Planning board reviews concept plan for 170-unit mixed-use project at 5450 Airport Blvd; board praises redesign but flags transport and parking issues

The Boulder Planning Board on Jan. 7 reviewed a concept plan for 5450 Airport Boulevard, a 4.29-acre site proposed for a mixed-use project with 170 attached dwelling units, a community building and about 10,000 square feet of office and restaurant space. The review was advisory; no formal approvals were requested or taken.

Shannon Miller of the City of Boulder planning department summarized staff's analysis and key issues: the property is zoned IM (Industrial Manufacturing) and was designated light industrial in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Staff noted the site meets contiguity requirements that make residential use eligible through a use review, but said the project must show how it meets the use-review standards, site-review criteria and BVCP policies for light-industrial areas. "This property was part of prior site reviews," Miller said, and staff recommended the applicant address site permeability, on-site amenities, a high-quality Transportation Demand Management plan and ADA access given the substantial slope on the site. Miller added, "No public comments were received" prior to the hearing.

The current plan presented by the applicant team (Markell Homes and Ripley Design) reorients buildings to the south to front an open-space corridor and proposes reduced on-site surface parking supplemented by a shared-parking agreement with a neighboring property to the north. Sam Coutts of Ripley Design described the design goals: "The overall theme of what we wanted to accomplish with this new design is orient the entire development towards the south to front along this amazing green belt" and to create a pedestrian-oriented public realm and on-site amenities for residents.

Key technical details and clarifications from staff and the applicants: the site was described as 4.29 acres; the plan includes four three-story buildings, a multiuse path along the site's southern edge, and about 10,000 square feet of combined office/restaurant space. The applicant told the board the nonresidential total is about 13,000 square feet when counting the community building, and that gross residential floor area is about 87,000 square feet (roughly 100,000 square feet total). The applicant said there are approximately 230 parking spaces on the neighboring lot to the north and that the project currently plans to rely on about 15 of those spaces through a shared-parking arrangement while providing a portion of required on-site parking. The board and staff requested detailed shared-parking agreements and conditions that would secure parking availability over time.

A recurring issue in board discussion was the multi-use path "missing link" that would cross an arrow-shaped parcel of private land south of the site and connect the proposed trail to Valmont Bike Park and other trail segments. Several board members said securing construction of that missing link was essential to making the project function as a transit- and bicycle-oriented development rather than an isolated residential enclave. Applicant representatives said they have an MOU or are in advanced discussions with the property owner and stated they intend to secure the connection; staff noted that off-site improvements often require agreements with adjacent property owners and that the board could call up a future site-review decision if necessary to review related easements.

Public comment during the hearing included one speaker, Lynn Siegel, who criticized the city's pattern of approving development and expressed broader concerns about affordability and growth. Siegel told the board, "You've got to stop approving all of these developers, greedy developers coming after you...It's utterly, utterly shameful behavior on all of your parts for approving all of this stuff."

Board reaction was largely supportive of the applicant's revised design compared with a prior concept plan, but members flagged several areas that must be addressed at site review. Common requests from board members included: - Stronger, specific TDM commitments (unbundled parking, carshare, e-bike and scooter infrastructure, resident incentives, and clear mode-shift measures). - A formal and enforceable shared-parking agreement with the neighboring property, with contingencies if that parking is later redeveloped. - Secure legal arrangements and a timeline for the multiuse-path connection across the adjacent parcel; staff and the applicant should provide documentation at site review showing the path will be built or an enforceable means to require it. - Reconsideration of the block of surface parking between two mixed-use buildings on the north side of the site; several members urged removal or relocation of those spaces to improve site permeability and create a stronger southern-facing public realm. - Attention to ADA-accessible routes down the slope so residents would not have to take a circuitous route to reach the multiuse path.

The applicant committed to continue work on those issues and to provide additional information on parking, the shared-parking agreement, ADA access, long-term bike parking and the TDM program in later submittals. Jason Markell (Markell Homes) said the project will include a community building with lounge and fitness spaces, rooftop amenities and covered secured long-term bike parking; Sam Coutts emphasized that open space and on-site amenities were intentionally located to face south toward the ditches and Flatirons views.

There was no vote on the concept plan; the board's comments were advisory. Staff outlined next steps: the applicant may submit a site-review amendment and a use review for residential uses in an industrial zone. Those applications would be staff decisions subject to call up by the Planning Board and would include technical materials, shared-parking documentation, easements and a detailed TDM plan.

Ending: The board generally praised the applicant for substantial redesign since the previous concept review, but asked for enforceable agreements for the missing-path connection, a stronger TDM package, improved ADA access and reconsideration of the surface parking that divides the site. The applicant said it would return with the requested materials during final site-review submittal.