02.21.23 PB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
February 21, 2023
Virtual Meeting
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape 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:
Jorge Boone
John Gerstle, Chair
Laura Kaplan
Mark McIntyre
ml Robles
Lisa Smith
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Sarah Silver
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director
Charles Ferro, Planning Senior Manager
Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney
Devin Saunders, Board Specialist
Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, Planning Engagement Strategist
Shannon Moeller, Principal City Planner
Chandler Van Schaack, Principal Planner
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, J. Gerstle, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
a) Lynn Segal
3. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS
A. CALL UP ITEM: Final Plat to subdivide the property at 2675 3rd Street to facilitate donation of
an outlot to the City of Boulder for maintenance of the Dakota Ridge trail (Trailhead Subdivision
Replat A, case no. TEC2021-00021). The subdivision is consistent with approved Site Review
#LUR2012-00040. This application is subject to potential call-up on or before Feb. 21, 2023.
This item was not called up.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. AGENDA TITLE: Concept Plan Review and Comment Request for a proposal to redevelop
5675 Arapahoe with two new three-story buildings for technical office/ research and
development uses totaling approximately 200,000 square feet in floor area at a height of
approximately 45 feet and with subterranean parking. Reviewed under case no. LUR2022-
00040.
Staff Presentation:
C. Ferro introduced the item.
C. Van Schaack presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
C. Van Schaack answered questions from the board.
Applicant Presentation:
A. Johnson & F. Flippen presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
A. Johnson & F. Flippen answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
1) Lynn Segal
Board Comments:
Key Issue #1: Is the proposed concept plan preliminarily consistent with the goals, objectives, and
recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)?
J. Boone noted struggling with this because this site is almost entirely by right and this is the posterchild
for improper policy in Boulder. He noted that this development will increase in-commuting and could
have a drastic impact on the surrounding housing stock.
ml Robles concurred with J. Boone that the city’s policies led to this conclusion and is the exact thing
we do not want, the in-commuting of over 500 cars with no place to live. She also noted concerns with
the wetland, the ditch and is not assured that this is a sustainable urban forum. An additional concern is
the total glass building with no sun mitigation.
L. Smith agreed with the concerns raised by both ml Robles & J. Boone. However, she noted that she
believed that at face value, this does preliminarily meet the goals and objectives with the BVCP.
L. Kaplan noted that this is preliminarily consistent with the BVCP. She appreciated her colleagues’
comments on the concerns raised. She also noted that this area was intentionally left as industrial use
and is not an identified area of change.
M. McIntyre noted that in concept, this application is consistent with the BVCP. However, he also
noted that this concept review is difficult to weigh against certain BVCP values due to this presentation
not addressing key issues.
J. Gerstle noted that the concerns raised above are excellent and need to be addressed in the future. He
did note that this project does check the boxes for the quantitative elements of the BVCP.
Key Issue #2: Does Planning Board have feedback on the proposed site plan and architecture?
L. Kaplan noted that the floodplain analysis will be vital to understand the impacts on the underground
parking and encouraged the applicant to come back with a robust TDM plan. She noted that she
believes staff will work with the applicant to express their shared expectations.
ml Robles noted concerns regarding the underground parking and its relation to the wetland. She also
noted concerns over the in-commuters and the traffic impacts on the surrounding area. Finally, she noted
that she does not believe this building in its current form matches the sustainable urban form definitions
in the BVCP.
J. Gerstle noted concerns over the underground garages and their impacts on the nearby wetlands. He
hopes that the applicant will be able to show in detail how the wetlands will be preserved. He also noted
that now that the city has the responsibility for Dry Creek No 2 Ditch, he hopes the city pays special
attention that Dry Creek No 2 Ditch is not negatively impacted with his project.
M. McIntyre noted that the current city code allows for flexibility and a lot of Board input. He
mentioned that the absence of a robust TDM plan is a concern and the architecture of the building itself
does not fulfill the encouragement staff is giving to enhance design and architecture.
J. Boone noted agreeing entirely with M. McIntyre’s comments and appreciated ml Robles’ comments
on the underground parking and the impact on the surrounding wetland and underground podium.
L. Smith agreed with her colleagues and hopes the applicant comes back with detailed evidence of
sustainability, landscaping and a robust TDM plan.
6. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
L. Kaplan provided an update on the Boulder Airport Community Conversation.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m.
APPROVED BY
___________________
Board Chair
4/18/2023___________________
DATE