Attachment C - 04.28.26 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES April 28, 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: Laura Kaplan, Chair (virtual) Claudia Hanson Thiem, Vice Chair Maxwell Lord Mason Roberts Ml Robles PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Kurt Nordback Mark McIntyre

RA

FT

STAFF PRESENT: Alison Blaine, City Planner Senior Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Thomas Remke, Senior Operations Specialist Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Deshawna Zazueta

1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, L. Kaplan, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted.

D

2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. Lynn Segal (Virtual)

3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS There were no call up items. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and consideration of a Site Review for the redevelopment of 777 Broadway with new residential uses. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing residential building and proposes 63 units including one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom units totaling 81,647 square feet. The proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for

55’ in height, modification to setbacks, and a solar access exception. Reviewed under case no. LUR2025-00014. Staff Presentation: Alison Blaine presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Alison Blaine answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Seth Sojka, Evan Bourff presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Seth Sojka, Evan Bourff, Curtis Stevens, Carol Adams presented the item to the board. Public Participation: In Person: Russ Chitwood Virtual: Lynn Segal Board Discussion: KEY ISSUE 1. Is the proposed project consistent with the Site Review Criteria, Subsection 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981?

FT

(01:25:20) Ml Robles believes that this application meets the site review criteria and applauded the applicant for the work shown here today, noting that it's come a long way from the concept review. She thinks the move to pedestrian access from Broadway is not only a logical move but also makes for a much better streetscape all around.

D

RA

(01:26:07) C. Hanson Thiem thinks this project is consistent with the BVCP land use map and policies. She thinks this is the kind of development that our guiding plans anticipate immediately adjacent to the CU campus. She also appreciated that this project leans into its location, its intended population, and existing transportation connections to further city goals around walkability and enhancing the pedestrian environment. In terms of the site design she appreciated the separation of car from bike and pedestrian access. She thinks that generally does encourage safety and encourage the kind of transportation mode shift we want to see here. She had some concerns about the access drive, noting that she listened to the discussion carefully and appreciated the clarifications, and she will not propose any conditions around that. She appreciated the attention to the quality and variety of open spaces on the site, in particular, the work done since concept review to buffer the entryway and create the courtyard on Broadway. She thinks the semi-open connection to the interior courtyard is another really important element of this design to get people moving around on ground level. She also appreciated how the design takes advantage of those BVSD fields to the south to create and extend views where they might not otherwise have existed. She had some concerns about the usability of the bocce courts, but noted that given the overall quantity of open space on site, she would consider them a bonus at this point. She understands the access constraints that exist and is not sure how she would address that. She thinks the requested setback modifications are sensible given the site and its surroundings. She appreciated the street trees on Broadway and thinks the requirements for height bonus are met with the ground-level courtyards. She

thinks that the requested solar access exception is also appropriate, and she appreciated the consultation with BVSD and the agreement that they've given. (01:28:44) M. Roberts agreed with everything from ML and Claudia. He believes this project meets site review criteria and will not be offering any amendments. He added that this was another example of a project that was greatly improved by additional feedback from DAB and from city staff. He stated that the building is, “Just a thousand times better than what we saw in concept review because of that process.” (01:29:30) M. Lord believes the project aligns with the review criteria and seconded a lot of what Claudia had to say. He admired the work done within immensely tight conditions, and recognized that this is a difficult architectural puzzle. He noted that he was not here for the concept plan, due to being the newest board member, but would agree that one can see the process coming along. He added that, ideally, we want things to follow the grade of the land, and the land grades downward, and the building does not.

RA

FT

(01:30:27) L. Kaplan agreed with everything her colleagues said. She thinks it meets the site review criteria. She agreed with Mason that the change from before DAB to after DAB is night and day and appreciated the applicant’s responsiveness to that feedback. She appreciated how they have broken up the massing in an interesting and aesthetically pleasing way that's very effective for this site, despite all of the constraints. Regarding the courtyard, she thinks that this project is a good example where the site constraints actually do not need to have all those things met in the exact same way in one courtyard on this space. She thinks they’ve done a good job with those two interconnected courtyards and the various ways of providing experiences for residents and visitors. She thinks the biggest issue with the site is how tight the shared access drive is, and recognized that is nobody's fault. She appreciated the applicants working with the neighbors to be a good neighbor. She noted that she doesn't love it when any applicant talks about sacrificing buildable area or sacrificing unit count, noting that these are the criteria that they have to meet, and nobody is guaranteed maximum unit count, or maximum FAR, or maximum buildable area. She noted that there are always trade-offs and appreciated that, in some ways, some things were reduced in order to achieve other goals, but she reinforced that she does not love that language.

D

(01:33:29) MOTION: C. Hanson Thiem made a motion seconded by M. Roberts to approve Site Review application #LUR2025-00014, 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 5-0. Motion passed.

6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Board Retreat Planning Check 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT

The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 7:42 PM. APPROVED BY Laura Kaplan ___________________ Board Chair

D

RA

FT

________________ DATE