Planning Board reviews concept plan for 2985 East Aurora; staff flags floodplain, open‑space and below‑grade parking concerns

The City of Boulder Planning Board on Aug. 5 reviewed a concept plan for 2985 East Aurora (case LUR2025‑00038), a proposed residential building of 36 units and 109 bedrooms on a currently paved lot east of the University of Colorado Boulder. Because this was a concept review the board did not take a formal vote; staff and the applicant instead discussed design, utilities and floodplain constraints ahead of a future site review submittal.

Staff said the proposal generally aligns with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s goals for housing near transit and the university but asked the applicant to address several design and technical issues before a site review application. Allison Blaine, the city case manager, told the board the site is zoned RH‑5 and that, as submitted, “a majority of the open space will be provided in the form of private balconies and roof decks,” and that staff had “specific concerns about usable open space” and the lack of ground‑floor public gathering areas.

Board members and staff focused on three topics: floodplain restrictions and below‑grade parking, usable open space, and solar access. On the floodplain and parking question, Blaine said one option to retain below‑grade parking would be to include a commercial or mixed‑use component. She told the board, “if they were to change the uses and include some commercial or mixed use, I think it’s up to 25%, then the garage may remain,” and later confirmed the project would need to meet the city’s mixed‑use percentage criteria as the application advances.

The applicant’s team said they intend to provide both below‑grade parking and some surface parking to serve the new building and the adjacent Sterling apartments, and proposed a shared parking agreement. Architect Chris Russell said the project aims to replace an existing surface lot with housing close to campus and to “reduce the need for the automobile dramatically” by taking advantage of multimodal access.

Engineers cautioned that retaining the full below‑grade garage is governed not only by local code but by federal floodplain practice. Don Ash of Site Works told the board that FEMA and local flood regulations treat residential-only buildings differently from mixed‑use buildings for floodproofing. “FEMA doesn’t allow parking garages, underground parking garages for residential structures in the floodplain,” he said, adding that “mixed‑use buildings that have a commercial component are treated differently.” He described options including modifying circulation and grading or changing program to meet floodplain rules.

Board members also pressed the team on open space and bike parking. Several members noted the plan’s heavy reliance on private balconies and roof decks and encouraged adding more ground‑level, usable gathering spaces. Questions about bike parking emphasized providing horizontal spaces for e‑bikes and cargo bikes rather than only vertical racks. Staff noted balconies may count toward usable open space only up to a limited percentage and that courtyard or ground‑level amenities are commonly used in similar RH‑5 developments to meet required usable open space standards.

Solar access and shadowing were raised repeatedly. Staff asked the applicant to provide a detailed solar access diagram during site review to evaluate possible encroachments on neighboring rooftops in solar access zones and reminded the board that a solar access exception process exists through site review if warranted.

What’s next: staff said the applicant may submit a site review application or return for a second concept review; the site review would require a planning board decision and might be subject to city council call‑up because of the proposed height. The applicant and staff expect to submit more detailed grading, floodplain and solar analyses at the next stage.

Quotes in this article are taken from meeting testimony by Allison Blaine (case manager), Chris Russell (project architect), and Don Ash (civil engineer), all of whom spoke during the Aug. 5 hearing.

Ending note: The concept review will not result in a decision. Staff and the applicant agreed that the items flagged—floodplain treatment for below‑grade parking, increasing on‑site public/ground‑level open space, and detailed solar access analysis—should be resolved at site review or in technical (TechDoc) submittals prior to any final approval.