Map / City Council / ← 2023-05-11 · 2023-05-25 →
City Council · regular
Boulder City Council Meeting 5-18-23
- Date
- Series
- regular
- Status
- past
- Sources
- YouTube, via the Woven archive; YouTube's automatic captions
Agenda
No agenda items read for this meeting.
Excerpts by topic
AI-read · unreviewed38 mentions; quotes verbatim from the captions or agenda, chosen by a model, unchecked by a personI'm opposed to the locating the homelessness day Services Center at 1844 Folsom Street
City proposes to renovate this building and use it for only 18 to 24 months before tearing it down
almost directly across from the 1844 Folsom the site selected for the new homeless day Services Center
June of 2022 historic Boulder bought before this board a recommendation to expand the Bandshell
recommended that this be part of a future historic district and that's what historic Boulder is about to apply for
we hope to have an application submitted as soon as possible in the next day or so
I am disappointed in saddened with the unbalter-like process for the proposed Civic Center historic district
I am disappointed in saddened with the unbalter-like process for the proposed Civic Center historic district
Central Park is a small parcel and perhaps over recent decades the most studied and assessed piece of land in the city
to be able to give feedback on the operations of such a center it's an administrative approval
I toured um a day shelter in Denver they had a pretty rigid rule like you could not come in for services
there's also the area 3 planning Reserve which will have some large Park opportunities
we are contemplating a good neighbor meeting um with respect to the day shelter
4A is the concept plan review and comment request for a proposal to redevelop the site at 2700 2710 2720 and 2750 Baseline Road
for a proposal to redevelop the site at 2700 2710 2720 and 2750 Baseline Road and also 2765 and 2800 Morehead Avenue as a mixed-use student housing
good evening city council um as mentioned this will be a brief presentation on the 2700 Baseline Road concept plan call up
as you are probably aware of the concept plan purpose is to provide General feedback to the applicant there is no approval or denial
the bvcp land use designation for the site is community business
the proposed project is a four-story 55 foot tall mixed-use student housing development it would include 84 units
so the bonus floor area would be used to determine the required number of bonus units above the 25 inclusionary housing requirement
lack of on-site affordable units um there were several speakers who expressed tentative support
the board generally found the proposal to add student housing to the project site to be consistent with bbcp goals
when we do flood mitigation we typically follow a life cycle approach as you can see here
so I just want to highlight this as really what the need for flood mitigation is for these drainage ways
we had to remove about three major cottonwoods for this project and we replanted about 10 trees
that'll be coming forward as as part of the capital Improvement package from utilities
behind this project as you've mentioned we've got another 300 million dollars of Capital Improvements yet to come
my question is if we're not comparing the cost per dwelling at CU South but rather to some other spots
all the students in fourth grade have been studying climate Solutions and climate Justice
our field trip and our model building convinced us how important flood mitigation is to our community resilience to climate change
vital carbon sequestration removes over ten thousand pounds of CO2 from our City's air
improving and properly maintaining existing stormwater drains and systems is Paramount the plan is not acceptable
we're bringing forward a budget proposal this year to add staff to our maintenance team
each of these structures is proposed for landmark designation and are pending tonight's discussion
the restoration is aligned aligns and is encouraged by the general design guidelines
moving to the additions generally staff in the landmarks board found the proposed additions to be consistent with the design guidelines
the design guidelines have criteria for determining whether a facade is primary secondary or tertiary
a variety of standards and guidelines for accessibility and for senior living recommend still Heights much lower than that