Planning board reviews concept plan for Naropa campus redevelopment at 2130 Arapahoe; no formal action taken

The City of Boulder Planning Board on July 15 held a concept plan review and public hearing for a proposed redevelopment of the Naropa University campus at 2130 Arapahoe Avenue. The developer, Core Spaces, presented a plan that would demolish most campus buildings but retain the landmarked Lincoln Hall while adding two new residential buildings with a total of 133 residential units and roughly 576 bedrooms.

Core Spaces and the applicant team said the project would require a Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land‑use map amendment from Public (P) to High Density Residential (HR) and a rezoning from P to RH‑5. The concept submittal shows a campus floor‑area‑ratio of about 1.37, 91 parking spaces (57 code‑compliant spaces plus 34 tandem spaces), and 356 bicycle parking spaces (280 long‑term and 76 short‑term). The proposal also anticipates a height modification request to exceed the usual three‑story / 35‑foot limit in some locations. Staff and the applicant emphasized that concept review is advisory; the board took no final vote.

Key issues identified by staff and the board

- Land‑use map change and rezoning: Staff noted the site was designated HR in the BVCP prior to a 2015 change that consolidated the property under a Public designation at Naropa’s request. Staff said a return to HR could be consistent with BVCP policy because the site is near the University of Colorado and major services; however, staff also advised the applicant to prepare a stronger rezoning justification tied to BVCP criteria (especially because rezoning outside of a comprehensive plan update is a quasi‑judicial review). In discussion board members emphasized the need for the applicant to demonstrate how RH‑5 — not a lower HR district — is justified based on the BVCP criteria and the existing context. Staff said the fastest procedural route is to file a land‑use map amendment and rezoning concurrently with site review, which applicants estimated could take about 9–12 months.

- Design, scale and neighborhood context: The proposal centers two new buildings in a U‑shape around Lincoln Hall and preserves several large trees identified as Colorado champion trees. The new buildings step down toward Arapahoe in places; board members welcomed the step‑down but asked for additional study of the Arapahoe frontage and stronger transitions toward the Goss Grove neighborhood to the north. Several board members and public commenters urged the applicant to make design choices that more clearly respond to Lincoln Hall’s materials and massing while still meeting the applicant’s program.

- Historic resources: The applicant told the board Lincoln Hall would remain in place; two other campus buildings (Arapahoe House and Chestnut/Chestnut House) are eligible for landmark review and the applicant proposed relocating Arapahoe House on site. Staff explained that relocation or demolition would trigger a demolition/landmark review process and possibly a landmark alteration certificate; board members said they do not want to presumptively require landmarking but encouraged consultation with the landmarks board and cultural stakeholders.

- Circulation and access: The proposed site design relocates the private drive, retains primary access from Twentieth/Marine Streets, and shows a new drop‑off loop off Arapahoe. Transportation staff cautioned that additional Arapahoe curb cuts and a street‑front drop‑off lane could reduce safety for pedestrians and cyclists; several board members recommended limiting curb cuts, consolidating drop‑off activity, and refining emergency vehicle routing. The applicant indicated it is discussing connections with CU to extend multi‑use paths into the site.

- Parking and demand management: The applicant showed far fewer parking stalls than the old code would have required; staff noted the city is revising parking minimums and that the applicant will still need a TDM strategy and to demonstrate access and mobility criteria under site review. Board members asked for unbundled parking, lease rules that discourage bringing a car, and stronger TDM measures to reduce neighborhood spillover.

Public comment and stakeholders

Speakers at the public hearing expressed a mix of support and concerns. Rick White of Nalanda Bodhi urged careful community engagement and said his group had pursued a separate community cultural use across the street; he said the Naropa site redevelopment appeared to be moving quickly without the same neighborhood outreach his group undertook. Naropa president Charles (Chuck) Leaf described Naropa’s institutional changes and said Naropa will retain a presence in Boulder while pursuing consolidation of its campus assets; Leaf also described negotiations with the developer. Jonathan Singer of the Boulder Chamber spoke in favor of the redevelopment as an opportunity for housing near transit and services. Historic Boulder’s Leonard Siegel supported retaining Lincoln Hall and asked the applicant to draw more design inspiration from the landmark building.

Board feedback and likely next steps

The board did not take action on the concept plan. Board members generally said the site is appropriate for higher‑density housing given its proximity to CU and the Boulder Valley Regional Center, but most asked the applicant to: (1) build a stronger case for RH‑5 in materials tied explicitly to BVCP criteria; (2) refine the Arapahoe elevation and transitions toward Gos Grove north of Arapahoe; (3) reduce and consolidate curb cuts and the proposed Arapahoe drop‑off lane where possible and show clear emergency‑access plans; (4) provide a robust TDM plan and enforceable lease/parking rules to limit neighborhood spillover; and (5) coordinate early with the landmarks board and staff about the Chestnut and Arapahoe House buildings and the champion trees.

Staff reiterated that the land‑use map amendment, rezoning and site review can be submitted concurrently and that the applicant should expect detailed code review on public‑realm treatments, massing, permeability and the access plan during site review. Chandler (staff) said material in the packet identifies specific BVCP policies and site‑review standards the applicant should address.

What the packet showed (key project numbers provided by the applicant in concept materials)

- Units: 133 residential units, a mix of one‑ to five‑bedroom layouts; 576 bedrooms total (developer figure).

- FAR and parking: proposed campus FAR ~1.37; 91 parking spaces in plan (57 standard spaces + 34 tandem); 356 bike parking spaces (280 long‑term, 76 short‑term).

- Case reference: concept plan review under case LUR2025‑00033 (concept review; subsequent rezoning and site review required for approvals).

- Historic resources: Lincoln Hall (landmarked) to be retained; Arapahoe House and Chestnut House identified as eligible for landmark review.

Next procedural steps: The applicant can file a land‑use map amendment and rezoning concurrently with site review. Staff estimated the fastest timeline outside a comp‑plan update would be roughly 9–12 months for a complete submittal and review cycle; the board asked for more detailed BVCP‑based justification on the rezoning if the applicant requests RH‑5.