Map / Planning Board / ← 2026-03-24 · 2026-04-21 →
Planning Board · regular
04-07-26 Planning Board Meeting
- Date
- Series
- regular
- Status
- past
- Sources
- Laserfiche: 5 files; YouTube playlist; YouTube's automatic captions
Agenda
No agenda items read for this meeting.
Excerpts by topic
AI-read · unreviewed30 mentions; quotes verbatim from the captions or agenda, chosen by a model, unchecked by a personI would like to speak about, the… Presbyterian Manor, the expansion of Presbyterian Manor.
concerns about potential future conflicts between the senior housing and the adjacent university student housing
Residential buildings in the 100-year floodplain must be elevated to or above the flood protection elevation.
the proposal requires historic preservation review for the demolition of the four 1920s-era houses along Arapahoe Avenue, because the houses are more than 50 years old
So as we discussed earlier, in February, the Landmarks Board considered issuance of the demolition approvals or initiation of landmark designation process for the four houses.
the removal of the existing houses removes some existing naturally occurring affordable units and reduces the mix of housing on the site
The Landmarks Board voted not to initiate designation on 3 of the houses, and voted to initiate landmark designation process for the house at 990 Arapaho.
integration of eligible buildings, in particular the house at 990 Arapahoe, such as maintaining the house in its current location or relocating it within the site
the staff noted in the memo that the finished floors of the buildings, the houses, have already met floodplain elevation requirements
So for this one, there is a proposal to ask for that additional FAR, so that's granted through the site review process.
This project is in significant alignment, both with the current comp plan and the draft comp plan.
You can see as an overlay, the blue is the 100-year floodplain, and the orange is the 500-year floodplain.
the renovation was completed under a low-income housing tax credit partnership. That partnership includes a LIHTC investor
what the purpose of this Zoning for Affordable Housing Ordinance was, if there is no benefit.
Are any of those bungalows ADA accessible? No. What would be required to make them so?
we do have the ability to articulate this, to potentially provide public seating areas, or public art
I really would support what is happening, what Presbyterian Manor is trying to do
I know the importance of having much more than we have now, and having nonprofits like the Presbyterian folks providing that.
the historic preservation demolition approval is valid for one year, and the code does not provide the ability to extend that approval.
And that is reflected in multiple BVCP policies.
I'm also looking forward to seeing the TDM plan under the new requirements.
no project must fulfill all BVCP policies and goals
One, I'm a great supporter of our current, inclusionary housing ordinance
I love that you're focusing on households earning at or below 60% of AMI.
the proposed ADA access in and into and between the areas
And if that's the only thing they're requesting, they don't need to meet.
we enacted an energy code in Boulder a long, long time ago.
this project is largely regulated by landmarking rules and historic design, district design guidelines that the applicants have already been working through.
there's information on the website that's been there for a while as part of the Civic Area.
meeting on the 28th. Yeah, that's 777 Broadway Site Review.
Recording
officialTranscript
derivedRead the transcript 201 segments
Automatic captions: words and names are often misheard.