02.20.24 PB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
February 20, 2024
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
Laura Kaplan
Mark McIntyre
ml Robles
Sarah Silver, Chair
Kurt Nordback
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
No board members were absent.
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Mueller, Director Planning & Development Services
Charles Ferro, Planning Senior Manager
Laurel Witt, Assistant City Attorney
Amanda Cusworth, Internal Operations and Board Support Manager
Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, Planning Engagement Strategist
Chandler Van Schaack, Principal Planner
Lisa Houde, Senior Planner
Shannon Moeller, Planning Manager
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, S. Silver, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In Person:
1) Fran Sheets
2) Patrick O’Rourke
3) Kathryn Barth
Virtual:
1) Scott Holwick
2) Lynn Segal
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A) The Planning Board minutes from January 16th, 2024 are set for approval.
On a motion by K. Nordback seconded by L. Kaplan, the Planning Board voted to approve the
January 16th, 2024 meeting minutes.
B) The Planning Board minutes from January 23rd, 2024 are set for approval.
On a motion by K. Nordback seconded by L. Kaplan, the Planning Board voted to approve the
January 23rd, 2024 meeting minutes.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS
5. CALL UP ITEM: 5900 BLK Arapahoe Ave. Floodplain Development Permit (FLD2023-
00026): Floodplain development permit application for the replacement of the Arapahoe Ave
pedestrian bridge over South Boulder Creek by the City of Boulder Public Works. The call up
period expires on February 26th, 2024.
The item was not called up.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
6. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
A. MATTERS: Proposed Civic Area Historic District
Staff Presentation:
M. Gerwing introduced the item and presented to the board.
Board Questions:
M. Gerwing answered questions from the board.
Board Discussion:
M. McIntyre stated there will be land use implications due to the nature of creating historic districts and
imposing design guidelines, but he believes that benefits to the community outweigh the potential
drawbacks.
K. Nordback believes there are some land use implications and advised City Council to proceed with
caution, as it may make it difficult to achieve the city’s broader goals.
ml Robles stated that there are no land use implications with the project relative to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Planning and zoning policy. She also urged that staff incorporate the history of the
working population and the indigenous people that once occupied the land.
S. Silver suggested expanding the boundary to include Block 11 to ensure that the Actionable Equity
Lens is applied throughout the entire area.
J. Boone agreed with statements made by his colleagues, including S. Silver’s comments about
expanding the area to include Block 11.
L. Kaplan believes that the district poses significant potential land use implications. She commended
staff members for their hard work that has gone into the project so far and noted that the history of the
area should continue to be told regardless of historic designation status. She also recommended that City
Council look carefully at the design guidelines and which features would be preserved under the
ordinance. e.g. topography, lawns, viewsheds, configuration of pathways and trees. The Landmarks
Board will diligently seek to preserve and protect such features into the future, which will complicate
any proposed changes or additions to the park that could affect those features. She supported the
PRAB’s comment that they did not want historic designation to stand in the way of the park improving.
B. MATTERS: Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity
Plan: Zoning Update
Staff Presentation:
K. King presented the item to the board.
Board Questions: K. King and Laurel Witt answered questions from the board.
Board Discussion:
Key Issue #1: Does Planning Board support the proposed use table modifications?
S. Silver suggested creating tools that might drive a developer to act in accordance with the intended
vision of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Sarah stated that this process needs stronger controls to
get more residential use in these zones.
L. Kaplan thanked staff for their thoroughness and generally supported the recommendations made by
staff. She noted that there may have been more pushback on the adoption of the East Boulder
Subcommunity Plan if the Plan had tried to mandate residential development in that area rather than
allowing for flexibility of uses. She hoped for creative solutions that would encourage more residential
construction in Flatirons Business Park.
J. Boone was generally in agreement with Laura’s statements, especially relative to Flatirons Business
Park. J. Boone was in support of the proposed modifications except for the IMS office increase.
Ml Robles expressed that she has no concerns with what is being proposed. She mentioned that the city
needs to find a way to ensure that the place types they are approving can be spoken to with form-based
code in order to realize the vision of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan.
K. Nordback supported the proposal, and he supported not adding new zones. He agreed with ml’s
ideas about proportionality between office/non-residential uses and residential uses. He provided
specific comments and recommendations to staff, including:
MU-2/MU-4
• Allow “Club or lodge” (allowed in MU-4)
• Allow “Private college or university”
• Allow “Home daycare”
• Allow “Business support service” (allowed with standards in MU-4)
• Allow “Neighborhood business center”
• Prohibit “Principal parking facility”
• Prohibit "Fuel service station" (prohibited in MU-2; allowed with UR in MU-4)
IG/IMS
• Allow “Club or lodge”
• Allow “Religious assembly”
• Allow “Home daycare”
• Allow “Financial institution”
• Allow “Administrative office” (allowed in IG)
• Allow “Medical office” (conditionally allowed in IG)
• Allow “Neighborhood business center”
M. McIntyre does not think the city needs to add any additional zones, but rather simplify and clarify
the existing zones, and noted that the current zones have many inconsistencies, are overly restrictive and
complex, and generally the city puts too fine a point on uses allowed within zones. He cited several
examples. He also expressed opposition to mandating proportions for usage within zones, which would
create a race within zones for developers to acquire the most desired uses, leaving later developers with
only the option to build the leftover and less desired uses.
C. MATTERS: Letter to City Council Discussion
L. Kaplan and K. Nordback agreed to co-author the letter.
The Planning Board planned their approach to the letter and discussed a variety of desired work plan
items to recommend to City Council.
ml Robles suggested adding taking a holistic look at carbon reduction to the talking points of the letter.
D. MATTERS: Appointing a Vice Chair
On a motion by M McIntyre seconded by L. Kaplan, the Planning Board voted 6-0 to appoint J.
Boone to the position of Vice Chair.
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
APPROVED BY
____________
Board Chair
_______________04/02/2024____
DATE