Planning Board backs scaled-back affordable-housing mix, recommends council consider reversing landmarking at 90 Arapahoe

The City of Boulder Planning Board voted 5-1 on July 22 to recommend that city council approve an annexation-agreement amendment for the 4-acre site at 90 Arapahoe Avenue that would reduce the site''s required permanently affordable ownership housing from 45% (19 units) to 24% (10 units).

The board's recommendation follows a lengthy public hearing and staff presentation describing the site's history, the original annexation terms and the applicant's request. Staff said the amendment would change the mix of affordability tiers, reduce the overall percentage of deed-restricted units and allow up to six affordable units to be located in rehabilitated historic motel structures on the property.

City planner Chandler (staff) told the board the property was annexed in 2017 with zoning of RM-3 (residential medium 3) and an annexation agreement requiring 45% permanently affordable for-sale units, size limits on affordable units (no greater than 2,200 sq. ft.) and other community benefits: dedication of roughly 2.43 acres of land to Open Space & Mountain Parks (OSMP), landmark designation of two buildings and provision of land and facilities for the September School at the adjacent 96 Arapahoe parcel.

The applicant told the board rising construction costs, pandemic-driven delays, unforeseen site work (boulder removal, rockfall protection) and higher interest rates have made the original affordability terms infeasible. Curtis McDonald (applicant) and representatives from SiteWorx described large unanticipated costs including foundation and historic-structure repairs and extra infrastructure work. The applicant said the proposed amendment is the outcome of negotiation with staff and would allow development to proceed rather than the site remaining an inactive construction area.

Under the proposed amendment, the overall share of permanently affordable units would fall to 24% (10 units), with adjustments in the distribution across income tiers (increases in the deeper affordability tiers by percentage and reductions in the 101'—120% AMI tier). The amendment would preserve the requirement that affordable units be for-sale, not rental, and would permit up to six affordable units to be placed in rehabilitated historic structures rather than the existing limit of four.

Board members pressed staff and the applicant for details about enforceable timelines, how pricing for deed-restricted units had been set, and what evidence was provided to justify the change. Inclusionary-housing staff confirmed the city did not require a detailed pro forma from the applicant; staff cited the Kaiser Marston market study used in broader policy work and said the proposed percentage aligned with staff assessments of feasibility given this site's constraints. Inclusionary Housing Program Manager Sloane Walbert and Kurt Fernhauer, Director of Housing and Human Services, explained that mortgage affordability for deed-restricted homeownership is set when building permits are issued and that rising interest rates reduce the sale price an income-qualified buyer can afford.

Several board members who supported the recommendation said the package still delivers community benefits (deed-restricted homeownership on site; open-space dedication; preserved land for the September School) and that failing to approve any amendment risked leaving the property stalled and further degrading historic structures. Opponents warned that approving a much lower percentage could set a precedent encouraging optimistic annexation promises that later get renegotiated downward.

After deliberation the board voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the amendment, with the roll call recorded as Mason: yes; Laura: yes; Kurt: no; Claudia: yes; Emil: yes; Chair (Mark): yes. The board's recommendation goes to city council for a final decision at a public hearing.

In addition to the primary recommendation the board voted on two advisory items for council. By unanimous vote the board recommended city council consider removing the historic-landmark designation for the two rehabilitated motel structures on the site, citing the applicant's description that much of the original exterior fabric had been removed during remediation and the likely maintenance burden on low- and moderate-income homeowners if the structures remain landmarked. The board also voted unanimously to recommend council remove the parking-paragraph requirement from the annexation agreement to align the agreement with the city's current policy direction on parking.

What happens next: planning staff will forward the board's recommendation, the record of the public hearing and the motions to city council, which will hold its own public hearing and final vote. Council may accept, modify or reject both the annexation amendment and the board's advisory recommendations on landmarking and parking.

Votes at a glance: the planning board recommended approval of the annexation amendment (5-1). It also unanimously recommended that council consider reversing landmarking for the two historic motel structures and unanimously recommended removing the parking paragraph from the annexation agreement. These advisory motions will be included in the council packet for council's review.

The board repeatedly asked staff to provide clearer, documented financial analyses when applicants claim infeasibility in future annexation negotiations; one board member asked staff and the applicant to provide a more detailed pro forma for council review. Staff and the applicant said portions of detailed permit pricing had been set at different times and that several affordable units already had building permits issued under earlier phases, which affects the fixed pricing for those units.

The planning board's action preserves the site's other community benefits (open-space dedication and the September School land) while accepting a materially reduced on-site affordable housing quantity. The matter now moves to city council, where the planning board's recommendations and the public record will shape the final outcome.