Planning Board approves 149‑unit student housing at 1128 East College Ave with public‑access and tree‑review conditions

The City of Boulder Planning Board unanimously approved a site‑review application on March 3 for a mixed‑use, student‑oriented development at 1128 East College Avenue that would replace existing buildings with three new structures totaling 149 dwelling units and one level of underground parking.

Shannon Moller of the City of Boulder planning department told the board staff had found the proposal consistent with applicable site‑review criteria and recommended approval, noting the project requests modifications for height and stories and would provide pedestrian and multimodal improvements along Colorado Avenue and the 28th Street frontage road. “Staff recommends a motion to approve the site review,” Moller said during the staff presentation.

The development — reviewed under case number LUR2025‑00037 — would include 134 underground parking spaces for residents, street‑level commercial spaces (including a DayDreamer cafe and returning operator Bova’s Market and Grill), increased bike parking beyond code minimums, rooftop and courtyard amenities, and a north–south Paseo through the site intended to improve pedestrian connections to a nearby bus stop and campus underpass. The applicant asked for three‑year vesting of development rights; staff said the requested vesting period is three years.

Applicant Andre Sahak, development manager for LV Collective, described design changes made since the concept review, including acquiring adjacent property to improve pedestrian connections and to raise commercial storefronts to grade. “I really think that a lot of those comments made their way into this site review,” Sahak told the board.

Board members raised technical questions during the clarifying‑questions phase about ADA access for the proposed commercial spaces, how the site would meet courtyard sunlight standards and bike/vehicle circulation at the garage ramp. City and consultant staff provided project‑specific answers and said some items would be finalized during technical‑document review.

Mason Roberts moved to approve the staff memorandum as findings of fact and to adopt staff’s recommended conditions; Claudia Hanson Thiem seconded. The board then voted to add three applicant conditions to be satisfied at technical document review: wayfinding signage for the public Paseo, cargo‑bike parking, and accessible on‑street parking for commercial uses “if feasible” to the satisfaction of staff. The board later approved a separate amendment requiring applicant and staff to reexamine whether any healthy, mature trees along College Avenue can be preserved. Planning Director Brad Mueller cautioned that some items, such as on‑street accessible spaces, may not be technically feasible in the public right‑of‑way.

The final motion as amended passed on a 7–0 vote. The motion text adopted at the hearing directed staff to implement the conditions to the satisfaction of staff at the time of technical‑document review.

Why it matters: The site is zoned for high‑density residential and sits adjacent to the university, where the city has encouraged transit‑oriented redevelopment. The board’s conditions emphasize multimodal access (bike infrastructure, transit passes in the applicant’s TDM plan), accommodation for cargo bikes, and efforts to retain mature street trees where possible, reflecting the board’s attention to pedestrian connectivity, micro‑mobility, accessibility and urban canopy.

What happens next: The approval is subject to the technical‑document review process, where staff and the applicant will resolve engineering, tree‑protection, and right‑of‑way details. The conditions require applicant and staff agreement on feasible accessible on‑street parking and tree preservation measures at tech doc review; if something proves infeasible, staff will note that in technical conditions.

Authorities and references: The board considered the application under the City site‑review criteria and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land‑use designation of High‑Density Residential. The applicant requested a height modification to allow up to five stories where the RH‑3 zone otherwise permits three stories; staff referenced code provisions for height bonuses and associated inclusionary housing/impact fee calculations.

Vote: Approved, 7–0.

Board motion provenance: Staff presentation and public hearing opened at SEG 285; motion and vote concluded at SEG 3398.