Item 3A - 03.21.23 Draft Planning Board Minutes EDITS
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
March 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
Sarah Silver
Lisa Smith
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director
Charles Ferro, Planning Senior Manager
Laurel Witt, Assistant City Attorney
Devin Saunders, Board Specialist
Amanda Cusworth, Internal Operations & Board Support Manager
Chandler Van Schaack, Principal City Planner
Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, Planning Engagement Specialist
Sloane Walbert, Housing Program Manager
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, J. Gerstle, declared a quorum at 6:02 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
a) Lynn Segal
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by M. McIntyre and seconded by ml Robles, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve
the December 20, 2023 minutes as submitted.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS
A. CALL UP ITEM: Final Plat to subdivide of a 25,837 square foot property into two (2) single-family
residential lots of 12,684 square feet and 13,153 square feet.
B. CALL UP ITEM: Site Review Amendment to amend the Summer Sun PUD to reduce the front
setback for a detached accessory building from 55' to 38' at 1401 Quince Ave.
C. CALL UP ITEM: Nonconforming Use Review to allow for replacement of an existing 36 square foot
deck and stairway on the north side of a nonconforming duplex at 919 Lincoln Pl. with a new, 69 square
foot deck and stairway.
These items were not called up
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. AGENDA TITLE: Concept Plan Review and Comment for a proposed redevelopment of
4401 Broadway with a 107,250-sf mixed-use project to include housing, retail, light industrial
and art studio space, community green space, and a new home for the Boulder Museum of
Contemporary Art. The proposed project consists of approximately 17,000 sf of museum
space, 17,500 sf of at grade storefront commercial space, and 72,750 sf of residential space,
split between 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and live/work units, with 96 parking spaces provided
(29% reduction). Reviewed under case no. LUR2022-00046.
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:
D. Powell, A. Ghadimi, D. Dadone and jv Desousa presented the item to the board
Board Questions:
D. Powell, A. Ghadimi, D. Dadone and jv Desousa answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
1) Michael Moore
2) Wolfgang Reitz
3) David Ensign
4) Heather Schulte
5) Lynn Segal
6) Jerry Shapins
7) Ben Myers
8) Ana Maria Hernando
9) Chris Barge
10) Andrew Pryer
11) Macon Cowles
Board Comments:
Key Issue #1: Would Planning Board support either changes to the MU-2 Use Standards or a
Potential Rezoning of the MU-2 portion of the site to allow for the proposed museum use?
S. Silver noted that this proposal constituted spot zoning and that is illegal in Colorado.
L. Kaplan agreed with S. Silver that use tables should not be changed for one project. She noted that
some changes to make this project viable is useful. She is supportive of looking at rezoning if the use
table review does not result in allowing museums in MU2.
ml Robles does not support policy changes without a guiding light. She noted that the north boulder
subcommunity plan should be updated for this site so it has a proper guide and serves a bigger purpose
than only one project.
J. Boone agreed with ml Robles that updating the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan would be the
prudent thing to do in this. His concerns around rezoning surrounded waiting for the use table review.
J. Gerstle noted that an update to the subcommunity plan is essential in moving forward with this issue.
M. McIntyre noted that the BVCP is current and this project answers and fulfills many of the set
stances of the BVCP and supports the option set forth by the case manager.
L. Kaplan supports the case manager’s suggestion of a focused approach to the North Boulder
Subcommunity plan for this project.
Key Issue #2: Considering BVCP and NBSP goals and policies, would Planning Board support a
Land Use Map Change and/or Rezoning to one or both portions of the site in order to allow
for the proposed residential density/ intensity?
M. McIntyre agreed and would support this change.
ml Robles recognized that this is a big cost to the city staff and all involved. She noted that there should
be a significant benefit for the city. One option she provided could be for sale units rather than rent for
housing stability. She also noted that this project should have significant environmental sustainability
goals.
J. Boone noted that this is really two separate land uses, and is generally supportive of everything going
into this project. However, he noted that the area of the project on Violet and 10th would have to be
rezoned to RH5 or RH6, and without some affordable component on site, it does not seem to be a
worthwhile benefit for the city.
S. Silver noted that this question will be driven by the review of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan.
L. Kaplan noted that she does not know which zoning would be best from among the options proposed
by staff, but noted that the density in this area has increased and that the applicant’s vision is aligned
with the vision for the NoBo Arts District and has a lot of community support. She is supportive at
looking at rezoning during site review.
J. Gerstle would support this after reviewing the North Boulder subcommittee plan.
Key Issue #3: Does the Planning Board feel that on balance, this project is consistent with the
goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan?
M. McIntyre agreed that this is consistent with the BVCP.
ml Robles noted that it could go wither way since it is so early in the process.
L. Kaplan noted that at this point it seems like it does meet the objectives of the BVCP on balance but
she hopes that the applicant addresses some of the policies pointed out by staff on page 81 of the packet.
J. Boone agreed with ml Robles that it could go either way.
L. Smith also agreed that it is hard to answer this question with the limitations as of now.
J. Gerstle agreed with his colleagues regarding this question.
S. Silver agreed w ml Robles and L. Kaplan on their comments.
Key Issue #4: Does the Planning Board have feedback to the applicant on the conceptual site plan
and architecture?
ml Robles recommended to keep the access to Broadway open. She noted that it does not seems like a
transition at this time regarding height scale. She appreciated the open space concept and appreciates
where the site plan has landed.
M. McIntyre noted that this is an example of an applicant using an outdated TDM toolkit and
encourages the applicant for a robust and intentional TDM plan for this site.
L. Smith left the meeting at 11:01pm
L. Kaplan generally agreed with ml Robles and believes the applicant’s design makes sense as a
gateway to the art district. She will be looking for the applicant to explain how it functions as a creative
campus, how they will work with their neighbor to the west on access, disability access, and how the
open space areas will be programmed. She agreed with M. McIntyre’s comments about creating
architectural interest.
J. Boone agreed with his colleagues but believes the developer needs to address the neighbors in the
Broadway area as the developer seems to have created a situation for themselves regarding accessibility.
S. Silver noted that this project is not only a gateway to the arts district, but also a gateway to the south
and encouraged the applicant to address the south wall. She also encouraged incorporating more
greenery (trees, grasses, etc.) so it is not only an area of glass walls.
6. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
A. L. Kaplan noted that there is a movement to create a historic district along the Civic
Center Park area, and that staff will likely be reaching out with some more information.
B. L. Kaplan discussed her work on the Airport Community Group and expressed her
concerns with the current options and lack of conversation for including housing as an
option to consider for the future of the airport site. She proposed that the Planning Board
provide a written declaration of support for city staff and consultants to provide a housing
scenario and a hybrid housing/airport scenario in the set of scenarios that will be vetted
with the public. L. Kaplan will work with S. Silver to draft a potential letter for a matters
item for next meeting.
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m.
APPROVED BY
___________________
Board Chair
___________________
DATE