Planning Board reviews concept plan for 1120 Eighth Street student housing; no formal action

The Boulder Planning Board on Jan. 28 reviewed a concept plan to redevelop 1120 Eighth Street in Boulder into mixed‑use student housing with roughly 80–90 units (staff cited about 87 units), one level of underground parking, commercial space and a request for a 65% parking reduction and a height modification up to 55 feet. No formal action was taken; the concept review provides staff and board feedback prior to any site‑review application.

Why it matters: The site sits adjacent to the University of Colorado main campus and is zoned Residential High 3 (RH3), a zoning district intended to encourage high‑density residential development near campus. If the project proceeds through site review and a height modification is approved, it would add a sizable concentration of student housing and commercial frontage to an area the city has identified for transit‑oriented, multi‑modal redevelopment.

Staff and project overview Shannon Mueller, long‑range staff with the City of Boulder Planning Department, told the board the purpose of the concept review is advisory: “The applicant will receive comments from the board, staff, and the public. No formal action is being taken tonight on the project.” Mueller summarized the site as roughly 1.4 acres with existing low‑rise apartment buildings and surface parking and described the property’s location just east of campus and near multimodal corridors and bus stops. She said the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) designates the parcel as high‑density residential and that the proposal generally aligns with several BVCP policies but needs further refinements on public‑realm design and accessibility at site‑review.

The applicant team presented massing and program details. Danica Powell of Trestle Strategy Group introduced the developer and design team; Andre Sahakian, development manager with LV Collective, said the project would include a café and market space and emphasized on‑site amenities and a transportation demand management (TDM) approach trained on reducing car ownership. Matt Post of Oz Architecture reviewed massing concepts and noted the design seeks to activate the frontage and strengthen the pedestrian connection to the underpass to campus.

Key project elements described by staff and the applicant - Program: roughly 87 dwelling units targeted to students, a mix of studios and multi‑bedroom units (many 4–5 bedrooms), ground‑floor commercial uses (a café and market), resident amenities and one level of underground parking. - Site and zoning: RH3 zoning, BVCP designation as high‑density residential, site area about 1.4 acres, located along the 20th Eighth Street frontage road adjacent to the University of Colorado. - Modifications requested: 65% parking reduction and a height modification to allow up to 55 feet/5 stories (RH3 base is 40 feet/3 stories). - Open space and massing: applicant proposes a central courtyard, rooftop decks and balconies; staff noted the RH3 30% open‑space requirement and additional conditions for height bonuses. - Process notes: staff said the project would require a demolition review (existing buildings are >50 years old) and would proceed to site review where any requested modifications (parking, height) would be considered by the board and could require public hearings.

Board and staff concerns Staff recommended several revisions be addressed at site review: improve ground‑level relationship to the public realm (avoid partially submerged entries), increase permeability into the courtyard and refine the courtyard and edge setbacks to make open spaces more usable and accessible; resolve vertical transitions created by grade changes so entries are ADA‑compliant; and provide more detail demonstrating how building facades and the east façade meet code and compatibility guidelines.

Board members repeatedly returned to three topics: transportation demand management (TDM) and bicycle parking, courtyard/open‑space usability, and grade/ground‑level access. Several members said a robust, enforceable TDM that goes beyond one‑time incentives will be necessary to justify a 65% parking reduction; board members and the applicant discussed lease mechanisms and monitoring (for example prohibiting cars without a paid parking pass) as part of operations. Community Cycles’ suggestions for horizontal long‑term bike parking, protected bike parking, EV charging for bikes and micromobility, and improving direct access between bike facilities and the street were highlighted by both the applicant and board.

On courtyard and site massing, staff and multiple board members asked for refinements to ensure the courtyard functions as usable open space with adequate light and access. Several board members suggested changes to massing and breaks in the buildings to better follow site contours and reduce the need for stairs/ramps at primary entries; applicant representatives said they were exploring ways to lower portions of the South building to improve sunlight penetration and to increase porosity at ground level.

Public comment Public speakers raised parking and open‑space concerns and urged tree preservation and attention to neighborhood impacts. Destiny Nesladek, a resident at Landmark Lofts across the street, urged attention to on‑street parking and to preserving mature trees in the southeast portion of the site; Lynn Siegel and a nearby resident, Steve Shoemaker, expressed broader opposition to height increases and conversions to student housing and called for limits on height and parking reductions in the neighborhood. Applicants and staff said they would continue outreach with nearby residents and with individual commenters.

Applicant responses and next steps The applicant team said they have negotiated with the existing on‑site retailer (Bova’s Market and Grill) to return to the redeveloped site and described programmatic TDM ideas used at similar student housing projects, including pre‑move‑in transportation education and lease provisions tied to parking. The team indicated they will refine ground‑floor porosity, courtyard dimensions and bike storage options ahead of a site‑review submittal.

No vote or decision: This hearing was a concept review only. Staff said following concept review the item can proceed to development review and site review if the applicant chooses; city council can call the item up for additional public hearings. Any formal decision on the height modification or parking reduction would be made in site review or by council at a later step.

What to watch for: a formal site‑review application (with detailed TDM, clarified entry and courtyard design, and materials/facade detail) and any subsequent public hearings on the requested height modification and the parking reduction.