Boulder design board reviews 22‑unit addition at 2717 Glenwood; neighbors raise parking, shading and tree concerns

The City of Boulder Design Advisory Board on Sept. 10 reviewed a site‑review proposal for 2717 Glenwood that would add a three‑story, 22‑unit building on an existing parking lot, increasing the property’s total units from 37 to 59 while reducing on‑site parking.

Board members and staff described the project as a reuse of excess parking to create housing close to grocery, transit and bike routes, but neighbors and the board flagged several design and operational issues that the applicant must resolve before formal sign‑off.

Why it matters: The proposal was referred to DAB by City Council during concept review. The board emphasized how the project sits between single‑family homes to the west and heavier commercial uses to the east, and said careful design and landscaping will be needed so the new building improves street presence without worsening impacts on adjacent residents.

The proposal and public concerns

Shannon Mueller of the City of Boulder planning department briefed DAB that the application is in site review after a council referral. Applicant Michael Bosma described the plan to retain the existing 37‑unit building and add a separate three‑story structure on the oversized surface parking area, creating 22 new units (59 total). Architect Bob Wilson said the new building would include about 43 parking spaces overall and 120 bicycle parking spaces. The applicant reported roughly 37% open space in the current design.

Neighbors who spoke during public comment said the lot is currently heavily used for parking and warned reductions could spill onto Glenwood and nearby streets. "Glenwood is a very, very busy street," said Andy Wittenberg, a neighborhood resident, adding he was "concerned that in reducing so much parking that it's going to impact our community." Emmy Rao, a resident directly behind the site, said the renderings misrepresent existing conditions and called the scheme "a 3‑story monstrosity" that would reduce sunlight and harm property values. "I think this is a bad plan, and I would like this to not move forward," Rao said.

Board findings and recommendations

Board members generally agreed the site is appropriate for additional housing and praised the applicant for increasing a pedestrian paseo between the existing and new buildings to activate the interior of the lot. At the same time, DAB repeatedly recommended refinements rather than full redesign. Key recommendations recorded in the meeting included:

- Relocate the trash/recycling enclosure farther south (away from the existing building’s primary entrances) to reduce sight, smell and operational impacts on nearby units and to improve service vehicle access. - Provide a detailed planting plan and stronger landscape buffering along the west property line and the parking edges to screen vehicles from neighboring yards and the sidewalk. - Further develop the Paseo and the interior courtyard program (furniture, activity areas and durable surfacing) so those spaces function as intended rather than read as leftover landscape. - Simplify and unify the building materials and massing across all elevations; reduce the number of contrasting material moves so the new structure reads more cohesive and better complements the existing building rather than competing with it. - Show rooftop mechanical screening details and confirm material terminations at inside corners (12‑inch offsets where materials change), in the next formal submittal.

The board discussed tradeoffs that led to the building’s current placement. The applicant said constraints included fire access, drainage and a 12‑foot "solar fence" condition at the west property edge; lowering the west half of the new building to two stories to avoid that buffer would cut units and threaten project feasibility. Board members said those constraints explained the layout but reinforced the need for stronger landscape and material responses.

Applicant responses

Michael Bosma, the property owner, told the board the team intends to update the existing building cosmetically during permit work and reiterated that keeping the older building preserves supply without full demolition. "We're keeping the existing building there," Bosma said during the presentation, and he confirmed the team will provide additional landscape and material detail in subsequent submittals.

Votes and next steps

The only formal board vote recorded in the transcript was approval of the previous meeting’s minutes (motion by Bridal Ash; seconded by Rory Belasukovich; tally: 3 yes). DAB did not take a formal final action on the 2717 Glenwood site review at this meeting; members made recommendations and asked the applicant to return with revised materials and a detailed landscape plan for staff review at the next formal submittal.

Context and public process

The project was referred to DAB by City Council after concept review. Planning staff told DAB that several site‑review criteria were assessed as "partially satisfied" and that elements such as transformers, trash enclosures and screening would need more specific design and documentation in the next submittal. The transcript records two public commenters who live nearby and oppose the proposal on parking, shading and tree‑loss grounds; no formal appeals, legal actions or funding decisions were discussed.

What to watch for next

DAB’s written recommendations will be included in the meeting minutes and forwarded to planning staff and the applicant. The board requested the applicant show a refined material palette, a planting plan and more detailed programming for the Paseo and courtyard in the next formal packet. The applicant said it will highlight the interior common area and coordinate cosmetic updates to the retained building with the new construction.