staff Memorandum to the Planning Board, linked above. During the October 7, 2025 hearing seven public testimonies were provided. Four testimonies supported the project and three did not support.

Analysis – Alignment with Relevant Portions of Boulder Revised Code The staff memorandum to Planning Board that includes staff analysis and the applicant’s submittal materials are available on the Records Archive for the Planning Board.

Next Steps for City Council The City Council may call up the application. If the application is called up, the City Council will be the decision-maker on the application and will review it at a future public meeting. 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 (link): Applicant’s Plans and Written Statement Attachment B: Planning Board Notice of Disposition Attachment C: Draft Meeting Minutes