Loading...
5B - Consideration of Site Review #LUR2004-00049 for construction of Silver Sage Co-Housing projectCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 4, 2004 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2004-00049, for construction of the Silver Sage Co-Housing project at the southeast corner of 16~h Street and Yellow Pine Avenue (4695 17`h Street), a proposal to construct a new 28,864 s.f., 16-unit senior co- housing facility with six separate buildings. Variations from the land use regulations include principal building height (38.7'), accessory building height (19.9' max.), front setbacks (7' where 15' is required - west side), reaz setbacks (5' where 20' is required) and a 16% (three space) parking reduction. Applicant: Wonderland Hill Development Company Owner : Boulder Housing Partners REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department Peter Pollock, Planning Director Elizabeth Hanson, Acting Land Use Review Manager Brent Wilson, Presenter OBJECTIVES: 1. Heaz Applicant and Staff Presentations 2. Hold Public Hearing 3. Planning Boazd Discussion - is the request consistent with key issues? a. Is the height of the buildings in general proportionate to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate azea? b. Is the building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area? c. Does the pazking reduction request demonstrate compliance with the required criteria? 4. Planning Board takes action to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# 1 STATISTICS: Proposal: Public hearing and consideration of Site Review LUR2004-00049, for construction of the Silver Sage Co-Housing project. Project Name: Silver Sage Co-Housing L,ocation: Southeast corner of 16`" Street and Yellow Pine Avenue Zoning: Mixed Density Residential-Developing (MXR-D) Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Density Residential Variations from Standazds: Principal building height (38.7'), accessory building height (19.9' max.), front setbacks (T where 15' is required - west side), reaz setbacks (5' ~ where 20' is required) and a 16% parking reduction. Development Standards Repuired Pronosed Lot Size: n/a 36,355 s.f. Private Open Space: 60 s.f./unit 84-120 s.f./unit (varies) Min. Open Space per L,ot: 5,453 s.f./15% 24,303 s.f./66% Pazking: 19 spaces 16 spaces (16% reduction) Front setback: 15' 15' east / 7' west (double frontage) Street Side Setback: 0' T Rear Setback (PrincipaUAccessory): 20'/3' or 0' Principal Building Height: 35' Accessory Building Height: 18' Floor Area Ratio: N.A. Max. Density: 20 d.u./acre* * Density bonus provided for 40% min. affordable units. 5'/5' (adjacent to alley) 38.7' 19.9' .79 19.17 d.u./acre s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\I650_Yellow_Pine_Silver Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Pase# 2 KEY ISSUFS: ~s the height of the buildings in general proportionate to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area'' 2. Is the building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area? 3. Does the parking reduction request demonstrate compliance with the required criteria? BACKCROUND: History: This 36,355 square foot site is zoned Mixed Density-Redeveloping (MXR-D) and contains a 2,010 square foot single family residence that was constructed in 1900. Because the residence is greater than SO years old, demolition will require Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board approval. However, alterations to the building have diminished its historic integrity. The property is currently owned by Boulder Housing Partners and lies within the "Yarmouth North" neighborhood identified in the North Boulder Sub-community Plan. The property is surrounded on the north and west sides by the recently approved Holiday Neighborhood. It lies directly west of the Buena Vista subdivision and directly north of the approved People's Clinic site. s:\planlpb-items~tnemos11650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SR PaQe# 3 Existing Residence at Project Site . ANALYSIS: Is the height of the buildings in general proportionate to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area? Definitions: Per Section 9-1-3, B.R.C., "Height" means the vertical distance from the lowest point within twenty-five feet of the tallest side of the structure to the uppermost point of the roof. The lowest point shall be calculated using the existing natural grade. The tallest side shall be that side whose lowest exposed exterior point is lower in elevation than the lowest exposed exterior point of any other side of the building. Planning Boazd approved the Holiday Neighborhood plan on October 11, 2001. The approval calls for a mixture of housing types and limited commercial uses. Twenty-nine of the 116 units approved exceed the 35 foot "by righY' height limit. The maximum height approved during the Holiday Neighborhood site review process was 42 feet. The following is a description of the approved/constructed building heights immediately adjacent to the site: North - Blocks 17 and 19, Holidav Nei¢hborhood Block 17 contains the Wild Sage Co-Housing project, where the constructed building height complies with the 35 foot height limit. Block 19 contains the North Court subdivision, where the maximum building height is 38 feet. Less than 7% of the building azea at North Court exceeds the 35 foot height threshold. East - Buena Vista Communitv Land Trust All of the buildings within the Buena Vista subdivision meet the 35 foot height limit. Northeast - Block 18, Holidav Neighborhood - Gazden Crossing The buildings on lots 17-3Q Block 18, adjacent to the Buena Vista Subdivision (along the north side of Yellow Pine Avenue), have maximum heights of 42 feet. These buildings vary from 0.1 % to 46% of their respective building azeas with heights in excess of 35 feet. South - The People's Clinic The People's Clinic was approved through the site review process in 2002. The site is still vacant, but approved building heights do not exceed 35 feet. Southwest - North End The North End subdivision was approved via the site review process on March 14, 1996. The subdivision includes multi-family units and office space. All of the buildings within the North End subdivision meet the 35 foot height limit. s:\plan\pb-items~xnemos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver Sage.doc AGENDAITEM SB Paee# 4 West - Northern Li h~ts This portion of the Holiday Neighborhood was approved within the 35 foot height limit. The Subject Propertv - Silver Sage The requested Silver Sage height modification involves shed roof and parapet projections that will extend above the proposed north building and accessory garage structures. The majority of the building mass proposed will comply with the "by righY' height limits. Less than 5% of the proposed primary (north) building footprint is taller than the 35 foot height threshold. The two duplex residences are well below the 35 foot height threshold. Shed roof portions of the three detached garage structures exceed the 18 foot accessory structure height limit by a maacimum of 1.9 feet (19.9 feet total). Building #1 is made up of two three-story residential structures that are connected via a common single-story main entry and balcony. Because of this connection, the height calculation is derived from the lowest point downhill within 25 feet of the entire combined structure. Given that this combined building length exceeds 240 feet, this has a significant impact on height calculations. While the 35 foot height threshold (above the "lowest point within 25 feeY') remains static, the natural grade change from the west to east along the building fa~ade is approximately 7 feet. Thus, some portions of the building that aze over the 35 foot code-defined height limit are actually less than 35 feet above their adjacent grades. Staff finds the design of the building helps break up the appazent mass and height by providing articulated facades and an interesting roof layout. Given that the height modification request involves small shed roof and parapet projections only, the impact to the neighborhood as far as views, solar access, and neighborhood character is negligible. Staff finds that the height of the buildings is "proportionate to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate azea." 2. Is the building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area? The property lies within the Yazmouth North neighborhood identified in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Some of the goals for this neighborhood include: Design the area as a neighborhood with small blocks and buildings oriented toward the street (use of alleys wherever possible; no garages facing the street). s:\plan\pb-items~memos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Pa¢e# 5 Provicle crffordable and diverse hoz~sirig with a wicle rarrge of dwelling types for a vvide rarrge of ifrcomes. Hoi~sirrg types shoulcl be ojvarie~l sizes crn~cl if7clatde attached and ~letached houses, apc~rtment bz~tildings, crpartments above offices, lofts nncl accessory t~rnits. • Provi~le a fi~ze grain mix of uses, iizcludin~g civic functioras, hoiisirzg ancl office asses. The units will be marketed towards senior citizens, but will not be deed-restricted solely for use by seniors. The proposal includes multi-story units and flats with many common amenities and accessory garage structures. At least 40% of the units in the project will be designated as permanently affordable. The following is a description of the massing, scale and configuration of the immediately adjacent developments: North - Wild Sa~e Co-Housin~ - Block 17, Holidav Neighborhood Block 17, Holiday Neighborhood contains the Wild Sage Co-Housing project which exhibits setbacks on the adjacent south side of 6 feet (buildings) and 2.5 feet (porches). The units are designed to provide a strong street orientation with a common courtyard/lawn behind the units (at the center of the development). As you can see, there is a significant amount of articulation along the south fa~ade which provides visual interest and a reduced apparent mass. The portion of the proposed Silver Sage development that faces Wild Sage exhibits a 7 foot setback with a fa~ade that is broken into seven distinct planes. Wild Sage Co-Housifrg - Directly North of the Subject Property s:lplanlpb-itemslmemos11650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Pa~e# 6 South - People's Clinic Although the site is currently vacant, there is an approved site review development plan in place for the new People's Clinic facility and construction is expected to be coordinated with construction of the Silver Sage project. The building mass is divided among several different structures with a main office building proposed on the southern portion of each lot. The proposed buildings are oriented towards the street. Buildings along 16`h and 17th Streets exhibit a 7 foot minimum setback with an internal parking lot layout. Access to the sites is via a curb cut on 16`" Street and the shared public alley at the north end of the site. The portion of the proposed Silver Sage development that faces the People's Clinic exhibits a 4 foot rear setback abutting a 20 foot wide public alley. This portion of the site will serve as the parking area for Silver Sage residents. The portions of the Silver Sage development that front on 16`h and 17`h Streets will exhibit a 7 foot and 15 foot setback (respectively). East - Buena Vista Buena Vista was approved through the site review process in 1997. Setbacks along 17`h Street vary from 5 feet to 10 feet, with a standard 5 foot setback for most front porches. The units are configured as two-story attached and detached residences. The portion of the proposed Silver Sage development that faces Buena Vista exhibits a 15 foot setback with a streetscape that is defined by two separate buildings and a detention pond area. The Buena Vistcr Housing Developme~at - Directly East of the Satbject Property s:lplanlpb-items\memos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Pa~e# 7 West - Northern Lights - Block 16, Holida~ei~hborhood The Northern Lights development was approved as part of the master plan for the Holiday Neighborhood. The project was approved with 6 foot front setbacks, 3 foot side yard setbacks, and 3 foot rear setbacks. The development includes six structures and a large detention pond between the units. The portion of the proposed Silver Sage development that faces the Buena Vista development exhibits a 7 foot setback with a streetscape that is defined by two separate buildings and a landscaped area. The Northern Lights Development - Directly West of the Sacbject Property Staff finds that the mass, scale, orientation, and configuration of the proposed development is compatible with the existing character of the area and the character established for the "Yarmouth North" neighborhood in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. 3. Does the parking reduction reyuest demonstrate compliance with the required criteria? The 16 proposed off-street parking spaces are sufficient to meet the immediate needs of the proposed facility. The request for a parking reduction (16% or three spaces) is to allow for the addition of three future bedrooms within basement areas. The applicant proposes to adequately meet the needs of the use through the following methods: A. Provision of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that includes the use of EcoPasses; s:lplanlpb-items~nemos11650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB PaEe# 8 B. A car-sharing program among co-housing residents; C. Since there aze no access drive cuts along 16th Street, 17`h Street and Yellow Pine Avenue, at least 24 on-street parking spaces aze available for guest use; D. Although the units will not be deed-restricted solely for use by seniors, owners of the co-housing units aze expected to be older retired couples with less need for automobiles than the average household. Please refer to Attachment A for a detailed analysis of the applicable pazking reduction criteria. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and signs posted on the property. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Copies of written correspondence from neighbors have been included as Attachment D. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff finds that the request is consistent with the Site Review criteria as they apply to this site. See the attached site review criteria checklist, Attachment "A" for detailed findings. In summary, staff finds that: 1. The proposal meets the criteria in Section 9-4-11, B.R.C. 2. The proposed azchitecture, massing, scale, orientation and height are consistent with approved and/or constructed developments in the immediate vicinity. 3. The amount of the building above 35 feet has been kept to a minimum. Less than 5% of the building area exceeds 35 feet in height. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Boazd approve LUR2004-00049, incorporating this staff memorandum as findings of fact with the following conditions of approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated August 16, 2004 and the applicanYs written statement on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department. 2. Prior to application for a building permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the City that a 20 foot wide alley right-of-way has been dedicated to serve the parking s:\plan\pb-items~memos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# 9 shown on the approved plan. In the event that the applicant fails to demonstrate the alley can be dedicated, this approval will become null and void. 3. Prior to application for a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a detailed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to the Public Works Department for review and approval that provides for a practical and beneficial shift away from single occupant vehicle use that may include, but is not limited to, the following: participation in a Neighborhood Ecopass Program, provision of a caz sharing program, participation in a van pool. 4. Prior to application for a building permit, the Applicant shall record a Declaration of Use for the common areas to ensure they are used only as "accessory use" areas, subject to approval by the Planning Director, with the Boulder County Clerk & Recorder. 5. Prior to the application for any building permits for any units on the property, the applicant shall execute, in a form acceptable to the city manager, covenants and deed restrictions for at least 40% of the units in the development as"permanently affordable" units meeting the requirements of Chapter 9-6.5, "Inclusionary Zoning," B.R.C. 6. Prior to requesting a final inspection on any building permit, the Applicant shall construct the proposed alley at the south end of the property in compliance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Approved By: ~ ' ~ Peter Pollock, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: A: Site Review and Parking Reduction Criteria Checklist B: DRC Comments dated July 23, 2004 and September 28, 2004 C: Vicinity Map D: Public Correspondence E: ApplicanYs Written Statements and Proposed Plans s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# 10 ATTACHMENT A Site Review and Parking Reduction Criteria Checklists Site Review (1) BoulderValle~ComnrehensivePlan: (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Specifically, staff considered the BVCP policies listed below. Policy 2.04 - Compact Land Use Pattern. The city and county will, by implementing the Comprehensive Plan, ensure that development will take place in an orderly fashion which will take advantage of existing urban services and shall avoid, insofar as possible, patterns of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered development within the Boulder Valiey. The city prefers redevelopment and infill as compared to development in an expanded service area, in order to prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community. Policy 2.12 - Support for Residential Neighborhoods. In its community design planning, the ciry shall support and strengthen its residential neighborhoods. The city shall seek appropriate building scale and compatible character of new development or redevelopment, desired public facilities and mized commercial uses, and sensitively designed and sized rights-of-way. Policy 2.38 - Sensitive Infi11 and Redevelopment. Overall, infill and redevelopment shall be expected to provide significant benef:ts to the community and the neighborhoods. The city shall develop tools such as neighborhood design guidelines to promote sensitive infil! and redevelopment. The city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood character and livability. In order to avoid or adequately mitigate negative impacts and enhance the benefits of additional infill and redevelopment, subcommunity and subarea planning and other efforts will be geared to defzne the acceptable amount of infill and redevelopment and standards for design qualiry. s:\plan\pb-items~memos\1650_Yellow Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# 11 Policy 2.40 - Quality Residential Site Design. Incentives shall be provided to encourage all types of housing, increase variety in site design, provide for functional open space, achieve variety in housing choice and price, encourage alternative transportation modes, and promote attractive and low-water landscaping. Policy 2.43 - Enhanced Design for Built Environment. Through its policies and programs, the city shall encourage or require private sector efforts toward quality architecture and urban design. Design guidelines will be developed as a tool for new development and redevelopment. The desired context and character of existing neighborhoods and business districts will be considered. Policy 7.01- Mizture of Housing Types. The City and County through their land use regulations and incentive programs, shall encourage the private sector to provide a mixture of housing types with varied price ranges and densities, which attempt to meet needs of all elements of the Boulder Valley Population. (B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a three hundred foot azea surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maacimum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser o£ (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, (ii) The maacimum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-3.2, `Bulk and Density Standards," B.R.C. 1981. The subject properry and development are designated with a"Mixed Densiry Residential " land use in the BVCP. This designation allows for a range of residential densities while the zoning designation allows for a density up to 20 units per acre if at least 40% of the units are deed-restricted as permanently affordable . This proposal provides a residential density of 18.6 units per acre. This is consistent with the BVCP land use designation and the MXR-D zoning designation. (2) Site Desien: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemosV 650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# 12 (A) Onen space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation azeas, and playgrounds: (I) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; (iii)The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, terrain, significant plant communities, threatened and endangered species and habitat, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian azeas, and drainage azeas; (iv)The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; (v) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas; and (vi)If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. The applicant is proposing 24,303 s.f. of open space where a minimum of 5,453 s.f. is required. A large common courtyard is provided within the interior of the site. Please see the analysis section of the staff memorandum and the applicant's proposed plan for more detail.. (B) LandscaninQ: (I) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hazd surface materials, and the selection of materials provides for a variety of colors and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where appropriate; (ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important native species, plant communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment into the project; (iii)The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-33-2, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements" and 9-3.3-3, "Landscape Design Standazds," B.R.C. 1981; and (iv)The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-way are landscaped to provide attractive streets capes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan. The project has been designed to comply with and, in some cases, exceed the Ciry's landscape standards, as requiced under Title 9, B.R.C. Plant materials will be used for screening and buffering from adjacent properties. Please refer to the applicant's landscape plan for details. s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# 13 (C) Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not: (I) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the projectis provided; (ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized; (iii)Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including, without limitation, streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails; (iv)Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use patterns, and supporting infrashucture that supports and encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single- occupant vehicle; (v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single- occupant vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques; (vi)On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; (vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; (viii)The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, sepazation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust; and (ix)City construction standazds aze met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated. Access to the site will occur via the alley, allowing for additional on-street parking and minimizing access con~licts along 16`" Street, 17`h Street and Yellow Pine Avenue. This design is consistent with the stated goals in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. The applicant's proposal involves the promotion of alternate transportation modes and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies - which will also help minimize the need for on-site parking. s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# 14 (D) Parkine: (I) The project incorporates into the design of pazking azeas measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; (ii) The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the pazking needs of the project; (iii)Pazking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and (iv)Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Section 9-33-12, "Parking Area Design Standazds," B.R.C.1981. Please refer to the Parking Reduction criteria for a detailed discussion of these issues. A lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the City's illumination ordinance w~ill be required at building permit submittal. (E) Building Design, Livabilitv, and Relationship to the Existin or Proposed SurroundinQ Area: (I) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; (ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or proj ected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; (iii)The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; (iv)If the chazacter of the azea is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; (v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians; (vi)To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; (vii)For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; (viii)For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; (ix)A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\1650_Yellow Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# 15 safety, and aesthetics; (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; (xi)Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design ofbuildings conforms to the natural contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards. The proposed building massing and layout is consistent with the established neighborhood character. Please see the analysis section of the staff memorandum for additional discussion of these criteria, including compatibility of building height and provision of an attractive streetscape. (F) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solaz energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to ma~cimize the potential for the use of solaz energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: (I) Placement of Open Space and Streets: Open space azeas are located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. (ii) Lot Lavout and Buildin Siting: Lots aze oriented and buildings are sited in a way which ma~cimizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots aze designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings aze sited close to the north lot line to increase yazd space to the south for better owner control of shading. (iii)Building Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to ma3cimize utilization of solaz energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. (iv)LandscapinQ: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings aze minimized. The applicant has provided a shadow analysis that demonstrates compliance with the City's solar access requirements. No adjacent buildings wiU be impacted. s:\plan\pb-items~cnemosU650_Yellow Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDAITEM SB Pa¢e# 16 PazkinQ Reduction 1) The parking needs of the use will be adequately served through on-street parking or off-street parking; The 16 proposed off-street parking spaces are sufficient to meet the immediate needs of the proposed facility. The request for a parking reduction (16% or three spaces) is to allow the addition of three future bedrooms within basement areas. The applicant proposes to adequately meet the needs of the use through the following methods: A. Provision of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that includes the use ofEcoPasses; B. A car-sharing program among co-housing residents; C. Since there are no access drive cuts along 16`" Street, 17`" Street and Yellow Pine Avenue, at least 24 on-street parking spaces are available for guest use,- D. Owners of the co-housing units are expected to be older retired couples with less need for automobiles than the average household. 2) A mix of residential uses with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the pazking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shazed pazking; Residential is the only use proposed. Residential projects may request parking reductions through the site review process, per Section 9-4-11, B.R.C. 3) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed pazking needs; or No joint use of parking areas is proposed. 4) The applicant provides an acceptable proposal for an alternate modes of transportation program, including a description of existing and proposed facilities, proximity to existing transit lines, and assurances that the use of alternate modes of transportation will continue to reduce the need for on-site pazking on an ongoing basis. The properry is immediately adjacent to a main public transportation corridor, bus stop and bicycle routes. Many neighborhood retailers and restaurants are in close (walkable) proximiry. The applicant is proposing to provide EcoPasses for all residents of the project. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# 17 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF BOULDER ~/~e„ Planning and Development Services 9/;, ~~~ 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 ~ phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-4413241 • web boulderplandevelop.net DATE OF COMMENTS: CASE MANAGER: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: COORDINATES: REVIEW TYPE: REVIEW NUMBER: CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS July 23, 2004 Brent Wilson SILVER SAGE COHOUSING 4695 17TH ST N09W06 Site Review LUR2004-00049 APPLICANT: LAUREL RHOADES DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW: Development of a 22,062 s.f. 16-unit cohousing residential development with 6,054 s.f. of common facilities, 8 garage spaces, and 4 carport spaces and open parking spaces. Project includes height review for a maximum height of 40-feet. REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Height, parking reduction, fronUrear setbacks, parking within required landscape setbacks abutting the street. I. REVIEW FINDINGS Application does not meet criteria; a revision is necessary or a denial will be recommended for board action. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Access/Circulation 1. Travel Demand Management (TDM) is discussed in ihe application, but largely relies on efforts by others that cannot clearly be guaranteed by the applicant. Some possible efforts discussed in the application include a car sharing program and a van. An additional benefit that should be provided would include coordination with planned Neighborhood Eco Pass Programs associated with the Holiday Drive-In Theater Development and the Uptown Broadway project. Andrea Robbins with the city's GO Boulder staff is available at 303-441-4139 to assist in this coordination. As a condition of approval, a specific TDM plan will be required. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493 2. The 20 foot wide access easement labeled on the plan is actually a proposed 20 foot wide aliey right-of-way on the neighboring property. This right-of-way is not currently dedicated. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to show that a 20 foot wide altey right-of-way has been dedicated to support the parking proposed. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493 3. Prior to the approval of a building permit, the alley used to serve parking will be required to be constructed and paved. The applicant and the People's Clinic may share in the cost of the alley, however the entire alley must be constructed at one time. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493 Building and Housing Codes 1. There are stairs leading to an area below the common building, what is located in the basements? 2. There are basements under all of the buildings, please show a proposed floor plan for a~l basements. 3. Based on the elevations it appears that there is a second floor above the parking garages. Is there a second level in the garages? s:\plan\pb-items~memosU650_Yellow Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDAITEM SB Paee# /S 4. The comment above states that there are 4 carports for this project. Sheet 3/A3.1 would imply that there are spaces for 4 cars under a roof that spans between two garages, but sheet A2.0 shows one parking space for handicap and a walk way. Please clarify which one is correct. If this is the carport that is referred to, then where will the handicap parking spaces be located? If this is for handicap parking then it appears that you only have 2 carports being provided for this project. Sheet C2 of 2 shows an additional 2-car garage next to the east dwelling D&E - which creates 11 garages. 5. The stair located in the common building serves more than one floor and must be in a 1 hour-rated shaft enclosure (section 1019). 6. The building shown as the Arts and Crafts building - is this for commercial use? 7. The area between buildings D& E and A& B-1 is considered as part of an egress court and must meet the requirements of section 1023.5. On the exterior exit stairs and exterior exit balconies - section 1023 requires a minimum of 10 feet between the stair and adjacent building or property line. 8. There appears to be a number of encroachments into the utility easement along the access easement, including but not limited to, light fixtures, gutters and eave overhangs and footings. Easement encroachments are not permitted and need to be removed from the plans. 9. In Unit C(on the upper level) there is a room called "storage." Please provide a cross section to show what the head height of this room will be, as it appears to meet the definition of a bedroom or habitable space. 10. There rooms in each of the buildings shown as "studies" which meet the definition of a bedroom and would be reviewed as such for building code purposes. 11. On Detail 3/A4.1 for egress window well, see section 1025.5.1. 12. The details shown on sheet A4.3 would imply that the building is being built of non-rated construction, but table 503 requires a minimum of 1 hour-rated construction. You may want to begin to look at the type of assemblies that will be used for this building. 13. In building E and D with the 2-car garage, please explain the electrical pad shown. This is prohibited in a garage and must be located outside or you may reduce the size of the garage to a one-car garage with the pad on the outside of building. Otherwise you are creating 9 parking garages. Steve Brown 441-3172 Building Design 1. Heiqht - Per Sections 9-t-3 and 9-32-3, Boulder Revised Code, "heighY' means the vertical distance from the lowest point within twenty-five feet of the tallest side of the structure to the uppermost point of the roof. The building height calculations on Sheet A1.2 reference the lowest point within twenty feet of the structure. Please revise the plans and calculations accordingly. 2. On Sheet A2.0, the first floor plans show a stair access to a basement area, although no basement floor plans have been submitted. Please provide a detailed basement level floor plan for all basement areas. 3. No portion of the buiiding (including eaves, gutters, etc.) may overhang an easement. Brent Wilson, 303-441-4012. Drainage Plans 1. The Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan shows proposed window wells within the proposed drainage swales surrounding the development. Further detail showing how this will function, or redesign, is required. 2. Per Section 7.12(E) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, all detention ponds shall inciude an overflow release feature to spill during storm events larger than the major design storm or when release outlets fail. No emergency overflow is shown for Pond A. This becomes even more critical due to the proposed window wells near Pond A. s:\plan\pb-items~memos\I650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB P~Tee# /~/ 3. The plans show approximately half of the proposed 4' concrete pan along the southern edge of the development on neighboring property. The entire concrete pan must be located within the project property to keep the developed flows entirely contained within the development. 4. The plans show what appears to be a curb or wall to the south of Pond A on neighboring property. Relocation of the structure onto the project property is necessary. The "Amphitheater" area shown on the Landscape Plan includes a platform area which is not included on the Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan. Coordination of the two plans to assure that the required detention volumes are accommodated is required. Report 1. The Conceptual Storm Water Report (Report) states on page 6 that "For this report, the 10-year and the 100-year storm events were analyzed. Per Section 7.05(B) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, the initial design storm frequency for all land uses (other than single family residential) shall be the 5-year storm. Revision to the text of the Report is necessary. 2. Per Section 7.12(B) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, the storage volume of runoff to be detained on-site shall be sized to contain 110 percent of the difference between the historic runoff and the initial and major storm runoff projected for the ultimate developed conditions of the entire parcei. The additional volume has been added to the 100-year calculation, but not to the 10-year volume calculation (which controls the design). Revisions to the Report and plans are required. 3. Per Section 7.08(A) of the DCS, the Manning's "n" to be used for design of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) for storm sewer is 0.015. The calculations in the Report use a Manning's "n" of 0.013. Revisions to the Report are required. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 Fees 1. Please note that 2004 development review fees include a$125 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city response (these written comments). Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly biiling system. Brent Wilson, 303-441-4012. Fire Protection Proposed living areas, common areas and underground parking areas are required to be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system with monitoring by a U.L. listed monitoring station. Access and fire hydrant locations must meet current City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Ron Mahan, 303-441-4356 Legal Documents 1. A declaration of use must be recorded that sets forth the following: a) the common house and all common areas shall be owned and maintained by the unit owners' association organized under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, 38-33.3-101, C.R.S. and b) the guest rooms of the common house shall be restricted to be used solely as guest rooms and not as living units. (Please label the small rooms with separate entries shown on Sheet A2.1. Please show the locations of the guest rooms.) 2. Demolition of a structure greater than 50 years old requires a permit under section 10-13-23, B.R.C. 3. Please clarify if this housing project will meet the requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 USC Section 3601, et seq. Will the project be restricted to elderly housing as set forth in 42 USC Section 3607(b)(1)? 4. Please note that the Interim Covenant recorded on December 12, 2002 at Reception #2370800 requires at least 7 Permanently Affordable units. Parking 1. The Boulder Revised Code (1981) has a wider disabled accessible parking stall dimension than that required by Federal ADA standards. Appendix A of Title 9 of the BRC requires a 12 foot wide space with a 3 foot wide loading s:\plan\pb-items~memosV 650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Pase#~n aisle. Therefore, the total width is 15 feet, or 27 feet for two adjacent spaces sharing a loading aisle. This needs to be corrected on the plans. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493 2. Appendix A of Title 9 of the BRC requires that all parking must have 24 feet of back-out distance available. The Peopie's Clinic plan shows only 16 feet of the alley width available for back-out, therefore the Silver Sage plan has only 20 feet of back-out distance available. Parking will need to be located 4 feet further north to meet this criterion. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493 3. As mentioned previousiy (with the pre-application review), the rooms labeled as "study" will be treated as bedrooms and will contribute to parking requirements. Any other rooms ("storage") that meet the definition of a"bedroom" will contribute to parking requirements. Per the Boulder Revised Code, "bedroom" means a room that is not a garage, kitchen, bathroom, dining area, or living room, that has over 70 square feet of floor area, and that is used for sleeping or capable of being used for sleeping. Please adjust your parking calculations accordingly. Brent Wiison, 303-441- 4012. 4. Please provide a basement level floor plan for all basement areas. Basement areas may aiso contribute to parking requirements if bedrooms are proposed. Brent Wilson, 303-441-4012. 5. Based upon the above-referenced comments, it appears a parking reduction will be required. Please provide a written justification for the parking reduction that addresses the criteria outlined in Section 93.3-9, Boulder Revised Code. If the site's use as a specific type of housing (senior housing, for example) is proposed as a justification for a parking reduction, it will need to be demonstrated how the use will be assured in perpetuity. A Site Review approval cannot be used to ensure a specific use of a residential development. Brent Wilson, 303-441-4012. Plan Documents 1. Many of the drawings do not inciude a scale or dimensions. Please provide these for each drawing. Brent Wilson, 303-441-4012. Review Process 1. Site review applications involving height modifications are required to also address the criteria identified in Section 9-4- 11(g), Boulder Revised Code. Your site review application is incomplete without this information. Please revise your submittal accordingly. Brent Wilson, 303-441-4012. Utilities 1. The Preliminary Master Utility Plan shows a proposed wastewater main along the south edge of the site on neighboring property. A public utility easement, a minimum of 25 feet wide, is required for the proposed improvement. Public utility easements shall be aligned such that no portion of the easement falls on both sides of a parallel property line. 2. Per Section 5.09(C) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, with the exception of single family residential properties, all irrigation services shall have a separate service line and meter. Revisions to the plans are necessary. 3. The plans show proposed cleanouts on the wastewater main south of the site. All connections to the new main shall be a tee or wye in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Cleanouts should be located on private property at locations specified by the International Plumbing Code. 4. The plans show two proposed domestic water services to Building #2 and two proposed domestic water services to Building #3. Only one domestic water service per building is allowed. 5. The Land Survey Plat shows an existing Qwest Easement Rec#2425248 which contains a 16' x 10' area containing an existing concrete utility pad. The plans show a proposed garage in this location. Vacation of the existing easement or relocation of the garage is necessary. 6. The plans show a proposed tree within 6 feet of the proposed domestic service lines to Building #3. Trees proposed s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\1650_Yellow Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# a~ to be planted shall be located at least 10 feet away from existing or future utility mains and services. Additionally, the proposed trees shown on the Preliminary Master Utility Plan do not match the tree Iocations shown on the Landscape Plan (Sheet L1). Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 Zoning 1. Please provide square footage calculations for private open space/unit. Brent Wilson, 303-441-4012. 2. This property lies within the "Yarmouth North" neighborhood, as described in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Please refer to this plan for applicable policies and design concepts. Brent W ilson, 303-441-4012. 3. The written statement indicates the common area (arts & crafts, etc.) may be available for use by others outside of the Siiver Sage development. What proportion of the use is anticipated by non-residents? This information is necessary to determine if the common elements will fall under an "accessory use" category. Brent W iison, 303-441-4012. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Dreinage 1. A Final Drainage Plan and Report will be required as part of the Technical Document Review process. All plans and reports shall be in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. 2. At time of Technical Document Review, the applicant shall submit information (geotechnical report, soil borings, etc.) regarding the groundwater conditions on the property, and all discharge points for perimeter drainage systems must be shown on the plan. The applicant is notified that any proposed groundwater discharge to the city's storm sewer system will require both a state permit and a city agreement. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 Utilities 1. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along the property frontage may conflict with existing utilities, including: gas, electric, and telecommunications, within and adjacent to the development site. It is the applicanYs responsibility to resolve such conFlicts with appropriate methods conforming to the Boulder Revised Code 1981, the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and any private/franchise utility specifications. 2. Per Section 8-5-13 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, no person shall excavate an area in the pavement of a public street for a period of 3 years from,completion of resurfacing, except in compliance with said section. Yellow Pine Avenue and 16`h Street were constructed in 2003, which means no excavation may occur until late 2006 unless specific criteria can be met and additio~al impact fees are paid. No permit for excavation in the right-of-way shall be approved unless the city manager finds that: (1) Boring or jacking under the pavement is not practical due to physical characteristics of the street or alley or other utility conflicts; (2) Alternative utility alignments that do not involve excavating the street or alley are found to be impracticable; (3) The proposed excavation cannot reasonably be delayed until after the three year deferment period has lapsed; and (4) The proposed excavation is necessary to remedy an immediate threat to the public safety or the restoration of a utility service. An application for a permit to excavate in a public street with surface paving less than three years old, in accordance with Section 8-5-13 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, shall be submitted for review. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 3. The applicant is notified that the proposed storm sewer on-site is private in nature. Maintenance responsibilities for the storm sewer lines and appurtenances will remain with the property owner. 4. The proposed project includes work within the public right-of-way or public easements. A right-of-way permit is required prior to initiating this construction. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\1650_Yellow_Pme_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee#.~~ 5. The landscape irrigation system requires a separate water service and meter. A separate Water Plant Investment Fee must be paid at time of building permit. Service, meter and tap sizes will be required at time of buiiding permit submittal. 6. All water meters are to be placed in city R.O.W. or a public utility easement, but meters are not to be placed in driveways, sidewalks or behind fences. 7. No portion of any structure, including footings and eaves, may encroach into any public right-of-way or easement. 8. Trees proposed to be planted shall be located at least 10 feet away from existing or future utility mains and services. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 IV. NEXT STEPS Please provide revisions. Once revisions are received, staff will review the plans and determine if the item is ready for a planning board hearing. V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST 9-3.3-9 Parking Reduction. (a) Parkinq Reduction: The city manager may grant a parking reduction for commercial developments, industrial developments and mixed use developments to allow the reduction of at least one parking space, with the total reduction not to exceed twenty-five percent of the required parking. Parking reductions are approved based on the operating characteristics of a specific use. No person shall change a use of land that is subject to a parking reduction except in compliance with the provisions of this section. (b) Residential Parkinq Reductions: Parking reductions for residential projects may be granted as part of a site review approval under Section 9-4-11, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. (c) Parkinq Reduction Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria, the city manager may approve reductions of up to and including twenty-five percent of the parking requirements of Section 9-3.2-1, "Schedule of Buik Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, if the manager finds that: (1) The parking needs of the use will be adequately served through on-street parking or off-street parking; (2) A mix of residential uses with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; (3) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; or (4) The applicant provides an acceptable proposal for an alternate modes of transportation program, including a description of existing and proposed facilities, proximity to existing transit lines, and assurances that the use of alternate modes of transportation will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an ongoing basis. (d) Limitinq Factors for Parkinq Reductions: The city manager will consider the following additional factors to determine whether a parking reduction may be appropriate for a given use: (t ) A parking deferral pursuant to Section 9-3.3-8, "Parking Deferral," B.R.C. 1981, is not practical or feasible for the property. (2) The operating characteristics of the proposed use are such that granting the parking reduction will not cause unreasonable negative impacts to the surrounding property owners. (3) The parking reduction will not limit the use of the property for other uses that would otherwise be permitted on the property. (e) Alternative Parkinq Reduction Standards for Mixed Use Develooments: The parking requirements in Section 9-32-1, "Schedule of Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the following standards are met. These standards shall s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\1650_Yellow Pme_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDAITEM SB Paee#,~3 not be permitted to be combined with the parking reduction standards in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, unless approved as part of a site review pursuant to Section 9-4-11, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. A mixed use development may reduce that amount of required parking by ten percent in the BMS-X, MU-X, IMS-X, RMS-X, MXR-D, and MU-D zoning districts, or in all other non-residential zoning districts in Section 9-3.1-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land;' B.R.C. 1981, a twenty-five percent parking reduction if the following requirements are met: (1) The project is a mixed use development that includes, as part of an integrated development plan, both residential and non-residential uses. Residential uses shall comprise at least thirty-three percent of the floor area of the development; and (2) The property is within a quarter of a mile walking distance to a high frequency transit route operated by the Regional Transportation District that provides service intervals of fifteen minutes or less during peak periods. This measurement shall be made along standard pedestrian routes from the property. (f) Parkinq Reduction with a Concurrent Use Review: If a proposed use requires both a review pursuant to Section 9-4-9, "Use Review;' B.R.C. 1981, and a public hearing, the city manager will make a recommendation to the approving agency to approve, modify and approve, or deny the parking reduction as part of the use review approval. (g) Assurances of the Nature of the Use: If the applicant proposes to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant must provide assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change. Ordinance Nos. 5623 (1994); 5656 (1994); 5680 (1994); 7287 (2003); 7331 (2004). s:\plan\pb-items~tnemos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Pa e# ~ ~ _'~~ CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: CASE MANAGER: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: COORDINATES: REVIEW TYPE: REVIEW NUMBER: APPLICANT: DESCRIPTION: September 28, 2004 Brent Wilson SILVER SAGE COHOUSING 4695 17TH ST N09W06 Site Review LUR2004-00049 LAUREL RHOADES SITE REVIEW: Development of a 22,062 s.f. 16-unit cohousing residential development with 6,054 s.f. of common facilities. The project includes height review for a maximum height of 38.7 feet. REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Principal building height (38.7'), accessory building height (19.9' max.), front setbacks (7' where 15' is required - west side), rear setbacks (5' where 20' is required for garages) and a 16% parking reduction. 1. REVIEW FINDINGS 1. Application meets all criteria; minor documentation corrections must be submitted prior to board scheduling (by no later than October 4, 2004). II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Access/Circulation All documents must show that the alley is to be dedicated as right-of-way. Sheets C1 and A2.0 label these as access easements. The grading of the alley needs to reflect a center-draining alley. Finally, as part of the technical document review process, the applicant must provide evidence that the alley has been dedicated to the ciry. Building permits will not be accepted for review until the alley is formally dedicated. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493 Land Uses Per Section 9-3-1, Boulder Revised Code, "accessory use" means a use located on the same lot as the principal building, structure, or use to which it is related and that: (1) Is subordinate to and customarily found with the principal use of the land; (2) Is operated and maintained for the benefit or convenience of the occupants, employees, and customers of or visitors to the premises with the principal use; and (3) If located in an industrial district other than an IS district, may include a retail sales area within the principal building not to exceed fifteen percent of the floor area, or, if located in an IS district, may include a retail sales area within the principal building not to exceed lwenty-five percent of the floor area. The first written statement submittal says the common house "could potentialiy also serve as a much-needed 'senior activity center' for the North Boulder, Buena Vista and Holiday Neighborhoods." However, the second written statement says it wouid be used for "a limited number of ineetings, potlucks, and senior events". s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemosV650_Yellow Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDAITEM SB Paee#~~ Please clarify the written statement and declaration of use (by October 4, 2004) to demonstrate the common areas will meet the definition listed above for accessory uses. Otherwise, a use review may be required. Legal Documents 1. Please submit updated title work to within 30 days of current. 2. If Silver Sage Development, LLC is the owner, then please submit documentation proving who has authority to bind the LLC. (Note: The draft Declaration of Use has been prepared to be signed by the LLC, but the title commitment dated May 17, 2004 indicates Wonderland Hill Development Company is the owner.) Julia Chase, City Attorney's Office, (303) 4413020. Parking In support of the parking reduction, the applicant will need to provide additional information about the times of day or week and the intensiry of some of the uses of the property that will go beyond residential tenant or owner parking. If the justification of the parking reduction relies on the use of the parking lot for the property to the south, the applicant will need to provide information about the compatibility of the use of the two properties and also a proposal of how the parking will be constructed and available prior to occupancy of the Silver Sage property. Permanently Affordable Housing Per the requirements of the MXR-D density bonus, at least 40% of the units developed on the site must be permanently affordable to low income households. Additionally, there are housing subsidy funds in the project that require seven of the units to be permanently affordable to lower income households. Covenants to secure the permanent affordability of these units must be signed and recorded prior to application for any residential building permit. Cindy Pieropan, HHS, 303.441.3157. Plan Documents Please show the location of the guest rooms in the Common House on the plans (by October 4, 2004). Sheet As.1 needs to be submitted with labels for the small rooms. Per the parking reduction request, please provide a revised basement floor plan indicating the proposed future bedrooms (by October 4, 2004). Zoning Your "Project Fact Sheet" references a 3.5' setback for front porches, although the plans do not reflect this. Please revise the drawings to show porch setbacks by October 4th, 2004. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Building and Housing Codes On some of your comments regarding code issues you stated a design solution will be provided at the time of final architectural plans. Please be aware there will be no subsequent building code reviews until building permit submittal. If there are significant changes necessary to meet building code requirements, you may be required to modify the approved site review application. Steve Brown 441-3172 Drainage 1. A Final Drainage Plan and Report will be required as part of the Technical Document Review process. All plans and reports shall be in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. 2. At time of Technical Document Review, the applicant shall submit information (geotechnical report, soil borings, etc.) regarding the groundwater conditions on the property, and all discharge points for perimeter drainage systems must be shown on the plan. The applicant is notified that any proposed groundwater discharge to the city's storm sewer system will require both a state permit and a ciry agreement. Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121 Utilities 1. Final Utility Construction Plans will be required as part of the Technical Document Review process. Afl plans shall be in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\1650_Yellow Pine_Silver Sage.doc AGENDAITEM SB Paee#c~Li 2. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along the property frontage may conflict with existing utilities, including: gas, electric, and telecommunications, within and adjacent to the development site. It is the applicanYs responsibility to resolve such conflicts with appropriate methods conforming to the Boulder Revised Code 1981, the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and any private/franchise utility specifications. 3. Per Section 8-5-13 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, no person shall excavate an area in the pavement of a public street for a period of 3 years from completion of resurfacing, except in compliance with said section. Yellow Pine Avenue and 16`" Street were constructed in 2003, which means no excavation may occur until late 2006 unless specific criteria can be met and additional impact fees are paid. No permit for excavation in the right-of-way shall be approved unless the city manager finds that: (1) Boring or jacking under the pavement is not practical due to physical characteristics of the street or alley or other utility conflicts; (2) Alternative utility alignments that do not involve excavating the street or alley are found to be impracticable; (3) The proposed excavation cannot reasonably be delayed until after the three year deferment period has lapsed; and (4) The proposed excavation is necessary to remedy an immediate threat to the pubiic safety or the restoration of a utility service. An application for a permit to excavate in a public street with surface paving less than three years old, in accordance with Section 8-5-13 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, shall be submitted for review. 4. The applicant is notified that the proposed storm sewer on-site is private in nature. Maintenance responsibilities for the storm sewer lines and appurtenances witi remain with the property owner. 5. The proposed project includes work within the public right-of-way or public easements. A right-of-way permit is required prior to initiating this construction. 6. The landscape irrigation system requires a separate water service and meter. A separate Water Plant Investment Fee must be paid at time of building permit. Service, meter and tap sizes will be required at time of building permit submittal. 7. All water meters are to be placed in ciry R.O.W. or a public utiliry easement, but meters are not to be placed in driveways, sidewalks or behind fences. 8. No portion of any structure, including footings and eaves, may encroach into any public right-of-way or easement. 9. Trees proposed to be planted shall be located at least 10 feet away from existing or future utility mains and services. Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121 IV. NEXT STEPS If the requested revisions are received by October 4, 2004, the item will be presented to Planning Board on November 4, 2004. V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Please refer to Section 9-4-11, Boulder Revised Code. VI. CONDITIONS ON CASE 1. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a detailed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) pian to the Public Works Department for review and approval, that provides for a minimum of 10%, or whatever is practicable, shift away from single occupant vehicle use, that could include, but is not limited to the following: participation in a Neighborhood Ecopass Program, provision of a car sharing program, provision of a van pool. 2. Prior to requesting a final inspection on any building permit, the Applicant shall construct a 16 foot wide alley in compliance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# ~ 3. As a condition of approval, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the City that a 20 foot wide alley right-of-way has been dedicated to serve the parking shown on the approved plan. 4. Prior to application for building permit, the Applicant will record the approved Declaration of Use for the common areas with the Boulder County Clerk & Recorder. s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDAITEM SB Paee#~$~ ATTACHMENT C s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\1650_Yellow_Pine_Silver_Sage.doc AGENDA ITEM SB Paee# 20 ATTACHMENT D Pagc 1 of 1 Brent Wilson From: "Gil Shalit" <giljoy@ix.netcom.com> To: <wilsonb@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 9/27/2004 10:03 PM To Whom It May Concern, I am writing this email to discuss my concern & dismay about the exception (that is being considered at the Silver Sage Cohousing project (4695 17th St.)~Review Number: ~uRZOOa-oooas~. The application involves a height of 40' (in excess of the allowable 35'); Allowing this exception will disrupt the views of many in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the neigborhood is densely built/populated as it is and creating further density.(by going more vertical) may make sense in Denver, but certainly not in Boulder. Such an action is contradictory to the spirit of Boulder's zoning codes and iYs mindfulness around growth/development. In addition, many in the neighborhood have been dismayed about the poor visibility of the public notices/postings for the exception of this proposed project. Silver Sage Cohousing will be more welcomed by the community if such exceptions that it is applying for are not granted. I(and many in the neighborhood) sincerely hope you will consider this matter, and not grant an exception to the 35' height allowance. Sincerely, Gil Shalit Holiday Neighborhood resident. Agenda ttem # 5~_ page # ~_ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\wilsbl\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW)OOOOI.HTM 9/28/2004 Page 1 of 1 Brent Wilson - Silver Sage From: Leah Nickie <leahnickie@yahoo.com> To: <wilsonb@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 10/9/2004 3:02 PM Subject: Silver Sage To whom it may concem; I am a homeowner at Buena Vista in North Boulder. My husband, son, and I live directly across from the Silver Sage site, at 4674 17th Street. We were thrilled when we heazd about the Silver Sage concept, and aze happy that we will have an elder co-housing development in the Holiday neighborhood. I am confidant the residents will make great neighbors and add a balance to our community. I am personally very supportive of having Silver Sage move in across the street. However, it has been brought to my attention that an application has been submitted to a11ow a height exception for the Silver Sage project, allowing buildings to reach a vertical height of 40 feet. This is simply unacceptable. Not only will we lose all site of the foothills, but we will have huge shadows cast on our home, street, and front yard. Another exception will be given, allowing even more density in an extremely dense neighborhood. Holiday has already been re-zoned to allow higher density, and although the existing buildings aze beautiful and we love all the new neighbors, things aze preriy packed in. It is not acceptable to continue to pack people in such a tight space. The Silver Sage Project is a fabulous project, and I welcome it. But making height exceptions and allowing buildings to reach 40 feet in a residential area of Boulder, where most buildings are only two stories, is not the right thing to do. Thank you for you consideration in this very serious matter which will drastically affect our home and neighborhood at large. Sincerely, Leah Nickie Homeowner 4674 17th Street Boulder, CO 80304 Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! Agenda Mem q ~~___ Page #~1 _ file://C:~Documents%20and%20Settines\wilsb 1\Local%20Settines\Temu\GW } OOOO 1.HT... 10/21 /2004 To Brent Wilson of the Boulder Planning Department: I work with Windhorse Community Services, which is located at 1501 Yarmouth Ave. As interested neighbors, we would like a little clarification about the current review application concerning the Silver Sage Co-Housing project. From the information we received, it appears that the maximum height for buildings is being raised 5 feet from 35 to 40 feet. If this is correct, we have no objection to an e~ra five feet. However, we do feel like views in this area are important and would like to be informed if anything higher was being considered. Also, by stating that complementary uses may be permitted, is this referring to possible retail stores which had been mentioned previously? We wouldn't object to some kinds of retail but feel we should be aware of any implications. For instance, a neighborhood grocery would be one thing while a large retail outlet would be something entirely different. Obviously, there doesn't appear to be space for something like the latter anyway, but it never hurts to ask for specifics. Thank you very much. Kandi Lewis Windhorse Community Services, Inc. 1501 Yarmouth Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 pyen~fa Item # _.~-- Pa9~ #~--- Page 1 of 1 Brent Wilson - Site Review for 4695 17th St From: <RueBarb1 @aol.com> To: <wilsonb@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 7/21 /2004 9:24 AM Subject: Site Review for 4695 17th St I want to comment that I believe developers should operate within current zoning rules and should not be granted a variance. These standards are in place for good reasons, including establishing a viable community, and preserving some visual openness. Thank you for your consideration Barbara Bradley 4654 18th St. Boulder CO 80304 I~dallem # ~._ _ Page #_.3~-- \T.nral%~OCettinac\TPmn\ ,Wl(1(1001 T-TT ini~ii~nna ATTACHMENT E ~~~ WONDE.It1/~1ND WRITTEN STATEMENT for Silver Sage Cohousing Community Site Review Application 4695 -17~h Street (to become known as 1650 Yellow Pine Ave.) Submittal Date: 6-21-04 From: Laurel Rhoades, Project Manager Wonderland Hill Development Company, Applicant PROJECT OBJECTIVES (6B) The Silver Sage Cohousing Community has been created to serve seniors who desire proactive community-based living in the newly developing area of north Boulder. This community is being designed for healthy, vibrant, active residents in the 50-70 year old age group who want to make the last phase of their lives their best. These community members truly look at this as an opportunity to finally have the living facilities for them to really participate and "give back" to the Boulder community the wisdom, skills and experience that they have spent a lifetime acquiring. In that regard, this project will provide a wonderful commor facility, which will be the focus of the project for the communiTy. This facility, managed by the Silver Sage Cohousing community members, could potentially also serve as a much-needed "senior activity center" for the north Boulder, Buena Vista and Holiday Neighborhoods. This facility will have the capability to provide for common meals and other kitchen/dining related activities, wellness and exercise activities, hobby and craft activities, group parties and other social activities, visual entertainment, and, most importantly, provide a center where the residents can focus on providing outreach activities to each other and their community - we call it moving from the concept of just "ageing" to "sageing". In addition to the common facility, we will be providing 16 independent living units, with up to 40% of them being affordable, each a complete living unit with its own kitchen. Twelve of these units will share the main building with the common house facility with two additional duplexes provided on the site. In addition, a beautiful landscaped common green, gardens and courtyard accessible to all will be provided, along with a combination of garages, covered and open pazking to serve the needs of the project. Wonderland Hill Development Company 745 Poplar Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80304 A9~ ~#~_ __ P2ge k~__ (3031 449-3232; Fax: (303) 449-3275 Silver Sage Cohousing Written Statement, Page 2 Please see the site plan and azchitectural drawings included in the packets for a visual description of the project. 6A. Current Ownership The property is currently owned by Boulder Housing Partners. Wonderland Hill Development Company has an option on the property. The sale of the property will close once we have obtained Site Review approval for the project. 6C. Development Schedule This is our currently anticipated schedule for the project Site Review Submittal 3une 21, 2004 Comments back July 12, 2004 Site Review Re-submit if necessary July 19, 2004 Tentative approval August 9, 2004 Planning Boazd Approval October, 2004 Submit for Tech. Doc, Review October, 2004 Receive Bldg. Permits, Start Const. December, 2004 Residents start moving in June, 2005 Construction complete December, 2005 6D. Special Agreements At this time, it is anticipated that this community will create and maintain its own homeowner's association (the project will be legally owned as a condominium). We suggest a Decluation of Use for the proposed common house facility guestrooms, so that the City is assured that these will not be converted to a living unit. There is one utility easement {see survey exhibit) that affects the use along the south side of the property. In addition, we expect to obtain a 20' access and maintenance easemenbagreement from the adjacent property owner for the use of the alley, prior to the approval of our site plan. We have met with Boulder Housing Partners and Peoples' Clinic staff and they have eYpressed a willingness to work with us on creating the best possible design for the whole block that includes all of our collective sites. Requested Variances As part of the appiication for this project, we are requesting vaziances for the following: 3'-6" setbacks to front yard porches in lieu of 15'-~" T-0" setbacks to front yard building line in lieu of 15'-0" Height exception for portions of Building #I to exceed the allowable 35'-0" maximum height limit allowed in the MXR-D zone. Please see the attached Site Review Criteria Response Form and Site Review Application Responses to Pre-Application Comments, as well as the Plans for further explanation of the application. Agende Item # ~-. Pege # ~~- YEILOW PINE AVE. N W ~ E S _ Mi, n„ v~R ~ e ~ ~ -~ 2 NORTH STREE ELEVATION FOR HEIGHT ANALY515 •~lb' = t, ~,. / ~ ~ ^ B u ^^^ ~ B ~ ~ ~~~ PI~LIMINARY DUIl~IN6 MEIGNt CALCULAT10N6 ~INGI~ fiNISHE~FL00R~'REFERENCEGWDE E.EVAiION ELEYATION MEIGMTLIMIi AGTUALMAI. ~5'/10 BL~G.EIfY~lION 56;T-0' SStI'~~° ~lC.N. ~ 5546'-1' . 555J'-0' ~S. 5619-0' 65iT.t" 5552'~t° 6'.Y '-~' y7. 06~6'-8" %It'.1" 5599~~^ 56q~'-~0" 37~ 66;6'~T 'JDt6-P 5539'~0' 55]a'.~O' li. 5515'-8' S5~/'.it• 56~2'~ii' 653+'.5" ~~ 3614'-ip' SS~a'.2' ' ~J2.~2.. 553~'~tt" 11. ~ ROOF PLAN W! BUILOING REFERENCE NEIGHTB ~~ I v~e . r o liOIIDAY t~tl1(bU 31190rvLCM! Iorl IIOLmAY l~qU[OOD 911l01~~ffi1M BIDQ 16 ~ ~ I~ ; , ~I , ~ 1 I ~ ! I ~` ~ , iI ,~i ; ip4_-•d.l__- 1 i ~ -"'_r ~ ' I ~= i , I , I ~g~y~p 5~E S10~ ' ~ ~ W . VRVEMENf~lH8P1~_ -~,y~ ~/)~i/~ ~__ /o . °%~ ' B' WN ~GGnEG~fE B~.SE ~~ !/.~ ,. COURSE CWI L1A55 8 ~/~~~' .Y/~~ ..M %~` ~~~~' /1ttPNAiE NLL-~EFtH H~ SFCT~ON 4!' 4WWW HOT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (HBP) TYPICAL ALLEY PAVIN6 SECTION /, N.T.S. Cltt Of BOULOER DEfAIL SHEET 206 1 , ,.~ a~ S4B Yx ~-.10' ~~.~ swe ~~6/i~/D~ r~¢eu.ESnc ...~,*...m~...ti ....,.,,,»,~ov w.w.~Ww.. vm~,ow rwa evextle ansr ea I I~ORBOOD 911mIV14101V YLQ It I 101' ]n _ - ~- . _.. __ ..___.._._. _ ~ ._._._:~ i ~.._'-_ ~ ~ , . ' _ . _ _ • ~ . . S ' "1 - _ , @--.._....-."__~__ _' ______eai+aw ~ _ _ - --~ _.~ ~ . . ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ t . , . . . . ~ ~ . - f•~ _ ~ \~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' . ~60' ROW ~ --+-~ ~ I : i n-0 ~ I ~ s i v~ . u I ~ ~ - ~ _ _ _ 't I .16G ~ .. ~ ~ ; I ` ~ II ' -~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ o I ~ , I '-..i. '~ ~~r. ~ ~ ' ~- ~ "~ ~ r~-- ----J- ~ - ~ ' J' DV@iA V6IA (IDONlV(Y IwlmIAaST ~ ~ , iT. t W \ rteo / ~~ , .... ~ _- _ _ _ _ POND DATA ~~ DEYCLOOEO ~~~ RO'.Y (CiS) V~ fMl V~ I~~~ Mrn~ f~*1 ~ ~ EWSE R~tE 1~1 ioo-rn z,9e nz~ iayo z.io sitn u.w A 10-m 1.63 138a 138~ Z.W !13> ON WpCV - ]YO ~Po t05 Sitn . ~DO-m l.St i510 t]00 3.50 5~5~ !~l8 B ~0-vx 2.15 1680 ~680 2.~5 S~SL a~'J~ YKKV ~65 165 f.~0 5~1~ SILVER SAGE BOUIDER fA~ORAW - - - ~ I - ~OVENIY ~E Cxi511xG GOHIWRS L~ ~ ~ PNOPOSED CONi0UR5 ~.__ _.'_ _ _ _ _" E%ISTNG 5'ORM SEMER 5~ PROWSED STdW Yv.ER ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vROPC)SEO BlSw BOUNO4f+ ~ UUTF-0 IMIR ~ wNr~oic . IX~STNG YAIlNJtE ~snrm nvc a ir~~n .,.• , ~ ~ - ~ oESar~ sro~ n[vnax s swu.E -w - A `~ iLOW DIREC*pN 06YELOVED B.l4N 4.38 ~___ etiw~ ~nu frcacs) , % ~; i ~ao-m vaw uwrs 'i ~ O VICINIT'Y MP1P rmr m x~ N SG4E: ~ . 2V PRELIMINARY ~ c~q 2 GRADING & ~RAINAGE PLAN J~-5~8 The Prof~ le of 5~ Iver Sage is de5igned to create an inter~st~ng and vibrant street sett~ng by vary~ng roof he~ghts and wa~l planes. Th~s approach emphas~zes the ind~v~dual~ty of the residences and creates small-scale green Spaces out5~de. It also decreases the apparent he~ght of the bu~ld~ngs when viewed from street level. Freedom to vary the roofl~ne was our primary reason for pursumg a height variance. 35' height limit by zone Small trim and h~gh roofs allow b~+ldings to fade skyward. -------- - - _:~-~- ~ _~ ~ ~ .~ - 40' reque5ted variance Less than 25% oF length of budd~ng eleva- t~on ~s over he~ght limit of 35' (less than 5% of building footprmt is over height limit.) ~ ~ ~, ~71~1~~,~-53~e -< ,,~~t i .,c ~~ To share an elevator, we mu5t have a 5~ngle budding w~th a flat second floor level. Main entry is placed at grade to ensure pubhc accessibihty. This dnves floor heights. Elevator tower marks common deck and main entry. 50% of facade is more than 5' under 35' height hmit. ~ - - - - - - - - - .. Nrp±i+4~!!! _ .. . _ . ^ ~ _ ~ ^ ~ ,; `. L~ne from which height is caiculated, between I' and 7' below actual grade. Occurs on I 7th St, where grade and rooflines are both lower. What does "Building Height" mean? ^ ~ •r ^ ~:~tE.. Variation in facade and skyhne enhance pedestrian experience. Buildmg height i5 mea5ured from the lowest elevation 25' from the lowest corner of the proposed bu~lding. In this zone, MX-RD> build~ngs are allowed to be 35' taller than this plane, as shown in the diagram at right: ,-----------------~---------------- ------------~~m~ ~. ------------ 6round fioor steps to meet grade and provides accessible entrance to south. Dear Ne~ hbars, ~ We would like to ~ntroduce S~Iver Sage V~Ilage, a cohousmg community intended to brmg accessible and afford- able hous~ng to active adults in North Boulder. With the success of Wild 5age (located on the north side of Yel- lowpine Avenue between I 6th and I 7th), we hope to extend the 5ame benefit5 of community housing to sen~ors who are seeking friendly, safe, and involved living in a village setting. S~Iver Sage will be located at I G50 Yeilowpine Avenue, acro55 from Wild Sage, and will consist of 5ixteen homes, 40% of which w~ll be affordably pr~ced through the City of Boulder. There will also be a common house, and a common green with internal sidewalks and bountiful landscaping. It is our hope that this green space will not only benefit the residents of Silver Sage, but will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. In the intere5t of providing as much green 5pace as possible, we have kept the building des~gn of S~Iver Sage compact, with second-story development as in Wild Sage. In fact, our pro- posed max~mum builiding height ~s one foot lower than the height existing across the street at Wild Sage. Our architects have carefully designed the buildings to reduce their apparent height and to match the character of the existing neighborhood. Set- backs also matc_h those of our neighbors acro5s Yellowpine, I 6th and I 7th. The success of our community depends in large part on how we connect with our neighbor5, and we hope you will support our efforts to bring affordable senior hou5ing to our area. PleaSe contact us with your c~uestions and concerns, so we may be good neighbors from the beginning. I!~:\ ~-.~~`s ~JII1`e,r~5<3~e For more ~nformation... For more information on Silver Sage -- on it5 purpose, philosophy and housing options, please visit www.s~lversagevillage.com To see drawings, or for further information about building heights and physical layout, plea5e call Bryan Bowen Arch~tects, P,C. at (303) 443- 3629, or visit Bryan at his home in Wild Sage, ~ust north of S~Iver Sage. With questions for Wonderland Nill Development Company, or for Silver Sage P.R. materials, please call Ann~e at (303) 449 3232 ext. 2 I 5, or email her at annie@whdc.com For more information on cohousing as a concept and as a reality, please visit the following sites: www.cohousing.org www.whdc.org www.cohousingco.com Other pro~ects in the Silver Sage area have received height variances. Please contact Wonderland Hill or Bryan Bowen Arch~tects for more information. Thank you, and we look forward to 5eemg you at Silver Sage!