Item 3A - Approval of 07.11.23 PB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
July 11, 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
Kurt Nordback
Laura Kaplan
Mark McIntyre
Sarah Silver, Chair
Lisa Smith
ml Robles
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director
Charles Ferro, Planning Senior Manager
Devin Saunders, Board Specialist
Shannon Moeller, Planning Manager
Laurel Witt, Assistant City Attorney
Michelle Allen, Inclusionary Housing Manager
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair, S. Silver declared a quorum at 6:03 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1.Lynn Segal
3.DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS
A.CONTINUATION: Continuation of Planning Board’s consideration of a Site and Use Review to
redevelop the property at 1345 28th St. with three 4-story buildings containing 303 student
housing residential apartments in a mix of studio, one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom
configurations within the Business - Transitional 1 (BT-1) zoning district. The proposal involves
a modification to allow four-story buildings, approximately 53-feet in height where a maximum
of three-stories and 35-feet in height is permitted by-right, a 52.2% vehicle parking reduction to
allow for 348 parking spaces where 728 are required, a Use Review for a residential use on the
Item 3A - Approval of 07.11.23 PB Minutes
ground floor, and an amendment to the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) Transportation
Connections Plan. Reviewed under case no. LUR2022-00021
Applicant’s Presentation:
D. Powell, representing the applicant, presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
D.Powell, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board.
Staff Questions:
L. Witt, C. Ferro, S. Moeller answered questions from the board.
7:08:03 PM
Board Discussion:
ml Robles noted that this is part of the Boulder Valley Regional Center, and she did not
understand why this project met the significant designation to the plan and was not sure why
there has not been a discussion on the center’s role in the project.
K. Nordback felt that the concept was appropriate with an appropriate location with a
significant amount of needed student housing. He believed that this development could help
alleviate pressure from surrounding neighborhoods. He noted that he was not too fond of the
design but recognized it is limited by the floodplain. He believed the parking reduction was
appropriate and would like to see a study on parking utilization of the students to understand if
this type of parking reduction is a good long-term strategy. He felt that the BVCP has been met,
and the proposed first floor residential use is justified given there is a large setback and lack of
walkability along 28th Street. He noted that his condition relates to direct access of 28th Street,
which he does not believe is consistent with B.R.C. 9-9-5(c). He proposed that direct access to
28th Street be eliminated from the site plan. He noted that although a variance was given, he finds
it to be not consistent with BVCP 6.01, 6.02, 6.05, 6.08 & 6.09.
J. Boone thought that overall student housing is an appropriate use for this space and is
desperately needed in the city. He struggled with the max height limit & noted that the city will
need to pay attention to the structure as it will change over time. He also was hesitant about the
car reduction in the lease agreement as it would be unenforceable. He believed that cars would
end up in neighborhoods and will therefore put more pressure on residential streets.
L. Kaplan agreed with K. Nordback regarding the use of site and felt that it is not a good use of
commercial space due to the limited access via 28th Street and the flood issues. She also noted
that the step downs to the creek do provide a transition zone, which needs to be located within
the BVRC. Finally, she encouraged her colleagues who are concerned about students parking
off-site to consider where exactly the students could park their cars without getting booted,
ticketed, or towed since there is no free street parking nearby.
L. Smith did not find the height request compelling and wished there was more mixed
use/traditional use built into the building. She expressed concern and frustration that CU does not
properly supply student housing directly. She appreciated the efforts to adaptive reuse, but also
did express concern regarding the design. Finally, she also expressed concerns on the parking
and is concerned on where the students would park their car.
M. McIntyre concurred with K. Nordback that in general, this fulfills many aspects of the
BVCP and the need for student housing that the community needs. He noted that the BVRC has
Item 3A - Approval of 07.11.23 PB Minutes
language to include attractive and bike friendly areas with high density areas. He was not
concerned with the parking as the parking control in Boulder is strong and efficient. His main
concerns relied on the public/private use of the open space on the south end of the project site.
S. Silver agreed with J. Boone regarding the lack of alignment on the parking & height
variances. She noted the 52% parking reduction is quite rare & extreme for this development and
noted it would be a mistake to allow a dense development to not provide adequate parking. She
believes the project does not meet the BVCP 9-9-6 requirements and that the TDM plan is
inadequate. Finally, she agreed with L. Smith that it is not appropriate for CU to pass housing
onto the city.
Discussion on possible conditions of approval:
By a vote of 3-4 (S. Silver, L. Smith, J. Boone, ml Robles nay), Planning Board rejected a
motion made by L. Kaplan and seconded by M. McIntyre to approve Site and Use Review
application #LUR2022-00021 and the proposed amendment to the BVRC Transportation
Connections Plan, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached
analysis of review criteria.
By a vote of 3-4 (S. Silver, L. Smith, J. Boone, ml Robles nay), Planning Board rejected a
motion by L. Kaplan and seconded by M. McIntyre to approve Site and Use Review application
#LUR2022-00021 and the proposed amendment to the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan,
adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review
criteria based on the following condition:
By a vote of 2-5 (L. Smith, ml Robles, M. McIntyre, L. Kaplan, K. Nordback nay),
Planning Board rejected a motion to amend by S. Silver, and seconded by J. Boone,
adding the condition of allowing 348 parking spots but require the applicant to reduce the
mass and scale of building until the parking spots are equivalent to 30-35% parking
reduction, relative to the number of dwelling units per code regulations.
On a motion by S. Silver and seconded by L. Kaplan, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to hold a
special meeting on August 8th, 2023.
On a motion to continue by S. Silver and seconded by K. Nordback, the Planning Board voted
7-0 to continue Site and Use Review application #LUR2022-00021 and the proposed amendment
to the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of
fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, to the August 8th 2023 Special Meeting.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. AGENDA TITLE: There are no public hearing items.
6. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
Item 3A - Approval of 07.11.23 PB Minutes
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
APPROVED BY
___________________
Board Chair
DATE
Item 3A - Approval of 07.11.23 PB Minutes