Planning Board reviews concept plan for 1120 Eighth Street student housing; no decision tonight

Planning board members and staff reviewed a concept plan to redevelop 1120 Eighth Street as a mixed-use, campus-adjacent student housing project, but took no formal action.

Shannon Mueller, senior planner with the City of Boulder Planning Department, told the board the concept-plan review was intended to identify key issues before a site review application. “No formal action is being taken tonight on the project,” Mueller said.

The proposal by LV Collective, presented by Danica Powell of Trestle Strategy Group and Andre Sahakian of LV Collective with architect Matt Post of Oz Architecture, would replace existing buildings on the 1.4-acre site with two buildings totaling about 87 dwelling units targeted to university students, one level of underground parking and up to five stories (a height modification to 55 feet). The applicant is requesting a 65% parking reduction and proposes ground-floor retail uses including a café and a market space; the plan set includes a central courtyard, rooftop decks and a mix of studio through five-bedroom units.

Why it matters: the site is zoned Residential High 3 (RH3) and is designated high-density residential in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Staff said the location — adjacent to the University of Colorado main campus and near multimodal corridors and transit — makes student housing an appropriate use but flagged design and access issues that should be resolved at site review.

Key questions and feedback

- Site design and grade: staff and multiple board members pressed the applicant on how grade changes across the site affect pedestrian access and the relationship between the building and the street. Mueller flagged concerns about portions of the ground floor being partially submerged, which could require ramps and stairs that complicate accessibility and the public realm. Board member Kurt suggested the team study building layouts that follow contour lines rather than cutting across them to reduce grade-related entries and improve at-grade commercial access.

- Courtyard and usable open space: staff said the RH3 open-space requirement (30%) is proposed to be met with a central courtyard and rooftop spaces, but asked the applicant to improve courtyard design and permeability. Several board members — Mark, Claudia and Kurt among them — said the courtyard and a narrow eastern lightwell felt too constrained for the number of residents proposed and recommended either reconfiguring massing or enlarging usable amenity areas.

- Parking and transportation demand management (TDM): the applicant requested a 65% parking reduction. Staff noted the city is updating parking code rules later in the year and recommended a robust TDM plan to accompany any reduction. Board members repeatedly asked for horizontal, long‑term bike parking, protected and convenient bike storage and programmatic TDM measures (lease restrictions, transit credits, shared mobility, micromobility infrastructure, EV and e‑bike charging, and ongoing monitoring). The applicant said they plan lease and management strategies used on other campus‑adjacent projects to limit on‑site vehicle storage and to promote alternatives.

- Height and massing: staff concluded the proposed height modification is generally compatible with surrounding development but asked for additional facade refinement and massing relief at site review, and noted the project will be subject to community benefit requirements if a height modification is requested.

What the applicant said

- Danica Powell (Trestle Strategy Group) and Andre Sahakian (LV Collective) emphasized experience building campus‑adjacent student housing and said they had secured a draft agreement to bring the existing market/restaurant back into the redeveloped space. Powell said the applicant is prepared to strengthen bike storage, TDM programming and ground‑floor activation as design evolves. Architect Matt Post said the team is evaluating moves to increase porosity and improve pedestrian entry points, particularly at the southwest corner near the pedestrian underpass to campus.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns

- Destiny Nesladek, a long‑term homeowner at Landmark Lofts, said she shared neighbors’ concerns about on‑street parking pressure and urged the project team to preserve mature trees and improve the quality of open space. “I agree with some of the public comments … concern for street parking,” Nesladek said.

- Other public speakers asked the board to consider shading and view impacts from taller buildings and to ensure the project does not worsen neighborhood parking or stormwater/groundwater concerns.

Next steps

Mueller said the project will proceed through demolition review (historic preservation review is required because existing structures are older than 50 years), then formal site review; city council may call the item up for an additional hearing. The applicant will refine design, respond to staff and board feedback on grade, courtyard design, bike parking, TDM and ground‑floor activation, and return to planning board at site review if the height modification or parking reduction remains part of the proposal.

The board did not vote on the concept plan tonight. The record shows detailed feedback from planning staff, multiple board members and members of the public that the applicant must address before a site‑level decision.

Ending

The applicant and staff said they will continue community outreach and return with a site‑review submittal that responds to the board’s and neighbors’ concerns, particularly accessibility at grade, more usable open space and a stronger, enforceable TDM strategy for a project seeking major parking reductions.