Planning board approves mixed‑use redevelopment at 2952 Basline Road: 427 homes, 58,000 sq ft commercial

Planning board members voted 6‑1 on Sept. 30 to approve site and use review for a mixed‑use redevelopment at 2952 Baseline Road that would replace most of the existing auto‑oriented shopping center with five new buildings containing up to 427 dwelling units (122 designated student units) and about 58,365 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space. The board adopted staff’s findings and added conditions requiring a programmatic ground‑level open space element and enhanced bicycle electrification and cargo‑bike accommodations to be verified at technical‑document review.

The approval comes after a lengthy public hearing and follow‑on discussion in which staff, the applicant and the board hashed through vehicle access, flood and drainage concerns, retail viability and details of building massing and public‑realm design. Chandler, senior planner for the project, told the board that “staff finds the proposed project to be consistent with both the underlying land use designation, as well as the neighborhood center designation,” and that the design met the additional site‑review criteria for requests up to 55 feet in height.

The project site totals about 9.86 acres; the application covers roughly 7.96 acres of that parcel. The developer, led by Morgan Creek Ventures, and architect Coburn (Coburn Architecture) presented a plan with five new buildings placed to create a central pedestrian plaza and a Woonerf‑style internal drive. The proposal retains the nearby Broker Inn and an adjacent parking area while removing most surface parking and providing structured parking: the applicant’s plan shows 637 vehicle parking spaces (521 new garage spaces, 13 short‑term on‑street spaces and 103 existing Broker Inn spaces to remain) and expanded bicycle parking. Applicant representatives described the design approach as intentionally pedestrian‑oriented, aimed at creating an active neighborhood center where residents, students and shoppers can gather.

The redevelopment would reduce the number of vehicular curb cuts to four, add multi‑use pedestrian/cycle connections between the U.S. 36 and Baseline multiuse paths, and relocate most parking into wrapped parking structures to conceal vehicles from public view. The tallest new buildings would reach up to 55 feet along U.S. 36; the tallest massing is placed on the northwest end of the site to act as a buffer to the highway. The applicant said the project would be all‑electric; during the hearing the developer noted a commitment to lower‑carbon construction with two smaller “jewel” buildings proposed using cross‑laminated timber (CLT).

Public comments were mixed but generally supportive of adding housing near campus and transit. Several residents from the Greenbelt Meadows / Martin Acres neighborhoods spoke at length during the hearing about longstanding groundwater and drainage problems; they urged the board and city staff to require robust and enforceable flood mitigation and drainage measures in subsequent engineering review. Neighbors also asked for assurances that construction phasing would minimize disruption and that retail (including the proposed grocery) would be preserved or restored promptly. A neighborhood resident told the board, “This development will help ease this demand,” referring to pressure on local housing, while others pressed for guarantees on drainage and long‑term retail occupancy.

Board deliberations highlighted two lines of concern that shaped conditions. One set of board members emphasized that the site’s location — adjacent to Williams Village, near transit and campus — made increased density appropriate and consistent with Boulder Valley Comp Plan neighborhood‑center and sustainable‑urban‑form policies. Several members said the design substantially improved since concept review, praising the central plaza, the mix of unit types and the applicant’s efforts to retain or re‑establish local businesses such as Sprouts. Other board members, while supporting the approvals, raised a cautionary note about retail viability: they sought assurances that the proposal would not deliver housing first and leave an inactive or vacant ground floor for an extended period. The Planning Board has authority to call up site‑review approvals to city council; staff reminded the board that council may also review this decision.

The final motion approved the staff recommendation with two board‑led additions: (1) a condition requiring the applicant to provide an active, ground‑level programmatic open‑space element (examples listed in the condition included a playground, play area, community garden or dog park) sized and located to the satisfaction of staff at the technical documentation stage; and (2) enhanced long‑term bicycle electrification and cargo‑bike accommodations: the applicant was required to add additional electrified long‑term bike charging beyond the code minimum (board direction specified additional electrified spaces above the 5% required by code, and allowed staff flexibility at tech‑doc review to determine precise counts and configuration). The board also asked staff and the applicant to pursue more bike‑ and pedestrian‑oriented refinements in tech docs (signage, traffic calming on the internal Woonerf, and secure cargo‑bike storage locations). The board discussed, but did not adopt, requirements that would force commercial occupancy sequencing (for example, requiring commercial COs before residential COs); staff and the city attorney explained the city’s limited authority to require specific tenants or timelines but committed to reviewing options for incentives and lease mechanisms for future projects.

Next steps: the approval is subject to technical‑document review and conditions to be verified at that stage; the final plat, subdivision and building permits must follow and the project remains subject to city engineering review of drainage, stormwater conveyance and public‑works easements. Planning board members and several speakers noted the project remains subject to a possible council call‑up after the board’s action. The applicant said it expects a multi‑phase construction schedule (student housing first, then the larger mixed‑use blocks) and indicated continued outreach to existing tenants (including Sprouts and others) to minimize business disruption.

The redevelopment marks a significant example in Boulder of replacing surface parking and a low‑density shopping center with a higher‑density, transit‑adjacent neighborhood center. The board’s additional conditions on active public uses and bicycle electrification reflect increasing attention to micro‑mobility and to programming open space so shared spaces are usable for residents and visitors year‑round.

Votes at a glance: Planning Board action — Approve site and use review (LUR202400071; LUR202400072) with conditions and staff memorandum adopted as findings. Vote: 6 in favor, 1 opposed (aye: ML, Kurt, Claudia, Laura, Mason, Chair Mark; nay: George).