Design advisory board reviews 22-unit addition at 2717 Glenwood; neighbors raise parking and screening concerns

Sept. 10 — The City of Boulder Design Advisory Board met Sept. 10 by webinar to review a site‑plan application to add a 22‑unit, three‑story building on the parking lot at 2717 Glenwood, a proposal that would increase the property's total to 59 apartments while reducing vehicle parking and adding landscaped open space.

The review matters because the project sits at the edge of single‑family houses and a commercial strip near Safeway and other businesses; board members and nearby residents said changes to parking, trash placement and material choices could affect livability and neighbor relations. The board's recommendations are advisory; staff will incorporate them into the city's site‑review process and submit written comments to the applicant.

Shannon Moller, a planner with the City of Boulder planning department, told the board the proposal is before the Design Advisory Board because City Council referred it during concept review and staff found several site‑review criteria only partially satisfied. Applicant Michael Bosma, the property owner, and Bob Wilson of Kattus Collaborative Architecture presented the design. Bosma said he acquired the property six to seven years ago and has operated it as apartments; the proposal keeps the existing building and adds a separate structure on the oversized parking area.

"We kind of repurpose that parking lot and impervious surface into actual living space in a separate structure on the property," Bosma said, describing the project as an alternative to demolition and full replacement.

The design team said the new building would add 22 units to the existing 37, bringing the site total to 59 units. In the current plan the project would provide 43 vehicle parking spaces and long‑ and short‑term bike storage totaling 120 bike spots, where the site currently has no long‑term bike storage. The applicant also reported approximately 37% open space on the property and said the Paseo between the old and new buildings was widened during design review to about 15–16 feet to improve circulation and pedestrian comfort.

Public commenters raised concerns about parking and impacts on neighbors. Andy Wittenberg, who lives across the street, pressed the team on the planned reduction in vehicle parking and the taller three‑story mass, saying, "I'm concerned that in reducing so much parking that it's gonna impact our community." Emmy Rao, a resident on Arnett Street behind the property, said the existing lot is heavily used and that removing parking and adding a three‑story building would increase street parking pressure and affect property values. "I would like this to not move forward," Rao said during public comment.

Board members focused discussion on three recurring issues: (1) site layout, screening and landscape buffering; (2) ground‑floor transparency and the relationship between the new and existing buildings; and (3) material palette and detailing.

On site layout and operational elements, the board noted the applicant moved the trash and recycling into an enclosed, roofed unit but urged additional refinement. Board member Matthew (last name not given in the transcript) said the trash enclosure's current location sits adjacent to an existing stairwell and recommended the team explore moving it farther south to increase physical separation from resident entrances and reduce sight, smell and service‑vehicle impacts. Several board members endorsed that suggestion, and the board asked for a more detailed planting and screening plan along the west property line where parking backs up to neighboring yards.

The applicant noted the trash enclosure had been repositioned after earlier feedback and that the design team had created a recessed enclosure and planting buffer. Architect Bob Wilson said the raised Paseo and added plantings were intended to make the courtyard and circulation feel like usable, pleasant space rather than an alley.

On ground‑floor transparency and the public realm, staff had flagged a partial satisfaction of transparency metrics: commercial projects often aim for higher street‑level glazing, while residential projects allow lower glazing minimums for privacy. Board members said the proposal generally met the residential transparency intent for units that face the street and Paseo, but they urged modest improvements on the existing building's south facade so the two buildings read as a more coherent whole rather than as a new building juxtaposed to an untreated older building.

Material choices and massing prompted the most detailed critique. Several board members said the new building currently reads as visually inconsistent across elevations: each face of the building uses different materials and gestures, producing a disjointed look when the building should present a more restrained, cohesive character to Glenwood and the Paseo. Matthew said, "Every corner there's another presentation of new materials," and recommended the team simplify the palette and show how materials transition at inside corners in the next submittal. Bob Wilson said some stone accents and thin masonry walls on the new building were intended to reference the existing building's masonry elements, and he agreed the team should make that relationship more deliberate.

The board also reviewed rooftop mechanical screening and found the proposed central placement and screening adequate in principle but asked for detailed sections in the next submittal to demonstrate compliance with materials and visibility standards.

Discussion also covered landscaping features shown in the model: a rain garden/detention area east of the existing building, a small lawn or "games lawn," seating, bike barn and a dog‑wash amenity. The team confirmed a rain garden with informal seating and paths is planned and said they would add further detail on plantings and programming in the courtyard and along the Paseo in the next packet.

The Design Advisory Board concluded the project has several strong elements, including the widened Paseo, added open space and increased bike storage, but asked the applicant to return with refinements. The board's written recommendations will emphasize: relocating or further buffering the trash enclosure; adding deliberate, consistent material choices and clearer transitions between materials; increased planting and screening at the west property line and parking edges; and a more explicit design strategy tying the new building to the existing structure, including potential cosmetic upgrades to the existing building during permitting.

The applicant acknowledged the comments and said they will highlight the courtyard program and revise materials and details for the next review. Shannon Moller said staff will include DAB's feedback in the formal site‑review next submittal. The board chair, Bridal Ash, said the written summary of recommendations will be provided in the meeting minutes and mailed to the applicant.

The meeting ended with no formal, binding action on the project; the lone formal vote taken during the session was approval of the previous meeting's minutes. The Design Advisory Board's guidance is advisory and will be considered by planning staff as the application proceeds through site review.

The Design Advisory Board is scheduled to discuss board procedures and meeting structure at its next session; staff and board members said they plan to workshop meeting timing and process improvements before the board's next project reviews.

(For the record: project details reported during the meeting included 22 new units in a three‑story building, 37 existing units on site, 43 vehicle parking spaces shown in the current design, approximately 120 bicycle parking spaces planned, and about 37% open space. These figures were reported by the applicant and discussed on the record.)