4 - Review of Concept Plan for the Redevelopment of Crossroads Mall, w ,
' ~1
Boulder Urban Renewal Au4hority
7300 Canyon Boulevard
PO Box 797
Boulder, CO 80306
303•447-3276
303-441-4070
www.ci. bou I der.co.uslb u ra
MEMORANDUM
September 10, 2003
TO: BURA Board of Commissioners
FROM: Brad Power, Execuhve Director
SUBJECT: Review of Concept Plan for the Redevelopment of Crossroads Mall
At the September 17`h BiJRA Board meetmg, representahves oF Westcor will present the
concept plan for the redevelopment of Crossroads Mall The concept plan, which follows
a pre-apphcation meetmg conducted last spnng, is the second of three stages of the
development review process. The site review stage remams to be completed.
Accordmg to Sechon 9-4-10 of the Boulder Revised Code, "the purpose of a concept plan
review and wmment process is to help detarmine a general development plan for a site as
well as to ident~fy any addrtional regulatory processes that the apphcant will be required
to complete pnor to development. The concept plan review and comment process also
provides an opportumty to idenhfy any add~tional constramts and opportumhes for the
development of the srte "
The staff review of the Crossroads concept plan is the attached memarandum to the
Plannmg Board, which also incorporates BiJRA staff comments In addition, a
memorandum to the Transportation Advisory Board regardmg Westcor's proposed
transportat~on improvements and the~r relahon to the Boulder Valley Regional Center
(BVRC) Transportahon Connechons Plan is attached Please review these materials as
well as the concept plan graphics that were provided to the Board in July (the July 17`h
Concept Plan Submittal and the correspondmg wntten statement from Westcor)
Followmg Westcor's presentarion and any clanfymg questions from BURA members, a
public heanng will be conducted. The Board will then provide comments and direchon
for considerahon by Westcor as they move into the srte rev~ew portion of the
development review process. BiJRA is not bemg requested to adopt the concept plan.
The purpose of the meehng is to enable tha Board to comment on the progress to date and
to provide Westcor with issues and ob~echves to consider as they complete srte review,
the results of which w~ll be formally approved by BURA and the Plamm~g Board. The
Plannmg Board will complete their review of the concept plan on September 18
w
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2003
(Agenda Item Preparation Date. September 4, 2003)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public heanng and consideration of a Concept Review #LUR2003-00055 for conceptual
redevelopment plans for the Crossroads Mal] site located at 1600 28`h Street including general
circulation, approximate building sizes and locations, proposed demolition, conceptual
elevations, sections and grading the existing site.
Apphcant/Owners: Westcor/Macerich
Steve Dunan, Transportation Engineer
City Manager's Office/BURR
Marie Zuzack, BURR Planner
REQUESTING DEPARTMENTS:
Planning Department:
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Elizabeth Hanson, Acting Land Use Review Manager
Pubkc Works Department
OVERVIEW:
The proposed redevelopment of Crossroads Mall requires completion of the concept review
process because the development exceeds the "Site Revtew Required" thresholds to Section 9-4-
11(b), B R C. 1981 for the RB-E zoning distract (the site size exceeds three acres and the
building size exceeds 50,000 square feet of floor area). A site review amendment would be the
next step following the review of this concept plan.
STATISTICS:
Proposal. The Crossroads Mall Concept Plan includes•
s plan\pb-items\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pace 1
w
Prod ect Name
Location•
Size of Tract.
Zomng•
Comprehensive Plan
KEY ISSUES:
• Demolition of the existing enclosed mall building, with the
exception of the Foley's and Sears buildings
• A central open-air shoppmg/dmmg distnct replacing the
current enclosed mall building
• Below-grade parking structure at the location of the current
first level of the mall
• New multi-screen movie theater
• Free-standing 120,000 square foot "anchor" retail store at the
northwest comer of 30th and Arapahoe ~
• New retatl buildings of vanous sizes, at the central portion) of
the site and at the northeast comer of 28`h and Arapahoe
• Extensron of Canyon Boulevazd and " 29th Street" through the
site
• New pedestnan and bicycle facilities
• Phase 2 site for future residential development neaz 30th ar}d
Walnut Streets
Westcor's application includes a context map of the surrounding
area, a transportation plan, a demolition plan, a site plan, a phasing
plan, conceptual building elevations and cross-sections, a grading
plan and a study model, a parking study, a preliminary traffic
study, and wntten narratives
Crossroads Mall
1600 28th Street
62 acres
RB-E, Regional Business -Established
Regional Business
Does the overall development concept -removing the existing enclosed mall and
building a new outdoor mall and multiple retail anchor stores at the site's corners -
support community policies and goals ~~
s \plan\pb-rtems\memos\ehxrconcep[9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 2
w
What is the desired character of building facades adjacent to 28`h and 30`h Streets and
Arapahoe Avenue
Does the proposed concept plan, including proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular
connections, generally meet the objectives of the Boulder Valley Regional Center
(BVRC) Transportation Connections Plan?
4 Is Westcor's proposal to fill the south end of the Crossroads site to remove the site from
the 100-year floodplain the preferred method, both from a flood protection and site
development basis
SUMMARY:
The purpose of the concept plan review step is to determine a general development plan for the
site, including,
• Land uses and arrangement of uses
• General circulation patterns and chazactenstics
• Methods of encouraging use of alternative transportation modes
• Areas of the site to be preserved
• General architectural charactenstics
• Special height and view comdor hmitahons
• Enviromnental preservation and enhancement concepts
• Other factors as needed to carry out the objectives of the land use regulations, adopted
plans, and other city requirements
There are many years of history related to the redevelopment of Crossroads Mall. For reference,
key histoncal points are summanzed m Attachment C However, this context is not directly
relevant to this regulatory review. The Planning Boazd's review of the current concept plan, and
the upcoming site review should be pnmanly guided by the following regulations and adopted
plans
• Concept Plan Review and Comment Guidelines (Section 9-4-10, B R C 1981)
Ctty staff's analysis of the concept plan guzdelznes as they relate to this proposal is to
Attachment A
• Site Review Criteria (Section 9-4-11, B R.C. 1981)
• Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) Design Guidelines
• BVRC Transportation Connections Plan
• Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) -Related Policies
• Regional Business -Established (RB-E) zoning and related land use regulations
(Chapter 9)
s \plan\pb-nems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 3
w
A copy of the staff Development Review Results and Comments are in Attachment B. i
Public comment received is m Attachment D A vicinity map is provided m Attachment E, land
the applicant's plans and wntten statements are m Attachment I
1. Does the overall development concept -removing the existing enclosed mall and
building a new outdoor mall and multiple retail anchor stores at the site's corners -
support community goals?
Westcor's concept plan illustrates a new development concept for the Crossroads Mlall
site. Demohhon of all existing buildings, with the exception of the Foley's and Seas
buildings, makes way for a new outdoor mall with retail, restaurant, and theater uses
Two other distinct retail areas - a "big box" anchor store at the northwest corner of 30`n
and Arapahoe and a various sized retail stores with a "gateway" corner feature is shown
for the northeast corner of 28`n and Arapahoe. Finally, a future housing site is identified
for the northeast corner of the site
The concept plan's primary focus is on the restoration of retail uses to the Crossroads
site This emphasis would help to reestablish the BVRC and the Crossroads site as i`a
regional shopping and commercial center for the Boulder Valley " While the emergence
and growth of shopping areas~ust outside of Boulder has forever changed Boulder's
position as the regional shopping destination, staff finds that the proposed concept plan
can help the city take a mayor step forward m regaining some of the economic loss. The
plan also will restore some of the shopping convemence that Boulder citizens have host m
recent years
Staff agrees with Westcor's argument that the concept plan, with its three distinct retail
areas, is sustaanahle over time One or more retail areas of the site could redevelop) as the
market demands, without affecting the entire development It would be in Boulder's
interest to not redevelop this entire site every 20 years
From the urban design standpoint, the concept plan ameliorates much of what people
disliked about the mall - a sea of parking surrounding a large, bland building. The plan
significantly reduces the amount of surface parking, and shields much of the remai~mg
parking lots from street view by placing buildings along 28in, 29`n, 30in and Arapah e
The single mall bmldmg has been replaced by buildings of vanous sizes and ~i
configurations
The concept's transportation plan evokes words like "connected", "through" and "open"
The creation of" 29`n Street", the extension of Canyon Boulevard, and the re-alignment of
Walnut Street through the site would significantly change the character of the site New
pedestrian and bicycle connections make the site accessible, being at Crossroads si(e
without a car should no longer feel uncomfortable and foreign In bnef, the new i
transportation plan remodels the character and layout of the site.
s \plan\pb-aems\memos\eltxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # ST
The architectural character and uses of buildings along the extenor streets must be
addressed further in a site review amendment apphcahon Some desired transportation
connections can be strengthened. The likelihood of a Phase 2 housing development is
uncertain. These issues are discussed in more detail m the remainder of this
memorandum But, the overall development concept presented by Westcor meets many
of the city's goals for Crossroads, both as expressed in the BVCP and as stated in
previous community discussions Staff believes that a conunued dialogue with staff,
Westcor, and the community will strengthen the project concept as it evolves and
completes the review process.
2. What is the desired character of building facades adjacent to 28`h and 30`" Streets
and Arapahoe Avenue?
Extenor Facme Buildme Elevations
The Crossroads concept plan includes several large buildings which border Arapahoe
Avenue, 28'h Street, and 30`h Street -for Pazcel 1 retatl, Pazce13 anchor, and the theater.
While there are a vanety of approaches that can be used, the design quality and character
of these "backs" of buildings will need to be addressed in demonstrating compliance
with the site review critena and BVRC Design Guidelines.
As an example, in the Elevation 3 conceptual drawing, no windows or store enures are
shown for the butldmg elevation facing 28`h Street. While the colonnade design adds
some pedestnan interest to the back of this butldmg, staff has concerns about the lack of
windows and/or entrees along a major street and gateway to the site. Also, the applicant's
photo examples for the treatment of "backs" of buildings seem to use vegetation to screen
or hide the building, rather than to accent. The design character and detailing of these
exterior elevations are critical to making the site plan for Parcel 1 work Pnor to site
review application, staff would like to work with the applicant to explore design options
that would meet BVRC and site review critena as well as the needs of Crossroads
tenants Photos of several local examples of rear elevations with windows and dual-entry
stores are included in Attachment F.
The 30'h Street character is a key example of proposed uses along extenor streets.
Although the backs of the buildings that will line 30`h Street will be treated aesthetically
with architectural details and landscaping, there are no active uses proposed along the
street. The goal for 30`h Street adopted in the BVRC Design Guidelines is for the street
to evolve into a "lively, more urban streetscape .to both accommodate and stimulate
pedestnan activity." Two ideas that would help animate the Crossroads section of 30'h
Street are
• Provide a second entrance to the movie theater on the 30'h Street side.
Wrap the east and perhaps north fapade of the new parking structure with active
uses (retail, office or some other use) This is strongly recommended by BVRC
Design Guideline 3 S.F
s \plan\pb-items\inemos\eh~trconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 5
w
Westcor has indicated that it will prepare design guidelines, with the input of city staff, to
set expectations re. building materials, landscaping, and signage Staff looks forward to
working with Westcor to set the character for buildings at this important and visible site
Butldmg Envelopes
Westcor intends to show building envelopes m a site review amendment application:
Final butldmg footprints would be determined at the time of Technical Document Review
or butldmg permit application (no building envelopes are shown on the concept plan)
Staff strongly supports providing Westcor with a high level of flexibility to "build to swt"
for Crossroads tenants Especially for buildings internal to the site, flexibility m building
placement is appropriate at the site review amendment step This flexibility will als¢
reduce the need for amendments or minor modifications to the final plan during build out
The applicant's reference to building envelopes "along the curb line" needs clarification
Since there are minimum setback requirements for buildings and parking from the
adjacent mayor streets, the applicant would need to identify any requested variations as
part of the site review amendment application.
Related BVRC Design Guidelines I
There are several BVRC Design Gidelmes that directly relate to the Crossroads
redevelopment issues discussed above. While these are guidelines and not standards,
they provide an important guide to redevelopment of this key BVRC site. They include:
5.2.A. Orient the building to the street I
The building should address the street and not "turn its back" to the pubkc Orient's the
main facade to the street, and provide an entrance(s) on the street side. If the building is
long or large, more than one entrance maybe needed on the front fariade or on several
sides of the building
5.2.B. Address the street corner
Provide an entry, additional building mass, and distinctive architectural elements at the
building corner 'I
5.2.D. Avoid large blank walls
Use architectural design to add visual interest to large walls Techniques :nclude varied
building mass, modulated wall plane, architectural details, varied materials and colors,
and art work
5.2.E. Provide pedestrian interest an the ground level
The ground level must offer pedestrian interest along sidewalks and paths This includes
transparent windows, entrances and architectural details I
s \plan\pb-items\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # 5A PaEe 6
S.2.E. Design all sides of the building
All sides of the butldtngs should be attractive and tnterestuig
3.S.F. "Wrap"parking structures with active uses
The ground-level of a parking structure must be wrapped by retail, office or some other
active use along at least the primary street facade
3. Does the proposed concept plan, including proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and
vehicular connections, generally meet the objectives of the Boulder Valley Regional
Center (BVRC) Transportation Connections Plan?
The concept plan provides many but not all of the connections regwred by the BVRC
Connections plan (see notated maps in Attachments G and H). The concept plan shows
the realigned Canyon Boulevard and the currently non-existent 29`h Street alignment
Also, the developer has indicated that easements along Arapahoe and 30`h Street can be
dedicated within this site plan that would allow for future public projects to construct
bicycle lanes on the west side of 30`h and the north side of Arapahoe. Several other
connections are not shown on the concept plan including disconnected sidewalks and the
realigned 29`h Street on the north end of the site and the Canyon/30`h Street intersection.
These are not expected to be problematic however, as there is ample room to make these
changes without significantly impacting the overall site plan
Several connections that aze not shown on the concept plan would impact the site plan
significantly. Since these connections are not proposed, the amendment process of the
BVRC Connections plan requires that the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and the
Boulder Urban Renewal Authonty (BURR) review the plan and provide
recommendations to Plannrng Board. The Planning Board then has authonty through the
site review process to amend the BVRC Connections plan Any amendments are subject
to Crty Council call-up. TAB and BURA considered amendments to the BVRC
Connections plan on September 8th and September 17`h, respectively. A summary of
their recommendations will be provided to Planning Board at the concept plan heanng on
September 18th. Specific amendments to the BVRC Connections plan that are reflected
on the concept plan are discussed below.
A On-street bike lane on Canvon
Transportation staff is recommending to TAB and City Council that references to
bike lanes elsewhere on Canyon be removed from the Transportation Master Plan,
therefore it is reasonable to not have bike lanes on this specific section of Canyon
as well Staff is supportive of the proposal to allow not having bike lanes on
Canyon.
s \plan\pb-uems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 7
B North-south Secondary Connection between 29`n and 30'n Streets
This connection is intended to tie the pomon of the site north of the movie theater
to the southern portion of the site for vehicles, pedestnans and bicycles The
raised plaza area in front of the movie theaters effectively creates a bamer to
north-south movement along the east side of the site A vehicular connection
within thts portton of the site similar to what is shown on the BVRC Connections
Plan would reduce artenal traffic congestion. At a minimum, staff recommends
having a pedestnan connection somewhere m this vicinity to connect the north
and south portions of the site
C A portion of a north-south Secondarv Connection between 28`n and 29`n Streets
This connection is shown on the concept plan north of Canyon Boulevard At a
minimum, tt should be extended to the east-west dnve aisle between Canyo~i and
Arapahoe m order to create better on-site circulation The BVRC Connections
plan envisions this connection extending all the way to Arapahoe By not having
this connection extend to Arapahoe, some vehicular, pedestnan and bicycle tnps
would be longer, however, these impacts are expected to be minor. Staff is
supportive of having this secondary connection extend up to the east-west dnve
aisle located north of Arapahoe without extending further south all the way to
Arapahoe
D Multi-Use Path between 28`n and 30`n Streets
I
This connection is shown on the BVRC Connections plan as connecting 28`n and
30`n Streets m an alignment that crosses between the existing Sears and Foley's
buildings The concept plan proposes to not have this connection so that Foley's
can be directly adjacent to the proposed parking garage located south of Foley's
and west of Sears. It is understood by staff that this is an important elements of the
agreement between Foley's and the developer. By not providing for this
connection, pedestnans and bicyclists will have no direct connection between the
east and west parts of the site within this vicinity and therefore would need to
traverse around the north side of Foley's across parking lots or up to Walnut.
Staff is not supportive of eliminating this east-west connection without explonng
all other options for achieving a connection within this area.
E Re-ahaitments of Multi-Use Paths mtemal to the site
The BVRC Connections plan envisions the corners of 28`n and Arapahoe anal 30`n
and Arapahoe to be connected to the mtemal portion of the site m a relatively
direct manner. The concept plan shows pedestnan connectivity from the corners
along store fronts without strong crossings of dnve aisles and parking lots. Staff
is supportive of the alignments shown on the Concept Plan, however they should
be widened and better defined where they cross parking lots and dnve aisles
II
s \plan\pb-rtems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 porn AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 8
Planning Board is asked to consider these proposed BVRC Coimections Plan
amendments in general terms as they relate to the concept plan. The Board will have an
opportunity to approve or deny specific amendments at the time of the Crossroads site
review amendment.
4. Is Westcor's proposal to fill the south end of the Crossroads site to remove it from
the 100-year floodplain preferred, both from a flood protection and site
development standpoint?
Back_ ound
In an agreement between BURA and the Crossroads Shopping Center Company, dated
July 7, 1982, the city of Boulder agreed to assist in making improvements to remove the
affected portion of the Crossroads site from the 100-year floodplain of Boulder Creek.
FEMA shows the property in the 100-year floodplain because the height of the existing
floodwall does not meet their current standards. There are two basic options to remove
the site from the floodplain. upgrade the floodwall along Arapahoe Avenue or import
site fill for the southern portion of the property.
Concert Plan Proaosa] re: Flood Improvements
Westcor proposes to import site fill as the method for removing the southern portion of
the Crossroads site from the 100-year floodplain. City staff strongly supports this option.
Filling the srte to raise the grade above protected flood elevations is preferred to
upgrading the Arapahoe Avenue floodwall and is a more sustainable method for
providing continued and effective flood protection for the property. In addition, the
proposed new grading of the site will raise the south end to a consistent grade with
surrounding streets and improve pedestnan, bicycle, and vehicular circulation across and
along the penmeter of the srte
The city of Boulder will honor the 1982 agreement by both assisting the applicant in
finding sources of fill and participating m the cost of filling the southem end of the site
City staff has requested that Westcor provide a cost estimate for using fill to remove the
site from the floodplain (i e. those costs directly related to flood mitigation and not to
other site development activities). City staff also recommends that in all site flood prone
areas, fill be placed to an elevation of one foot above the predicted flood elevation,
except at the location of building pads, where the site should be filled to two feet above
the predicted flood elevation.
Flood Mao Revision
Because the existing floodwall does not meet current FEMA standards, the existing
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM map 08013C0395F, 1995) shows shallow
flooding along Arapahoe Avenue,on the southern portion of the Crossroads site The
proposed fill should remove the southern portion of the site from the floodplain and
s \plan\pb-ttems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM t! SA Paee 9
enable FEMA to Issue a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) -changing the FIRM map m
that area, thereby reducing flood insurance rates As soon as the site grading plan is
finalized, staff has recommended that Westcor submit a CLOMR-F (Conditional Letter of
Map Revision based on fill) to FEMA to make certain that the proposed fill will be
sufficient to remove the site from the 100-year floodplatn.
BOULDER URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY REVIEW:
The Boulder Urban Renewal Authonty (BURR) Board is scheduled to revtew and comment on
this application on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 A report on the BURR Board's comments
will be included m the presentation to the Planning Board at its September 18, 2003 meeting
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D:
Attachment E.
Attachment F
Attachment G•
Attachment H
Concept Plan Objectives
Development Review Results and Comments, dated August
8, 2003
Crossroads Mall -Background History
Public Comment
Vicinity Map
Photos Examples of BVRC Architecture
Excerpt of BVRC Transportation Connections Plan vjrth
notations re. proposed amendments '~
Westcor's concept Site Transportation Plan with notations
re: proposed amendments to BVRC Transportation
Connections Plan
Attachment I• Applicant's wntten statement and plans ~I
s \plan\pb-items\memos\ehxrconcep[9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 10
Approved By
ATTACHMENT A
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT
Gwdelines for Review and Comment
The following guidelines will be used to guide the planning board's discussion regarding the site.
It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the
concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following
guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan.
1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location,
surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the
site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes
and prominent views to and from the site;
The site is at the corners of 28th and Arapahoe and 30th and Arapahoe, both of which are key
intersections in the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) and adjacent to Crossroads Mall 28th
Street will soon be a major regional transit corridor, wdh RTD bus service to Denver/DIA and this site
has been discussed as a potential transit superstop 30th and Arapahoe both have high frequency
transit, and the HOP high frequency bus route arculates within the site The Canyon alignment within
the site is currently indirect and 29th Street does not exist through the site An enclosed retail mall
and pad buildings are on the site, and the parking areas do not meet current parking and landscape
standards There is a considerable grade difference between the Target and Crossroads Mall sites
There are significant mountain views from the site
2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely
conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and
other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, sub-community and
sub-area plans;
Development of this site must be consistent with the BVRC urban renewal plan, guidelines, and
BVRC Transportation Connections plan. Redevelopment of this property strongly supports the city's
economic goals by helping to restore the city's retail sales tax base
3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review;
A sde review application must show compliance with applicable sde review cntena, including cntena
for any requested code variations A site review application also must demonstrate compliance with
BVRC gudelines and plans The site review application will be reviewed and voted on by both the
BURR Board and the Planning Board
4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to,
concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval;
Requested amendments to the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan will be considered concurrent
with site review Technical Document Reviews will be required for final architectural/site/landscape
plans, final engineering and utility plans, and a final plat A subdivision, concurrent with the site
review and Technical Document Review,.will be requred to replat the property and to vacate and
dedicate utility and access easements Building permit applications would follow
s \plan\pb-items\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paae 11
5) Opportunities and constramts in relation to the transportation system, including, without
limitation, access, linkage, signal¢ation, signage, and cvculation, existing transportation
system capacity problems serving the regwrements of the transportation master plan,
possible trail links, and the passible need for a traffic or transportation study; ~
The site review application should demonstrate vehicular and pedestnanlbicycle connections
between the site and adjacent properties Significant opportunlies will exist for connections to tl~e
new 28th Street regional transl corridor and the 30th and Arapahoe high-frequency transd corridors
The applicant is strongly encouraged to discuss providing opportunities for a future transit "superstop"
and the vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle connections in this project with Public Works staff A sign
program would be a condition of sde review approval
6) Environmental opportunities and constramts including, without limitation, the identification of
wetlands, important view corridors, floodplams and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors,
endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of
the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary;
City staff supports Westcor's proposal to import sle fill as the method for removing the southern''
portion of the Crossroads site from the 100-year floodplain There are significant view corridors to
the mountains from this site
7) Appropriate ranges of land uses, and
The site, designated RB-E and Regional Business, is an appropriate site for a wide range of
commercial land uses, including retail, personal service, and office uses Redevelopment of th$
Crossroads Mall sde as a mator retail development is appropriate and encouraged in the BVRC~ and
would be a major contributor to the economic vitally of the city of Boulder
8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensve Plan (BVCP) identrfies the Boulder Valley Regional Center
(BVRC) as a regional shopping and commercial center for the Boulder Valley and its continued
upgrading and redevelopment as a city priority The Crossroads Mall is designated Mixed Use
Business in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) The comprehensive plan states flhat, m
areas designated Mixed Use Business, "business character will predominate, although housing and
public uses supporting housing wtll be encouraged and may be requved Specfic zoning and tither
regulations will be adopted which define the desired intensity, mix, location and design characteristics
of these uses"
The land use designation indicates the city's desired land use for the sde, however, the zoning (sets
the regulatory framework for development of the property The land use designation for this site was
changed from Regional Business to Mixed Use Business as part of the Year 2000 Major Upda~e to
the BVCP The community indicated its support and desire for mixed use redevelopment of th site
during the Crossroads Consortwm and 28th Street Design Charrette processes The cly worl~ed wlh
the Macench Company to implement a mixed use plan on the sde a few years ago, however th'e
financial analysis indicated that it was not a feasible solution for the site without significant public
investment The city then indicated to Macench that they should move forward wlh a market-gased
plan (the current plan, which does not include residential development in its first phase) Althpugh
the city would like to see residential development on the site, it is not a requirement of the
redevelopment The city acknowledges that Macench does not have fee control over a large portion
of the Crossroads site and that the May Company has some control over which existing parka g areas
are redeveloped, including the proposed Parcel 4 "future residential" site The most important and
use consideration in redevelopment of the site is reestablishing Crossroads as a vibrant retail center
s \plan\pb-uems\memos\etixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 12
and major contributor to the city's sales tax base Prior to site review amendment application, please
discuss with staff the likelihood of Phase 2 development for housing, based on the issues discussed
above, and how the phasing plan should be presented in the next step of review
s \plan\pb-nems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 13
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS August 8, 2003
CASE MANAGER Liz Hanson
PROJECT NAME Crossroads Mall
LOCATION 1600 28TH ST
COORDINATES N03W04
REVIEW TYPE Concept Plan Review & Comment
REVIEW NUMBER LUR2003-00055
APPLICANT WESTCOR
DESCRIPTION CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT: Conceptual
redevelopment plans for the Crossroads Mall site including
general arculation, approximate building sizes and
locations, proposed demolition, and conceptual elevations,
sections, and grading of existing site
REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS
Specific variations have not been identified in the Concept Plan application However,
based on the concept plan submittal, it appears that variations to be requested as part of a
site review amendment application may include: a building height of 55 feet, where 35 feet
is the by-right height limit, for the proposed theater, setback variations from Arapahoe
Avenue and 28~" and 30~" Streets; and, variations to landscape standards for landscaping
internal to parking areas.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Staff finds that the applicant's concept plan application exceeds the city's minimum regwrements
Westcor's complete, detailed submittal is generally responswe to issues raised at the April 23`d pre-
application meeting In particular, Westcor's commitment to complete key phasing steps, including
full demolition, extension of the street grid, all utility relocations, import of fdl and final grading,
prior to occupancy at any phase, is a key part of the concept plan application Westcor's proposal
to raise the Crossroads property out of the floodplain through extensive fill, signifcantly improves site
opportunities Also, the amount of parking proposed ~s consistent with city standards
The concept plan application materials raise several key issues that must be addressed m a site
review amendment application. Additional detail from Westcor or further steps are needed to address
• The general appearance and uses of exterior facing budding elevations -elevations which
face Arapahoe Avenue, 28`"Street, and 30`" Street -for Parcel 1 retail, Parcel 3 anchor, and the
theater While there are a variety of approaches that can be used, the design quality and
character of these "backs" of bwldings which face the surrounding major streets and key
intersections have not yet been demonstrated in a way to show how the site plan will meet city
review criteria
• The use of design guidelines and building envelopes as a guide for build out of each phase
Staff strongly supports providing a high level of flexibility to respond to tenant needs Design
guidelines must set appropriate standards for design quality and compatibility and all requested
setback variations must be identified and considered at the time of site review amendment
• Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections between varying grades and portions of the
site The concept plan regwres amendments to the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan
These amendments must be considered by the aty's Transportation Advisory Board, Boulder
Urban Renewal Authority (BURR) Board and Planning Board
s \plan\pb-nems\memos\eh~crconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 14
• Building code compliance related to the connection between new and existing construction
• Revisions to flood mapping to remove the Crossroads site from the 100-year floodplain
• A concurrent application for subdivision (preliminary plat) to relocate property lines, and
dedicate and vacate easements Ample hme should be allowed for this substantial replat of,this
large sde
The Crossroads concept plan has been scheduled for review and comment by the BURA Board on '
Wednesday, September 17'h at 6 00 p m and by the Planning Board on Thursday, September 18'" at
7 00 p m In addition, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) will review proposed changes to the
BVRC Transportation Connections Plan on Monday, September 8'h
Staffs analysis of how the concept plan meets the Concept Plan Review and Comment Gwdelines of
Section 9-4-10(f), B R C 1981 will be included in the staff memorandum to the Planning Board for its
September 18th meeting This analysis will be based on the concept plan submittal and any revised
wrdten statements provided by Westcor pnor to August 25'h
II CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
PLANNING
Building Envelopes
The applicant's written statement indicates the intent to specify building envelopes m a site review ',
amendment application, with final building locations to be determined at the time of Technical Document
Review or building permit application (no buldng envelopes are shown on the concept plan) Siaff II
strongly supports providing Westcor with ample flexibility to "build to swt" for Crossroads tenants
Especially for buildings internal to the site, flexibility m buddng placement is appropriate at the site review
amendment step This flexibility in an approval will also reduce the need for amendments or minor
modifications to the final plan during bwld out Westcor will need to demonstrate that all bwlding
envelopes do not encroach upon proposed utilities and utility easements
Staff has some concerns about the applicant's reference to budding envelopes "along the curb line"; rf this
refers to exterior streets such as Arapahoe Avenue, and 28'h and 30'h Streets Since there are minimum
setback requirements for buildings and parking from these major streets, the applicant would need ~o
identify any requested variations as part of the site review amendment application While some se back
variation may be appropriate, depending on the site plan and building character, some setback is li ely
appropriate to provide for streetscape and transportation improvements
Design Guidelines
Westcor has indicated that d will prepare design guidelines, with the input of cdy staff, to set expectations
re budding materials, landscaping, and signage Staff looks forward to working with Westcor to sef the
character for buildings at this important and visible site Coordination pnor to sde review amendment
submittal is recommended since the conceptual architectural sketches and photo examples provid~d
raise concerns regarding lack of glazing and building entries and use of landscape material to hide rather
than accent building facades (See additional comments below regarding Parcel 1 )
Srte Layout
The preliminary plan shows four distinct areas - a central parcel (2), a southwest parcel (1), a southeast
parcel (3), and a future housing site on the northeast parcel (4) Staff comments on the land use and
transportation features of the site layout are summarized according to these four areas
s \plan\pb-Hems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # 5A 1?aee 15
Central Parcel f2
Land Use
(The commenfs below discuss site layout issues that relate to both Parcels 2 and 3 )
The character along 30'" Street is a concern Although the backs of the buildings that will line 30'" Street
will be treated aesthetically with architectural details and landscaping, there are no active uses proposed
along the street The goal for 30'" Street adopted in the BVRC Design Guidelines (p 7) is for the street to
evolve into a "lively, more urban streetscape to both accommodate and stimulate pedestrian activity "
The Crossroads Community Consortium Goal 1 lists the following opportunity "Create an urban-like
setting along sections of 30'" Street, so that buldings face the street and sidewalk " (Consortium Report,
p 11) Two ideas that would help animate the Crossroads section of 30'" Street are
• Provide an entrance to the movie theater on the 30"' Street side Perhaps one centrally
located ticket booth could serve both entrances Staff acknowledges that this may
regwre a major adjustment of the theater layout already envisioned by Westcor and the
prospective tenant
• Wrap the east and perhaps north facade of the new parking structure with active uses
(retail, office or some other use) This is strongly recommended by Design Guideline
3 5 F In addition to providing visual interest from 30'" Street, fining the north fapade wdh
active uses may help draw customers into the set-back former Sears bwiding Marie
Zuzack, BURR, 303-441-4278
The Concept Plan narrative states that the size and amenity treatments for the outdoor spaces will be
provided in more detail in the site plan Please also address the desire for a hierarchy of outdoor spaces.
including some gathering spaces The outdoor spaces on the Concept Plan appear to be mostly linear in
nature (less amenable to gathering) Please refer to objectives for outdoor spaces described in the third
bullet on page 10 of Crossroads Community Consortium Final Report (under Goal 1) and the first bullet
on page 16 (under Goal 4) Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278
At the time of site review amendment, please provide additional detail on the design and treatment of the
outdoor plaza, including minimum dimensions between buildings, paving and landscape materials,
fixtures, and accessory uses such as sales kiosks or carts Will tree planting be affected by the parking
garage below
Prior to Planning Board review, additional clarity is needed re the proposed parking levels and theater
entry Please discuss with staff
Transportation
City staff is currently completing the site review amendment for the adjacent Target store addition The
Target plans show a phased approach to the new alignment of the "29'" Street" drive as it crosses the
Target property and connects to the Crossroads site The Phase 1 alignment is intended far the period
between Target construction and the Crossroads redevelopment (approximately January- July 2004 to
spring 2005) and shows the existing connection point between the Crossroads and Target sites Phase 2
shows a new 29'" Street drive alignment, with the 29'h Street connection moving further east when the
Crossroads site redevelops It appears that Target's Phase 2 alignment shows the connection in a
different location than as shown on the current Crossroads concept plan Please continue discussions
with Target to coordinate this important connection and, as needed, show the revised connection at the
time of the Crossroads site review amendment
A pedestrian connection is needed from 30'" Street to the entrance of the former Sears bwlding
The existing transit stop at the northeast corner of 28'h & Canyon is not shown on the Concept Plan
Please show this stop on the site plan and provide a sidewalk along the north side of Canyon, connecting
this stop and 28'" Street to the proposed sidewalk farther east Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278
s `p]an~pb-rtems~rvemos~eherconcept9403 pbm AGEND4 ITEM # 54 Paee 16
Southwest Parcel (1)
Land Use
In the Elevation 3 conceptual drawing, no windows or store entries are shown for the budding elevation
facing 28'h Street While the colonnade design adds some pedestrian interest to the back of this bw'dmg,
staff has concerns that the lack of windows and/or entries is not the preferred design option for a major
street and gateway to the site Also, the applicant's photo examples far the treatment of "backs" of
buildings seem to use vegetation to screen or hide the building, rather than to accent The design i
character and detailing of these exterior elevations are critical to making the site plan for Parcel 1 w¢rk
Staff would like to work wdh the applicant to provide local examples of attractive rear elevations andldual-
entry stores in the BVRC and to explore design options that would meet BVRC and site review criteria as
well as the needs of Crossroads tenants .
The large anchor has increased in size and is no longer labeled as a grocery store, as in the pre-
application plans Is a grocery store still a possible retail use at this location
The corner of 28'" & Canyon is the most prominent vehicular entry to Crossroads, and is also a highly
visible intersection in the BVRC The new bank building should be placed at the corner, with the
parking/drive-m m a less prominent location (beside or behind the budding), per Sde Design Guideline
3 1 C The recently built Pueblo Bank at 30'" & Pearl Streets is a good example of the desired layout In
addition to budding placement, the architectural massing and design of the budding should also reflect the
importance of this corner (Building Design Guideline 5 2 B) Marie Zuzack, BURR, 303-441-4278
Transportation
The pedestrian route located along building facades connecting the corner of 28`h & Arapahoe to the
central area is fine However, the porton of the route through the parking lot needs to be strengthened
Mane Zuzack, BURR, 303-441-4278
Southeast Parcel (3)
Land Use
Is Westcor considering any other possible land uses besides a 125,000 square foot anchor retail store in
Parcel 3~ If so, it would be preferred to list these options in the concept plan submittal
The corner of 30`h & Arapahoe is a designated BVRC gateway The treatment of the building and
landscape at this corner should take this gateway status into account Although m the proposed
configuration an entry to the anchor bwldmg is probably not feasible, please refer the Building ,Design
Guideline 5 2 B and Landscaping Design Gudeline 3 7 8 as the plan is further refined Marie Zuzack,
BURA, 303-441-4278
Transportation
Please ensure that the parking lot layout adjacent to Arapahoe east of 29'h Street allows enough space
for a row of street trees on each side of the multi-use path ~
A crosswalk across the parking lot aisle connecting Arapahoe to the front fagade of the anchor building is
needed for pedestrians using the 30 & Arapahoe transit stop Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278
s \plan\pb-items\memos\eh.~crconcep[9403 pbm
AGENDA ITEM # SA haec 17
Northeast Parcel (4)
Land Use
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) identifies the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC)
as a regional shopping and commercial center for the Boulder Valley and its continued upgrading and
redevelopment as a city priority The Crossroads Mall is designated Mixed Use Business in the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) The comprehensive plan states that, in areas designated Mixed
Use Business, "business character will predominate, although housing and public uses supporting
housing will be encouraged and may be required Specific zoning and other regulations will be adopted
which define the desired intensity, mix, location and design characteristics of these uses "
The land use designation indicates the aty's desired land use for the site, however, the zoning sets the
regulatory framework for development of the property The land use designation far this site was
changed from Regional Business to Mixed Use Business as part of the Year 2000 Major Update to the
BVCP The community indicated its support and desire for mixed use redevelopment of the site during
the Crossroads Consortium and 28th Street Design Charrette processes The city worked with the
Macerich Company to implement a mixed use plan on the site a few years ago, however the financial
analysis indicated that it was not a feasible solution for the site without significant public investment The
city then indicated to Macerich that they should move forward with amarket-based plan (the current plan,
which does not include residential development in its first phase) Although the city would like to see
residential development on the site, it is not a requirement of the redevelopment The city acknowledges
that Macerich does not have fee control over a large portion of the Crossroads site and that the May
Company has some control over which existing parking areas are redeveloped, including the proposed
Parcel 4 "future residential" site The most important land use consideration in redevelopment of the site
is reestablishing Crossroads as a vibrant retail center and major contributor to the city's sales tax base
Prior to site review amendment application, please discuss with staff the likelihood of Phase 2
development for housing, based on the issues discussed above, and how the phasing plan should be
presented in the next step of review
City staff is available to discuss what financal incentives for housing are available Please contact John
Pollak, Director of the Division of Housing and Human Services, at 303-441- 3157
Transportation
Interior transportation connections to abutting properties are strongly encouraged in the BVRC, in order to
reduce traffic volumes and turning movements on arterial streets and to increase circulation convenience
for customers (Design Guidelines 3 1 K , 3 2 B , 3 3 B ,and 3 3 H) Please provide direct vehicular and
pedestrian/bicycle connections to Aspen Plaza (parcel adjacent to the northeast) and the Golden Lotus
(adjacent to the northwest) Staff will assist in determining, with the adjacent property owners, the best
location and the appropriate timing for installation Marie Zuzack, BURR, 303-441-4278
Landscaping
Please address the following comments in a site review amendment application
1 The site contains a lot of mature landscaping including many mature trees that will be difficult
to replace Please indicate on a landscape plan the amount of existing landscaping that will
be protected on site If existing trees will be located on site, the landscape plan must shown
the relocation plan Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272
2 It is unclear from the concept plan if the streetscape requirements will be met The BVRC
streetscape guidelines require that street trees be planted in double rows every 30 feet along
s ~plan~pb-items\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGEND4 ITEivI # 5A Paee 18
28'", Arapahoe and 30'" Streets, and in a single row along internal through-streets Bev
Johnson, 303-441-3272 and Marie Zuzack, 303-441-4278
It does not appear from the concept plan that the parking lot landscaping standards wdl be
met The standards require a minimum amount of interior lot landscaping Please provide
the calculations to indicate if the interior lot standards in Section 9-3 3-4(d), B R C 1981 are
met Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272 '
Please note that the standards requre that no more than three double loaded rows of parking
may be situated consecutively wdhout providing a planting area, a minimum of eight feet in
width along the center between rows for the full length of each parking row If a variance to
this standard is requested, please show how the intent of the standards will be met in other
aspects of the site landscaping Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272
Parking lots abutting public streets should be screened using landscaping and/or low walls
Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272 and Mane Zuzack, 303-441-4278
Land Uses
Retail uses
Retail uses in existing buildings and retail uses in new buildings over 20,000 square feet in floor area are
allowed "by-right" in the RB-E zoning district However, according to Section 9-3 1-1(b)(18)
"establishments for the retailing of goods located in a building that is no larger than 20,000 square feet In
total floor area, which have not exterior storage of materials and have no on-site repairs, service or
installation" must receive use review approval by demonstrating compliance with the city's use revit?w
criteria in Section 9-4-9(d), B.R C 1981 Therefore, a use review application would be required at jhe
time of a site review amendment application, these applications would be processed concurrently ,Use
review approval could be requested for the overall Crossroads site, rather than far specific buildings
Theater use
The proposed theater use is allowed as an "Indoor entertainment establishment" in the RB-E zoning
district A modern multi-screen theater is a much needed use in the city and is a strong, complementary
use with existing and new retail and restaurant uses The resulting synergy from this mix well likely create
a strong entertainment and shopping destination at the heart of the site
Drive-in use
The plan shows removal of an existing bank drroe-in use at the corner of 28`h and Arapahoe and a new
bank drive-m use located at 28`"and Canyon The city's land use regulations require a use review,for
drive in uses in the RB-E zoning district, with a list of standards that must be met in Section 9-3 4-8,
B R C 1981, in addition to the city's use review criteria in Section 9-4-9(d), B R C 1981 Therefore, a
use review application would be required at the time of a site review amendment application, these
applications would be processed concurrently I
The Concept Plan narrative states that Westcor and U S Bank are considering atwo-story buildin~ that
would incorporate the bank drive-through, in accordance with the BVRC Design Guideline regarding
drive-through functions Adddional drive-throughs will be considered on a case-by-case basis as u'se
review applications, recognizing the need for a variety of retail uses on the site
Traffic
Traffic Impact Studv
According to the information provided by the applicant, the overall traffic generated by this development
would be about 20% less than that of the mall in 1994, a timeframe when the mall was fully occupigd
This is partly based on a smaller amount of retail floor area and the more local rather than regional retail
s \plan\pb-items\memos\eh.~crconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee ]9
niche in which this development will function It is therefore reasonable to assume at this stage of review
that the overall transportation infrastructure is adequate to support the vehicular traffic from this proposal
Assumptions about how traffic will be distributed to the surrounding street network have not yet been
reviewed, so localized impacts to certain intersections may cause improvements in edher signal timing or
intersection geometry to be needed A final traffic study will be requred at the time of site review
amendment submittal This study will be used to evaluate traffic impacts to specific locations and also the
effectiveness of proposed Transportation Demand Management strategies
Transoortation Demand Management (TDMI
As part of a site revew amendment application, appropriate Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
strategies will need to be identified These strategies will be focused on reducing the number of single
passenger vehicle trips to the site, particularly for employees Several transit routes serve this site and
bicycle and pedestrian connections cross the site For a development of this size serving a large number
of employees, a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) would have the greatest benefit Other
employers in the area could also loin and help pay for the TMO once started, and office space within
Crossroads could be provided to house the TMO and provide area employees with information and
support These efforts would make Crossroads a recognized leader in the effort to reduce vehicular
congestion in the central part of Boulder Membership in a TMO could consist of a variety of programs,
including parking management programs, shuttles, Eco Pass programs, carpool matching programs, and
childcare programs
Parking
Parking Lavout /Distribution
Parking Garage Access
The access to the parking lot from 28t" Street is limited to right-turn only movements Access to and from
the southbound 28`h Street would have to access the garage in a circuitous manner via the Canyon/28tH
intersection Access from northbound Canyon is more direct by using the right-turn-only access, however
this requires access across neighboring property A public access easement would be required to
formalize this arrangement This parking garage access would be improved if access closer to Canyon or
directly from Canyon could be achieved
The parking garage access from 30`h Street has multiple points of entry for vehicles and appears to be
suitable for the traffic expected to be generated This issue will need to be reviewed further with the
traffic impact study
The applicant has identified the parking needs for individual neighborhoods The parking supply is very
close to the numbers required by the city code without significant excess At the time of site review, the
location of specific parking spaces will be reviewed to assure that the spaces are within a reasonable
distance and configuration to serve the intended retail spaces Also, it will be necessary at site review to
clearly show where parking is controlled by the May Company, Sears and other land owners and where
the Crossroads developer controls parking
Landscaping
City of Boulder land use regulations require a minimum amount of landscaping in parking areas The site
review criteria encourage protects to exceed the minimum city landscape standards and this is supported
by the BVRC Design Guidelines (3 7 A )
s plan\pbatems\memos\eh~rconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 20
Budding Height
North end
There are two ways that building height is calculated for the Crossroads site, based on a dividing line
which aligns with the south edge of Canyon Boulevard at 28'h Street (please see attached map) For the
north end of the sde, bwidmg height is calculated based on the cdy code definition of "height" (see ~
Section 9-1-3(a), B R C 1981 This height calculation uses a low point within 25 feet of the lowest li
exposed point of a budding Therefore, the bulding "height" may be higher or lower that the actual ~
measured building height from grade
As part of the site review amendment application, please provide a detailed height calculation based on
the city code definition of height to confirm that the theater building is no taller than 55 feet The
proposed theater budding height wdl require height modification approval by Planning Board as part of the
sde review amendment, since the proposed height exceeds 40 feet
South end
For the south end of the site, budding height is calculated based on a 1998 cdywide vote which approved
the following "subfect to approval through the development review process, 'height' shall be defined as
the vertical distance measured from Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood protection elevation
at 28'h Street of 5,288 feet, as determine in accordance with the North American vertical datum of 1988,
to a plane above such elevation " So, to calculate the heights of building in the south end (see attached
map), 5,288 feet is used as a base measurement rather than the "low point within 25 feet" of a bwlding
(The resulting maximum 55 foot tall building would measure approximately 71 to 72 feet )
Review orocess
For the entire Crossroads site, the "by-right" height limit is 35 feet In the RB-E zone, up to 40 feet irY
building height is allowable with Administrative Review approval for conditional height Building heights
between 40 feet and 55 feet (maximum height per city charter) must be approved by Planning Board as a
height modification as part of a site review approval
Phasing
Staff supports Westcor's commitment to complete key phasing steps, including full demolition, exterjsion
of the street grid, all utility relocations, import of fill and final grading, prior to occupancy at any phase, and
finds that this is a key part of the concept plan application Completion of this critical sde work prior Ito
any final inspections will facilitate bulding permit review and tenant occupancy
The applicant should note that with site review amendment approval, the approved plan must be
substantially complete (e g completing final inspections) within three years of the date of final approval
Or, if Westcor anticipates a phasing schedule that exceeds three years, a specific sequential phasing
plan (e g Phase 1 to be constructed between 2004 and 2005, Phase 2 to be constructed between X005
and 2006, etc) should be identfied at the time of concept plan revew and then relined at the time c~f site
review amendment application This phasing plan would be referenced in the site review amendmgnt
approval Also, rf Westcor seeks to create vested property rights for more than three years, Cdy Council
approval is required Please contact David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney, at 303-441-3020 for additional
information about vested property rights
s \plan\pb-items\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 21
PUBLIC WORKS
Street Sections
Walnut Street
• Walnut interior to the site is shown as having an improved alignment and the removal of the existing
four-way stop
• Walnut is Iabeied on the plan as a "secondary vehicular roadway" however it is intended to be a
primary roadway In order to be consistent with the BVRC plan, the term "secondary roadway" needs
to be used to designate mid-block vehicular connections such as motor parking circulators or alleys
• The BVRC plan calls for on-street bike lanes for Walnut It is unclear from the Crossroads plan
whether on-street bike lanes are intended for Walnut Head-in parking on Walnut would not be
supported by staff on any street with on-street bike lanes It is not clear why any on-street parking is
shown on Walnut since the location of this parking is far from buildings and would not be expected to
be frequently used
• The sidewalk on the south side of Walnut ends half-way through the site It is not clear why this
sidewalk does not continue through to 30`" Street The BVRC Connections Plan has a stated intent
that all internal streets have 6 foot wide sidewalks on both sides
Canvon Boulevard
Canyon is shown in an alignment that connects 28`" to 30'" Streets and is an improvement
compared to the existing cvculation through the property
The aty will require a five foot wide detached sidewalk along the north side of Canyon Boulevard
far the entire length from 28`" to 30'" Streets
Canyon is shown without on-street bike lanes which is inconsistent with the BVRC plan It is
recognized by staff that there is value to adding head-in parking along Canyon in terms of
customer accessibility and creating ahigh-turnover urban streetscape although head-in parking is
incompatible with an on-street bike lane An alteration to the BVRC plan of this magnitude would
need to be reviewed for comment by the Transportation Advisory Board
29'" Street
• The alignment toward the north end of the site needs to be coordinated with the alignment on
Target's property in such a way that the grades and the circulation for both properties function
appropriately The grading plan in this submittal indicates that some grading will be occurring
north of the Foley's property, so it appears that there could be an opportunity to overcome the
vertical grade differences across the Crossroads and Target properties
• A sidewalk should be provided on the west side of 29`" Street south section Qust north of
Arapahoe)
• The cross section on Sheet A-8 does not match the plan on Sheet A-7 in forms of the widths of
the various elements of the right-of-way At a minimum, the width of the street must be 64 feet
where there is head-in parking on both sides to be consistent with the city's parking standards
The applicant may wish to include more width, however too much street width will encourage
higher travel speeds
• The multi-use path shown in the cross-section is suitably wide however the planters alongside the
path are a potential obstruction to bicycle pedals One option to resolve this conflict would be to
use landscaping that does not require planters Another option would be to separate the planters
from the 12 foot wide path with 18" sections on both sides of the path that are constructed from
concrete of a different texture or color
• A ramped walkway would be needed to the 29'" Street head-in parking up to the plaza for
disabled access -
s \plan\pb-sterns\memos\ehsrconcept9403 pbm AGEYllA I'I'EbI # 54 Pace??
• If outdoor seating will be part of the cross-section for 29'h Street within the plaza, 8 feet of
separation within the sidewalks would be needed between the seating and any obstruction This
needs to be considered m the design of this streetscape
30`" Street and Arapahoe Avenue
The BVRC plan calls for bike lanes on 30`" Street and Arapahoe Avenue These bike lanes do not ~
currently ewst In order to create room for bike lanes the street would have to be widened five feet on
both sides, thereby moving the street trees and multi-use path five feet into the Crossroads site Also, the
detachment between the curb and the multi-use path needs to be 10 feet although currently this area is
less than 10 feet wide Revisions to the BVRC plan need to be considered if these bike lanes would not
be planned for with this development As the BVRC plan stands currently, a public access easement
would need to be dedicated behind the multi-use paths along both Arapahoe and 30`" for potential future
reconstruction of these street frontages consistent with these regwrements Buildings and other
obstructions would need to be set outside of this easement ~
It is currently undetermined when or if the bike lanes on these two streets wdl be constructed If d is'
determined that one or both of these bike lanes will be constructed, the Crossroads development would
be expected to pay apro-rata share of the cost of creating bike lanes on 30`" Street and Arapahoe
Avenue based on a proportion of traffic volume generated by the site on these streets compared to the
total traffic on these streets At the time of site review and review of the final traffic impact study, thi$ pro-
rata share of the cost can be better understood Steve Durian, 303-441-4493
28`h Street
The multi-use path on 28`" Street is suitable for transportation needs A publicly funded protect will
reconstruct this street, however d is expected that all improvements will be contamed within existinginght-
of-way
North-South Secondary Vehicular Connections
North-south vehicular connections were envisioned in the BVRC plan to function as access to the rear of
bwldmgs that would front on 28`", 29`h and 30`" Streets The layout and function of the Crossroads plan is
different from this concept, and as such these secondary vehicular connections would function as ~l
means to circulate through the site without having to access artenal roadways Two north-south
connections are envisioned in the BVRC plan
• A secondary connection between 28`h and 29`h Streets is shown on the Crossroads plan between
Walnut and Canyon but dead-ends into a parking lot south of Canyon A connection to Arapahoe
is blacked by the anchor store on the north side of Arapahoe This connection effectively
provides the intended connection internal to the site Without the connection to Arapahoe, {his
proposal would need to be reviewed for comment by TAB
• A secondary connection between 29`h and 30`h Streets is shown on the BVRC plan that does not
connect the south end of the site to the north end The applicant will need to consider way to
achieve a better internal connection and access before staff can support an amendment AB
will need to review and comment on whatever solution is found involving this secondary
connection l
Multi-Use Paths
The BVRC Connections Plan envisions bicycle and pedestrian facilities connecting the exterior of the site
to the interior for both bicycles and pedestrians These connections should be continuous and
comfortable for their users The pedestrian paths shown on the plan achieve a limited connection from
the fringes into the site but are discontinuous and in some places cut off by buildings and parking Its It
is not clear how bicyclists are accommodated on these paths I
s \plan\pb-~tems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM k SA Pate 23
The central area east of the plaza is completely cut off to access from the south and west portions of the
site for pedestrians The plaza is elevated above the eastern portion of the site This barrier could be
overcome with stairs for pedestrians and ramps for bicyclists and accessibility for the disabled although
these ramps would have to be very long to achieve appropriate slopes
The BVRC Connections plan calls for an underpass beneath 28'" Street that would connect with this site
at the location of the right-turn-only access between Canyon and Arapahoe This area between will need
to be reserved for future dedication to the city for an underpass construction protect When an underpass
is constructed, the right-turn-only access will need to be eliminated This development would not be
expected to participate in or pay for the construction of an underpass in this location
In many locations pedestrian connections are disconnected or not shown at all Connections from the
Arapahoe and 28`" Street intersection into the plaza area are weak and cross parking lots Wide
pathways along the right-turn only access from 28~" Street end at a parking lot and do not continue further
to the east Because of the location of the anchor at 30'" and Arapahoe, no direct connection from this
intersection to the plaza area is possible These changes constitute a modification to the BVRC
Connections Plan and will need to be reviewed by TAB
Transit Stoos and Routes
Internal to the site
The bus stop and shelter within the plaza area is well located for access to the central area within the
plan Since the HOP bus route operated in both directions, a bus shelter on the other side of the street
north of the pedestrian crossing would also be needed The other two bus stops shown on the plan are
generally in good locaticns and would not likely need shelters In both of these locations, a bus stop on
both sides of the street will be needed Other bus stops throughout the site may needed as future routes
are added or changed, however its expected that these could be added within the street sections
provided without special provisions needed at this stage of planning If and when the housing component
of the plan is implemented, the bus stop on Walnut will need to be located closer to this part of the site
External to the site
This plan does not show the superstop location at the corner of 28'"and Arapahoe Although the
Crossroads development would not be responsible far this improvement, the location must be shown on
the plan far the purpose of coordination
Drainage
1 Storm water conveyance and storm water quality enhancement are issues that will need to be
addressed during the Site Review Process A Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan in
accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards will be necessary and should
also address the following issues
• Water quality for surface runoff using "Best Management Practices"
• Storm sewer construction
• Groundwater discharge
• Erosion control during construction activities
• Snow storage and de-icing
2 Appropriate practices for cleaning of outdoor seating areas, storage of materials, and similar best
management practices wtll need to be addressed at Site Revew City staff has significant expertise
in the area of storm water quality and would be interested in working with the Westcor team on
innovative approaches to storm water quality management on the site In previous Crossroads
redevelopment plans, the applicant proposed construction of a stormwater quality facility on the Scott
s plan\pb-rtems~memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 24
Carpenter Park sde to the south Cdy stormwater quality and parks staff would be available to meet
wdh Westcor to further discuss this option I
It is important to note that the City of Boulder is subtect to the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II regulations Over the five year permit cycle, the city will be
developing new local ordinances to address the state and federal mandates Based on staff
discussions with the state, the city would not be required to make the new requirements retroactive
on a previously approved protect If the Crossroads redevelopment has not received approval prior to
adoption of the new ordinances, adddional storm water qualdy requrements could be applicable
Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 ~
Flood Protection
City staff supports Westcor's proposal to import site fill as the method for removing the southern portion of
the Crossroads site from the 100-year floodplaln Filling the site to raise the grade above protected flood
elevations is preferred to upgrading the Arapahoe Avenue floodwall and is a more sustainable method for
providing continued and effective flood protection for the property
~ r~~ Partcipation in Financing of Stte Fill
In the agreement between BURA and the Crossroads Shopping Center Company, dated July 7, 19812, the
city of Boulder agreed to assist in making improvements to remove the Crossroads site from the 10q-year
floodplaln of Boulder Creek The city of Boulder is prepared to honor that commitment and to both assist
the applicant in finding sources of fill and to partiapate in the cost of filling the southern end of the site
Submittal of Cost Estimate for Placement of Site Fill
City staff would like to review a cost estimate for using fill to remove the site from the floodplaln The cost
estimate should be submitted to Varda Blum, and should include all costs associated with placement of fill
-including without limdahon, the cost and volumes of fill, sod preparation, and asphalt The fisted cysts
should be directly related to flood mitigation and not to other sde development activities
City staff recommends that m all site flood prone areas, fill be placed to an elevation of one foot above the
predicted flood elevation, except at the location of building pads, where the site should be filled to two feet
above the predicted flood elevation The submitted cost estimate should breakdown fill volumes and
costs into the following categories, fill volume and cost to bring the site up to the minimum required
elevation, additional volume and cost to bring the site elevation to one foot/two foot at building pads
above the predicted flood elevation, and any adddional costs created by placement of additional fdl ~Inot
required as a result of flood mitigation
Preparation of CLOMR-F
Because the existing floodwall is not recognized by FEMA, the existing FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM map 08013C0395F, 1995) shows shallow flooding along Arapahoe on the southern portion of the
Crossroads site The proposed fdl should remove the southern portion of the site from the floodplaln and
enable FEMA to issue a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) -changing the FIRM map in that area, thereby
reducing flood insurance rates As soon as the site grading plan is finalized, Westcor shall submd'~
CLOMR-F (Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on fill) to FEMA to make certain that the proposed
fdl wdl be sufficient to remove the sde from the 100-year floodplaln
Groundwater
It appears that the current proposal will include some level of site excavation to accommodate subsurface
parking facilities Subsurface construction typically includes construction and post construction
dewatenng and wdl require state and local permits It is recommended that Westcor obtain the services
s \plan\pb-items\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA [TEM # 5A `t'ase 25
of a groundwater specialist early rn the process to identify any potential quantttahve or qualitative issues
with groundwater on the site The applicant may contact the City of Boulder Storm Water Quality Office at
303-413-7350 regarding groundwater discharge permit requirements Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Subdivision
The Crossroads site currently includes numerous easements and several property lines As part of the
redevelopment process, easements that are no longer needed will need to be vacated and internal
property lines eliminated to allow for construction Rights-of-way and easements will need to be
dedicated and new lot lines configured to accommodate the proposed improvements A Preliminary Plat
showing existing and proposed easements is needed as part of the Site Review submittal Scott Kuhna,
303-441-3121
Utilities
The redevelopment will need to be served by a combination of publicly owned utility mains and private
utility services Public water and sewer mains currently exist on site and it may be possible to use some
of this existing infrastructure to serve the protect The system will need to be designed to meet fire
hydrant spaang requirements on the site and to allow each structure to connect domestic and fire service
lines The public portion of the water system as well as water meters will need to be located within public
easements At the time of site review, a Utility Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards will need to be provided showing existing and proposed utility information Scott
Kuhna,303-441-3121
BUILDING AND FIRE CODES
Bwlding and Housing Codes
The city should have the 2003 International Building Codes adopted prior to the building permit
applications for this protect The existing 2 buildings to remain are typed as Type III-N or III-B fully
sprinklered buildings There will be some occupancy separations that will need to be addressed between
the existing building and the parking structure This will result in removing all glazed openings between
the existing buildings and the parking structure which occurs below grade All openings between the
parking garage and retail sales areas are limited to a minimum of a one hour rated self-closing doors
Openings such as windows would also be prohibited between the retail space and parking garage In
order to have glazed openings in the retail space the parking garage will need to be completely separated
from the retail structures and be completely independent The minimum separation needed could be a
minimum of 20 to 40 feet between the retail uses and parking structure depending on construction type
This would change the present design from what is shown today
The other item to be aware of is the separation between the parking garage and the movie theater The
escalator at its present location would clearly create a problem for occupancy separation where the
termination point is shown This would require that the escalator to be relocated in order to maintain a 30
foot separation between the parking garage and theater Along with occupancy separations the type of
construction may create an issue both would regwre a minimum 3 hour fire separation preventing or
limiting any openings including the termination point of the escalator from the theater to the parking
structure
Staff strongly recommends that the applicant schedule an appointment to meet with the Plans Review
Engineer to review the proposed occupancies, types of proposed construction, and occupancy separation
requirements Steve Brown, Plans Review Engineer, 303-441-3172
As the redevelopment proposal continues to be refined, please keep in mind that Crossroads Community
Consortum Goal 7 encourages environmental construction techniques, such as recycling of demolition
debris (Consortium Report, p 24) This topic was discussed by the community in previous Crossroads
redevelopment plans Alsq, Design Guideline 5 2 K encourages environmentally sound building design
s ~plarrpb-«ems~memos\elL~crconcept9403 pbm AGENDA [TEivl # 5A Paee 26
and construction techniques and materials Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278
Fve Codes
Dunng the demolition stage, it is vital that the fire spnnkler systems be maintained as much as possi¢le
At no time shall the systems m the occupied areas of the mall be left out of service for any extended ~
penod The Fire Department shall be notified of any outages m these areas For circumstances where
sprinklers in occupied areas are out of serwce after normal working hours, a "Fire Watch" must be used in
the budding
New construction shall meet the current City of Boulder Design and Construction standards as they relate
to hydrant locations, fire spnnkler systems, morntonng and notification FD shall be notified of any
hydrants placed out of setwce due to demolition or construction i
Access in and around the mall shall conform to SU-30 turning radius' Roadways are to be designed'( for
fire vehicles with ten wheels @ 80,000 pounds Ron Mahan, Fire Marshal, 303-441-4356
III PUBLIC COMMENTS
Staff has received a moderate level of public comments on the concept plan application as of the date of
these comments The majority of those commenting are favorable toward the current redevelopmer?t
plans for Crossroads Mall and are anxious to see the review process, demolition, and new construction
occur swiftly Staff has also received,mgwnes about the proposed new tenants I~
In addition to general public comments, staff has received some comments from nearby property ovyners
Bill Reynolds, of W W Reynolds Companies, owner of the Sunrise Center shopping center at the
northeast corner of 30"' Street and Arapahoe Avenue, has expressed concern that the anchor
"big box" on Parcel 3 is oriented so that its back faces 30"' Street, including a major loading area
The owner of the Golden Lotus restaurant on 28"' Street at the north boundary of Crossroads has
expressed concern about the proposed pad budding adtacent to his site Staff notes that n~o
vehicular connection is shown on the concept plan between these two 28' Street sites Cross-
access would be encouraged by BVRC guidelines Please reflect this vehicular connection
between the two parking areas m the site review plans) I
Staff encourages the applicant to work with these property owners in preparation for site review
IV. NEXT STEPS
Completion of Concept Plan Review and Comment
These comments represent city's staffs initial comments on the applicant's concept plan Revised (plans
are generally not filed in a concept plan and comment review The applicant may wish to respond to
these staff comments with a revised written statement, although this is optional City staff will wnte a
memorandum to the Planning Board to accompany these comments and the applicant's
plans/statements This memorandum will be included in the Board packet to be prepared on Thursday,
September 3rtl The following plans are requested from the applicant for the upcoming board reviews
However, since copies of the concept plan were previously distributed to the BURR and Planning Boards
at the time of application, please coordinate with staff to determine whether the number of plans noted
below can be reduced
TAB (September 8'h meeting)
s \plan\pb-~tems\memos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee 27
Due to the substantial differences between this plan and the BVRC Connections Plan, the Transportation
Advisory Board will need to review sheets A-2 and A-3 as revisions to the BVRC plan TAB will provide
comment but will not vote to approve or deny the plan These comments will be used by Planning Board
to evaluate and either approve or deny some or all of the requested revisions to the BVRC plan in support
of this redevelopment proposal 12 hard copies and an electronic file of sheets A-2 and A-3 need to be
submitted to Steve Durian (303-441-4493) no later than Friday August 22nd, 2003
BURA Board of Commissioners (September 17'h meeting)
Submit 12 folded and collated copies of BURA Board materials to Brad Power, Executive Director (303-
441-3219), BURR, 1300 Canyon Boulevard, Boulder, CO, 80302, no later than 5 p.m Thursday,
September 11`h for inclusion in the BURR Board packet
Planning Board (Seotember 18`h meeting)
• Submit 5 copies of any revised written statements/materials to Liz Hanson no later than Monday,
August 25th for consideration by staff during board memo preparation
• Submit 18 folded and collated copies of Planning Board materials (plans and written
statements) to Liz Hanson no later than Wednesday, September 2"d for inclusion in the
Planning Board packet
The following applications are the next steps for this protect
Site Review Amendment and Use Review
The original Crossroads MaII Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan was modified by a Minor Modification
approved by the city in 1999 While this redevelopment plan for the south end of the existing mall
(removing the roof, adding a theater and new retail tenants) was not constructed, it modifies the
Crossroads Mall PUD Therefore, a proposed new redevelopment would amend the 1999 plan and
regwre a site review amendment (complex) Also, any proposed drive-in uses would regwre concurrent
use review for site specific approvals and a use review application would be requred for the protect site
since new retail buildings no larger than 20,000 square feet in size are proposed
For a site review amendment, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the aty's site review
criteria and the area's urban renewal plan, which includes the BVRC Design Guidelines and BVRC
Transportation Connections Plan This process allows requests for variations from certain land use
regulations such as building setbacks and parking and landscape requirements During the review
process, any requested variations are balanced with the quality of the protect's site and architectural
design
A site review amendment application must be reviewed and voted on (for approval or denial) by the
BURA Board, since the Crossroads property is an original disposition parcel for the urban renewal area
The proposed plan would likely require Planning Board approval for building heights over 40 feet In
addition, the Planning Department would likely refer a Crossroads site review amendment application to
the Planning Board for a deasion, given the site's size and location Any Planning Board decision is
subtect to call-up by a matonty vote of City Council, within a 30-day call-up period City Council decisions
are final
Legal Document Requirements
At time of site review application submittal, title work which is dated to within 30 days of submittal will be
required from all property owners involved in this protect as well as authorization to sign on behalf of
those owners and for the developer for any entity (i e , LLP, LLC, corporation, company) other than an
individual If the subdivision application is submitted at the same time as the site review, this information
s \plan\pb-items\tnemos\ehxrconcep[9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee 28
will suffice for the subdivision application but will Hoed to be updated at the time of final plat exe~ution
Melissa Rickson, Office of the City Attorney, 303-441-3020
Subdivision Replat
The current plat of the Crossroads site includes multiple lots, several of which are based on existing
bwldmg footprints The plat also shows numerous public access and utility easements It appears that a
subdivision application to replat the site will be required to accommodate the new site plan by removing
and creating new property lines and by dedicating and vacating easements as needed Staff
recommends that Westcor apply fora preliminary plat subdivision concurrent with a siterewew
amendment application, and file a final plat subdivision wdh other technical document r~wews
(engineering, final utility and drainage plans, etc) following a site review approval
Review Timing
City staff has worked with Westcor to estimate the city review steps and timing for the Crossroads
redevelopment plans The pre-application meeting on April 23rd is consistent with the estimated timelines
The next review step, concept plan revew and comment, was estimated by Westcor for early summer
The city commds to review the Crossroads redevelopment plans in a timely manner given the importance
of the redevelopment of the site to Boulder's economic health Westcor should also be aware that much
of the city's review timing is dependent upon the applicant's timely filing of "next step' applications and
revision submittals City will work with Westcor to help resolve outstanding issues throughout the review
process
Reference Information
The following information was provided to Westcor at the April 23, 2003 Pre-application meeting
- An aerial overlay map of the area generally bounded by Pearl, 28`", and 30`" Streets and
Arapahoe Avenue, including Westcor's pre-application plan and Target's concept plan
- Floodplain elevation maps and preliminary floodwall elevation drawings
- Reduced copy of Crossroads Replat
- Map showing method of building height calculations on the Crossroads site
- Ordinance for 1998 city vote on height measurement
- Estimated parking calculations existing (1999) vs pre-application plan
- Land Use Review Applications and Attachments
- 2003 Schedule of Fees
The city's Land Use Regulations are online at
www ci boulder co us/cao/brc/dtle9 html
The BVRC Guidelines are online at
www ci boulder co us/bura/ReviewDocuments htm
The aty's Public Works Design and Construction Standards are online at
s \plan\pb-items\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pate 29
ATTACHMENT C
CROSSROADS MALL
BACKGROUND HISTORY
September 4, 2003
BVRC Urban Renewal Plan
The BVRC Urban Renewal Plan, adopted in 1979 and revised in 1987, speaks generally of redeveloping
the Crossroads property and surrounding urban renewal district Its urban design and transportation
goals have been refined by the BVRC Design Guidelines (adopted 1998) and BVRC Transportation
Connections Plan (adopted 1997, revised 2002) Both these documents are considered components of
the Urban Renewal Plan For site review, the BURA Board must find that the Crossroads application
complies with the Urban Renewal Plan, Design Guidelines and Transportation Connections Plan
Crossroads Community Consortium
The Crossroads Community Consortium was atwo-month process In 1998 that gathered the community's
ideas for the redevelopment of Crossroads Mall and the BVRC Two large public workshops were held,
as well as discussions with many civic organizations A questionnaire on redevelopment priorities was
published in the Daily Camera newspaper and direct-mailed to 9,000 citizens The result was the
Crossroads Community Consortwm Report, which Included eight goals and numerous short- and long-
term opportunities for the future of Crossroads and the BVRC The Report was adopted by BURA and
endorsed by Clay Council
Crossroads Framework Plan
The Crossroads Mall Framework was created in 2001 to Illustrate the type and scale of development on
the Crossroads site that would carry out the Consortium goals and additional BURA priorities (noted In
the Framework as "BURA Consensus Points") Financial analysis of the Framework showed that a
significant amount of public financing would be required to realize redevelopment of that scope and
intensity Although the Clty decided not to explore that level of financial participation, the Framework was
useful in illustrating for Macerich the character and elements of redevelopment that the community was
seeking for Crossroads
Negotiations with Macerich
In 2002, Macerich and the Clty of Boulder/ BURA had attempted to negotiate a public/private partnership
that would redevelop Crossroads as a mixture of commercial and residential uses, as illustrated by the
Framework This would have entailed a sizeable public investment In May 2002, the City/BURA
negotiating group outlined for Macerich possible terms for apublic/private partnership that would utilize
tax-increment financing to accomplish amixed-use redevelopment Macerich carefully considered the
City's terms and, in July 2002, put forth their own set of terms by which they believed they could
accomplish the protect The Clty/BURA negotiating group concluded that each parties' terms were so far
apart that further negotiations on the matter were unlikely to be fruitful Macerich concurred, and went to
work on a plan for redeveloping Crossroads without public financing
Ownership
The owner of the majority of the Crossroads Mall site and the existing Crossroads Mall building is The
Macerich Company of Santa Monica, California The south end of the site is owned by three family trusts,
Macerich has a 57 year lease on this land In addition, The May Company owns the Foley's building and
pad and Sears owns former Sears building and pad The City of Boulder owns no portion of the
Crossroads Mall site
Westcor Partners became a subsidiary of Macerich In August 2002 Westcor developed Flatiron Crossing
Mall In Broomfield Since last summer, Westcor has been preparing a redevelopment concept far
Crossroads, with Input from existing and prospective tenants
s \plan\pb-ttems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # St\ Paee 30
ATTACHII~IENT D
CROSSROADS MALL CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT
September 4, 2003
Staff has received a moderate level of public comments on the Crossroads Mall concept plan application
as of the date of this summary The majority of those commenting are favorable toward the current
redevelopment plans for Crossroads Mall and are anxious to see the review process, demolition, and new
construction occur swiftly Staff has also received inquiries about the proposed new tenants Below are
excerpts of a-mails received and summaries of public comments Staff responded to all public comments
and inquiries bye-mail or phone response
»> "Heidi Gerstle" ~Gerstleln~netzero net> 07!06/03 02 53PM »>
Dear Ms Hanson and Mr Carlson,
I am writing this email to offer a suggestion to be considered in the planning for the redevelopment of the
Crossroads Mall Shopping Center
I sent an email to BURA last year without any response, so perhaps my suggestion wasn't interesting, but lust
in case I'll try again Friends and family think it's a good idea
The need for additional sales tax revenue is generally accepted in Boulder It is not clear to me that developing
Boulder Crossroads into a park, home units and movie theaters will accomplish this
My suggestion is that an IKEA store be a part of the redeveloped Crossroads commercial mix IKEA is an
internationally based and managed furniture store and household supplies chain, selling attractive and
reasonably priced furniture, household and kitchen items, kitchen cabinets, plants, fabrics for the home etc
Currently the closest IKEA stores are Chicago, San Francisco, and Houston Fifty new stores over the next ten
years are planned in additon to the 16 already existing in North Amenca It appears that the existing stores
have been commercially very successful IKEA stores are normally very large, and have very high levels of
customer traffic and turnover They regwre a large parking area
More information can be found at www Ikea-usa coin
The store
-would be conveniently located to generate business from Denver metro area
- would cater well to student needs
-would not compete directly, as far as I know, with any other locally owned store in Boulder (most large
furniture stores are in Denver)
Aspects requiring consideration include
- Most new IKEA stores are operated under a franchise arrangement
-IKEA could have certain design requirements which may be difficult to adapt to Crossroads needs and
objectives
I would be grateful if you would respond to this email
Sincerely,
Heidi Gerstle -
3750 Lakebriar Dr
Boulder, Colorado 80304
s plan\pb-nems\memos\ehrrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEiVI # 5A Paee 31
7/20/03
Dear Ms Hanson,
My name is Kewn Hsu and I work for World Sarongs Bank m Oakland CA I was wondering if you could tell me
if there has been a date set for the second step of the Crossroads Mall redevelopment process the Concept
Plan Review and Comment On the timeline it says Early Summer and I was hoping you could be more
specific World Savings currently operates a branch at Crossroads Mall and I am trying to keep updated on the
status of the redevelopment process
Thank you for your time and consideration
Sincerely,
Kevin Hsu
Site Aquisdion Analyst
World Savings Bank
7/30/03
Lrz,
I was looking over the recent updates on the Crossroads Mall
redevelopment protect, and wondering if there were any opportunities
left for multi-family housings I am the development manager for Carmel
Companies, in Denver We are a local multi-family developer in the
metro area (currently working with Continuum on the Bradburn protect in
Westminster, and adtacent to the Villa Italia redevelopment in
Lakewood)
The Boulder market has always been intriguing, but difficult to get
into The mall protect, however, offers a great opportunity to
partcipate m an excdmg new concept wdh the City
I know that Westcor got the retail component of the protect Just
wondering if a residential component was still viable Any ideas would
be helpful
Our company website www carmeloartners net
<http /Iwww carmelpartners netl>
Sally T Vecchio
Carmel Companies
950 S Cherry Street, Suite 240
Denver, Colorado 80246
303-504-4200,ext 102
S/5/03
Attn Planning and Development
Could you please provide me with the date and time of the public hearing
for the Crossroads Mall Redevelopment We are the owners of the Whole
Foods Shopping Center and would like to sit in on the hearing My
contact information is below
s \plan\pb-nems\memos\ebxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pate 32
Thank you,
Tncia Connaughton
Leasing Representative
Regency Centers
Denver, CO
Office 303 300 5300
Direct 303 300 5341
Fax 303 691 6905
E-Mail tconnaughton(o)regencvicenters com
»> "Gabnela Kioupakis" <gabiksCo~woridnet.att.net> 8/6/Z003 1 28.37 PM »>
good afternoon,
I would like to be involved in the crossroads redevelopment protect on some level, but am unsure how to
proceed. Crossroads mall presents a huge opportunity to effect the financial, cultural, and (dare I say it)
spiritual health/growth of the city. Any information/advice you can give me is greatly appreciated
I look forward to your reply
gabnela
»> "Barry Northrop" <northroo(a)email com> 08/10/03 11 02 AM »>
I know I won't go to any public meetings so here are some random
thoughts
The mall design, while important, takes a backseat to the retailers that
will be there Afterall, this is a SHOPPING development
YTD, after mortgage payments (PIT) are backed out, I have spent
approximately $16,000 on goods and services Approximately 80% of this
was spent OUTSIDE Boulder because that is where the low-cost retailers
with better selection are I treat Boulder like a convenience store--get
something quick and pay a premwm
Some retailers I'd hke to see
Wal-mart (I've read about lower-impact compact urban models in NYC)
IKEA
Trader Joe's
Thanks Glad things are moving ahead
Barry Northrop
Table Mesa, Boulder
»> "AI Gasiewski" <AI Gasiewski a(~noaa qov> 8/10/2003 11 02 37 PM »>
Dear Sir/Madam,
As residents of Boulder we would like to express our appreciation on the
thought and patience being devoted to the Crossroads redevolopment
Careful consideration in balancing commerical, residential, and public
s `plan\pb-nems\tnemos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee 33
needs bodes well for the long-term viability of the parcel We would
also like to express our interest In one major potential use of the
Crossroads site that Is seemingly being overlooked In the redevelopment
Boulder Is arguably a potential world-class conference venue, as often
ated by many of my colleagues In my own professional (both national and
international) societies It has a unique mix of attractions for
conference attendees, including restaurants, outdoor entertainment,
green space, high-tech activity at both CU and the government
laboratories, local high tech industry In computers, communications,
biotech, aerospace, etc , In short, II Is one of the most attractive
conference venues In the U S west, and arguably more covenlent that
other such as Keystone and Aspen
While it would not be appropriate given the size of Boulder to host very
large conferences (i a ,greater than -2500 attendees), events In the
range of -500 to 2500 attendees would provide considerable revenue to
the local economy without ma/or disruption to the community Consider
the numbers each conference attendee typically spends -$200/day for
room, board, and conference services A conference center holding 4-day
meetings during say, 25 weeks of the year, with an average of 1000
attendees, would contribute $20M annually to the city's economy
Additional revenue would be provided to, e g ,local artists who would
be provided exposure to a class of visitors who are predominantly
professional and able to purchase their works
We would thus argue that a conference facility In the size range of
500-2500 people would be a valuable addition to the Crossroads plan.
This size range falls within the capabilities of existing local hotels
(up to 300-500 people, e g ,the Millennium Harvest Hotel) and the
Denver Convention Center (-2,000 to 20,000 or more attendees) It also
would take unique advantage of Boulder's uniquely hospitable and
enjoyable environment, and complement high-tech actlwtles occurnng at
e g , CU, NOAA, NCAR, and within local Industry
We would hope that greater consideration for such a conference faculty
could be provided during upcoming negotiations on Crossroads
Sincerely,
AI Gaslewskl
Rachel Lum
AIbIn J Gaslewskl, Ph D
Rachel C Lum, Ph D
756 6th St
Boulder, CO 80302
(303)-938-0892
8/19/03
Dear Ms Hanson,
I was reading over the latest city staff comments for the Boulder Crossroads project issued on August 8 I was
hoping you could tell me where I could find a copy of the latest site plan submitted for aty review by Westcor
for the Crossroads Mall We do still currently operate a Worlds Sarongs bank branch on the mall grounds and
are attempting to momter the sduation that may require us to make changes to our ewsting branch
s \plan\pb-ttems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee 34
I know you are very busy and 1 thank you for your time in helping me monster the situation I would appreciate
any information you can give me
Sincerely,
Kevm Hsu
Sde Acgwsdion Analyst
World Savings Bank
8/20103
Hello Liz,
I've been following the new "outdoor urban village" style that Crossroads
Mall may undertake I produce the Boulder Outdoor Cinema and wanted to
explore the possibilities of rncorporating an outdoor theater into the
plans I've work closely with the Cherry Creek Mall District's outdoor movie
program and they've had much success with that formula
Let me know if this is even a possibility to explore further
Sincerely,
Dave Riepe
Boulder Outdoor Cinema
www 6oulderoutdoorcinema com
303-444-1351
8/27103
Thanks Elizabeth
We are very interested in exploring Crossroads as host of the Boulder
Outdoor Cinema We would easily bring an additional 1000 people per week
through the village for this cultural event Not to mention the publicity
surrounding it We look forward to talking with someone
Where and what 4me are the public hearings
Best regards,
Dave Riepe
Boulder Outdoor Cinema
www boulderoutdoorcinema com
303-444-1351
Summary of additional public comments
• Joseph Lukas, President of Nor-Mar, Inc , wrote a letter regarding his concerns about the impact
of the Crossroads concept plan on the access to the Burger King restaurant on 28'h Street (see
attached letter)
s \plan\pb-ttems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENllA ITEM # SA Paee 35
• Bill Reynolds, of W W Reynolds Companies, owner of the Sunrise Center shopping center at the
northeast corner of 30'" Street and Arapahoe Avenue, has expressed concern that the anchor
"big box" on Parcel 3 is oriented so that its back faces 30'h Street, including a major loading area
• The owner of the Golden Lotus restaurant on 28~h Street at the north boundary of Crossroads has
expressed concern about the proposed pad budding adjacent to his sde i
• Lynn Segal South end of mall should be condemned by BURA, housing is shown on the north
end of the site, while it was always enwswned for the south end, consider impact fees on nevL
retail ~~
• Bob Canestaro Would the 40,000 square foot grocery store lust move from somewhere else I
Boulder? To add another grocery store is a poor use of space and a bad idea
s \plan\pb-rtems\memos\eiixrconcept9403 pbm AGENllA ITEYI # SA Pate 36
1 ~, -- _
L^ji~----r `~~;,
`~<i ~ ~
Nor-Mar, Inc. ~'h~' . - -_. ~ ~;
.\ FRAnCHISEE OF BURGER FiII~G CORP II ~; ~ /'
6550 Gunpark Dr
Boulder, CO 80301 4,3
303-581-0300 FAX 303-.i81-0686 y / I
8/26/03
Peter Pollack
City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Center,
]739 Broadway
Boulder, CO, 80306
Re Crossroads redevelopment and Burger King #414 access on 28'" Street
Dear Mr Pollack,
I have reviewed the plans to revitalize the Crossroads Mall on the Macerich website and am
enthused with the prospects that this plan brings As a business owner on 28`s St , I must bring to your
attention a detail that may have been overlooked by Macertch
Their plan shows the closing off of my restaurants' only [ogress from 28°i Street The removal of
this access point would put us at an extreme disadvantage to the other businesses and restaurants on 28~'
Street Almost to the point of being landlocked I also beheve this would adversely affect the value to the
landlords In fact, McDonalds has 2 Ingress and 2 egress points the last time I counted
I request that my only Ingress from 28'" remain unchaneed If I should address these concerns to
another party, please let me know Thanks for your consideration
Sincerely,
/ ~i
Joseph Lukas
President
Nor-Mar, Inc
Cc
Boulder Urban Renewal Authority
1300 Canyon Blvd
Boulder, CO 80302
Boulder Crossroads
C/O Macench /Mike Busenhart
1600 28th Street, Stine #258
Boulder, CO 80301
Burger Kme Corp
C/o Heileen Bell
5505 Blue Lagoon Dnve
Miami, FL, 35126
Agenda Item # .'~ R Page #
ATTACHMENT E -------I
„ ,
City of Boulder Vicinity Map
~C
y
"~
J ~ ARAPAHOEAV
Location: 1600 28th St
Protect Name: Crossroads Mall
Review Type: Concept Plan Review
and Comment
Revtew Number: LUR2003-00055
Applicant: Westcor
NORTH
1 tnch equals 500 feet
AaPnrla itr
Crry of
Boulder
The Informaltan deplNad an lhs mep 6 provided
as grapHCal represenldlon ony The qty of Boultler
provltles no wananry expressed of Implied m to
the ecctraty and/or completeness of the Infarmallon
conlainetl hereon
n # Page # ,75~
Attachment F
Photo Examples of BVRC Architecture
SoundTrack Rear Entrance - Looktne Southeast from 26'" St
Agenda Item # Page # , 5
SoundTrack - Mam Entrance - Looking West
Agenda Item # Page # L'
Agenda Item # Page # '~/
~Vaterstreet -Rear Elevation - Lookm~ South on Folsom Ave
Center - SE corner of Canyon & Folsom -Looking South
Agenda Item # Wage #~_
,_ 1,+',.
i
! t.C~Clllt
l.~lslint; t p.r~dc I'nq+uSCd F~e'ilily
~I ~~~ rnr,4l. p'.n tl:,l "..4 nlrrrr rr~r rod
u~~~~,.r,a„~.~~,r., I~.1
' ............. ..... ~ lin.r .ll~.. ,n
- _....___..__ ............. ~.. Ah. ,,. I11 I.t u.11~1 rr
n~: na, r a.
I __. _----_-_. .rar .I~I:r ur. ..~ I..~u., li ir.,,r `.1.1~;~
~I (i~ ~~• uuno ,e,+.r .e~r
I ,,,
I~+p
•c
1
~ 1
;ed lobe
ed
...ter... .,
`
'ounly r
ufldhlQ ~ ~ ._
.1.11 .... . ..
. N'fll ..
111dnlen~ncr~
'~4 .r, .. .. ..
~I ,r....r,ffi" .,
r~
rril~
' Ij ,.
~ ..
r
:.1 rr. r ..: ~.... .. ,_.... .. ...
s1.TSt.rtk'S1.:a':~.'.' `:21Ti'..SS7
i ,. ~~,
....
nnily urCalor>tJo / ~rr
s7 ~ ~ ""ti iC~~^l ~an ra~'+~i yt~ y~.~:,Y. ~r
'p~1
la .~+.wa y..r, ,,
Boulder Valley Recpunal Center Boundary
1'he lullowmg aphlins v+dl be IurRler sludled h1 wnlext of the eulue
flrapahoe couulur m Ihn study ,uea, hom Folsom In tiVesl~ir•w
1 ExlsUny roadway wdh nwltruae paths on the north and nnuUr
sides of the street
? Cunhnuuuv, '.Ix htrvr~l lines wrtll bicycle lanes
3 gpUOn Iwo. plus queue jungr: al all nr rnrlaul n+lmsechnn,
•} IJedlcated busR>Iken~yhl~tum Imly lanes the i~nlue• <;ruri•Inr
i ~ __
Itriukl~l ~;111~•~ Itegiun.rl (~rnl~r
~ I rahauul:uiun ('unn~~runn•. I'I:ul
~ Uch1h'r ~q ~Illli
`~
l .. _
C~~mprche~~tiiv~~ Ma~~ ~~~~~~~~',
~ }~ i~urc 1 `c.
~ ~ ~~
~ I s~;lic i° ~.r;. .... ~
AGGNllA 1'CI~,M # ~ PAGE
_.---~ f.,.. y
l:.r1F ; ~, r ,~A~.,
I ' a ~ 1'
y ,.~t, ~/I,f r. r ,1 ~.
f r + H+ 1 .~ _ ~ 1
j
_ f E~--~
Future I I`~
dowlder ~ ~,I
'fnndl ~~
..~ . . M. r }' p1 : ''.'
y detail sheet for ~ ~ ~ ;`~~~'+',
srnatives tort is I
.r. ~ 0 ^.~ p, ..r -
f, ~i
A
~1 I I ~~.. 8. ..
H
n
x
! ~ ~
ATTACHMENT H
ra+cc`-~ ~. d
(:
D) East-west ' i 1 ~ BIN-S Secondary `~ O t _
r i M.U. Path i ~ ~ r Connection proposed
~ , proposed to be F ~ i _ ! i ~ to he removed a O' ~'~ ~` _ ~'
..s ~-~ 1 ~ removed _ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ '` 1 ~' i rrwx`cr/aren 1 ~aua
- ~ ~~
1 ,` ill,. ~ '~i~~ r t ` ~ ~ ~
~, ~. ~. !! ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ l ~ ~ t r > ~ r , np
//
_ ___~ 1' t~,~"9 S d ~j '. ~f (i, 3~y f ~ i.-+~ vgv y4`~' ;.i 1
11 1
GP" SIo f t.~_ ~~ ~° ~._ "` '~' i `-~ ~ 5. >c -, ~ :~_ ..~It ~C ~ ~ E} M.U. Paths
°'~ '/L. .:~~ - _ ;~ ~ 1 proposed to be
~~/ '~
~1 C~ 11 ,; ~ ~ u "k. 4~ r ~:x !~ 1 /~';" '~-y~~~~' ~ p' r'-_. ~`' .~i; ~
~~' ~ ~~ r :I t F i~ C
1 ~e-=- ,~i~ ~s i f ~
~ ~, ~ "' ~ l
p
~~ ( -
Mr 1 C~ ~l !f II ~~ ~': 1 ~ ~~_ I. _ I Z ~ 1. 3 F ~ _
1 n.~ ~~1 ~ i~ ~ ~ f'' I ~ `` ~ 1 I-i~ I 1~ IIl 1 'T.~iT ~. 'i~~ '7~ r `~^T~,~. ar
C r ~ ~ It t ~ ~ ( i 4. ~~ ~` I p '~" . F '~ F a '1 ~~ L
j~._
..__- _. _ ~ , ,~ ,. 8th _ .. ~. - :.
- -' ~ S~re~ 3 _
;~. ~ ''} .c ~ ! C) N-S Secondary t, ~
~ h Connection proposed ~ ~' {
~ r 1 /' ~ ;~~ ~ ' yV~, ~~ to beremov~i ~ )o
A) Bike Lanes
propvstd to be
removed
.~ GR05SRO~~S MQtG SIT ~iySPORTTONPGAN
- fir b 1cG'
Note: Scale h:=.s ]peen altered to lit ua~e. c ace 4cc ace cacc !,cc ~ccc
Agenda Item r~. - _ y~age #~