Loading...
5B - Concept Plan Review and Comment LUR2005-00021, Landmark Lofts - 1000 28th St.CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 2, 2005 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: May 20, 2005) AGENDA TITLE: Pub]ic hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment LUR2005-00021, Landmark Lofts comprising 1.88 acres zoned HRl-X (High Density Residential 1- Redeveloping), to develop 100 condominium units and a restaurant at 1000 28`h Street. The request includes a reduction in open space from 60% of the site to approximately 45% of the site. Applicant/Owner: Jim Chanin REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning & Development Services Peter Pollock, Planning Director Bob Cole, Land Use Review Manager Brent Bean, Case Manager OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Planning Boazd consideration of this request: 1. Hear staff and applicant presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion of Concept Plan. NO ACTION required by Planning Board. STATISTICS: ProposaL• The applicant is requesting Concept Plan review of a 100 unit condominium development that will include a 900 square foot restaurant space (Permitted Use as proposed). Four, multi-story buildings with lower levelparking garages have been proposed. Project Name: Landmuk Lofts Location: 1000 28`h Street frontage road, the southeast corner of College Avenue and 28`h Street frontage road, currently used by the Lazy L Motel. Size of Tract: 1.88 acres, 81,915 square feet. Zoning: HRl-X (High Density Residential 1- Redeveloping) Comprehensive Plan: High Density Residential , r ~.~. i=~x n; ~~, ~~i~~.~~~~ iao~, z4:nn~,d..~ AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 1 KEY ISSUES: 1. Is a reduction in the amount of provided open space from 60% to 45% appropriate for this request? Do the courtyard.spaces adequately meet the needs of residents, supporting the proposed open space reduction? 2. Is the building design compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area? 3. Do the buildings present an attractive streetscape and incorporate design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale? 4. Is the incorporation of a retaiUrestaurant use appropriate for this site? 5. Are .`our driveways accessing to College Avenue appropriate for this site? 6. Do at grade building passages create safe pedestrian corridors as designed? Should Planning Board coasider this request at a Public Aearing? BACKGROUND: Existing Site / Site Context This site is currently occupied by the Lazy L Motel. There are four buildings located on the site, two motel buildings within the western 2/3 of the site, a recreation/swimming pooi building and a 14 unit extended stay building (originally developed as an apartment building). The average density along East College Avenue is 28 units per acre. The two densest developments along College Avenue are at 65 and 37 units per acre. The Super 8 Motel is to the south of ffiis site. To the west across 28`h Street is the University of Colorado campus. An underpass was recently developed at the intersection of East College and 28~h Street frontage road making this area a primary student walkway to student rentals south of Colorado Avenue. BVCP designation: The designation for this area was changed from Transitional Business to High Density Residential in 2003. The zone was changed to HRl-X in recognition of the land use plan change. HRl-X does not have a specific density associated with the zone, but has a requicement that at least 60% of the site be preserved in some form of open space. The 60% open space area may be reduced to 30% if at least half of the open space provided is "(Section 9-3.2-6(8)) an outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard, designed for the use of the occupants of the building, with a minimum dimension of at least twenty feet. Seating and other elements encouraging use and occupation shall be inc-uded in its design and it shoutd form an integral part of the circulation pattern within the project." Open space criterion 8(the preceding statement in bold) is specifically called out under the HRl-X aone as a requirement for a density increase. ,v~1~r:+-~<<~ti>>4~~.tt~~iu<<-zx:,~,.,~~~x AGENDAITEM# SB Paee 2 Seven other criteria apply to development of any open space within this section and must be considered when reviewing a Site Review application. Project Description The applicant has proposed to develop 100 condominium units and a 900 square foot restaurant/coffee shop space at a density of about 53 units per acre. Total open space on the site will be about 45%. Some areas proposed as open space do no[ qualify as open space (see Analysis). The four condominium buildings will appear as four stories buildings along the College frontage, because of the parking garage entrances. The parking garages will be below grade for within 30 feet of the College. The retail/restaurant space will be at the same level as the parking garage, fronting toward College and 28`h Street frontage road. The courtyard elements of the plans will be at grade with the second floor residential units. The three floors above the parking garage will be condominium units with floor areas varying from 670 to 1300 square feet. The units are all planned as for sale units. Courtyards have been proposed between the four buildings, creating three larger courtyard areas. The courtyard spaces between the buildings have been proposed as passive areas. Two BBQ areas and a recreational court area have been proposed along the south property line. In addition, a community space, indoor recreational azea, audio/visual space and a meeting/ conference room have been proposed within the south ends of buildings 2 and 3 for use by residents of the project. GUIDELINES FOR CONCEPT REVIEW AND COMMENT: The following guidelines are to be used to guide the Planning Boards discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identiTied as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Planaing 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; This site is the current location of the Lazy L Motel. There are a mixture of uses in this area, varying from former motels comerted to housing north of the site, apartment buildings east of the site along Coilege and the Super 8 to the south. The CU campus begins west of 28`h Street. 'Fhis site slopes about 29 feet from a high point on the southwestem corner oF the site along 28`h Street frontage road to the northeast corner of the site on College. The current site has been leveled at a mid point to support the existing motel use. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing motel and a 14 unit apartment building that has served as a long term stay units. The applicant is proposing to develop four 25 unit condominium buildings on the site with heights of up to 40 fee[. Twenty (20) of the units will be developed as affordable housing units. The new units proposed will be the second development under the HRl-X zone designation. The first was the 33`d Street Lofts, (located at Arapahoe and 38`h Street). t i~ ~~ i~!~ ~:; ~;, ~;~ ~«~i i~~:,, _~x:,r~i, d~,~ AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 3 W alkable pedestrian orientated projects are anticipated in this zone as a counter balance to increased density. The amount of drop in this site from west to east creates a difficult site to develop within the city's height restrictions. The low point of grade for a building is 25' away from the building. Under the provisions of the cunent code, connecting buildings below grade with parking lots creates one building between the connected buildings. Staff is not supporting the proposal to have one driveway per building along College because of the heavy pedestrian traffic on East College and the amount of on street pazking being removed for each driveway. The amount of elevation change (29' from the south west corner to the northeast corner) also requires significant design considerations. The number of stairs to be provided and accessible requirements for exiting and ramps do not appear to have been met by the current proposal. Changes to the plan could impact open space calculations further. 2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Bou-der Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; This area was recently rezoned from TB-D to HR] -X consistent with the a BVCP change to "High Densiry Residential" to support existing housing densities and encourage redevelopment of the azea. This area is primarily student rental housing. The applicant is proposing to develop condominium units intended for sale. The HRl-X zone does not set a density standard, but provides a requirement that 60% or the site be retained as open space. .As a result, density may be increased by requesting a reduction in the required 60°l0 open space. A reduction in open space may be requested if open space areas meet the criteria of section 9-3.2-6(b)(8). When the site exceeds 20 units total, a Concept Review is required. Site Review places specific design criteria on a development in addition to section 9-3.2-6(b)(8). The plans and written documentat9on provided for Site Review will need to clearly show how all Site Review criteria are being met. The current plan does not appeaz to meet the requirements section 9-3.2-6(b)(8). Additiona] information both written and numerical will need to be provided showing that courtyard and garden area criterion are being met. Courtyard azeas will need to be shown as functional open space areas for use by future residents of the project. The following spaces are not open space as defined by city standards: 1. Tfie south property line is a series of retaining walls and pianter areas. This space is not usable open space and should not be considered in the final open space calculations. 2. The fourth floor hallways proposed as "atriums" do not meet the definition of an atrium. Atriums must penetrate at least two floor levels. The roof does not qualify as a floor. These areas can not be counted as open space. 3. Internal hallway or pedestrian walkways are not useable open space. A new open space calculation and plan showing the location of open space for the site will need to be provided with the Site Review application. It appears that with the removal of these areas, tota] open space on the site wil] be in the range of 45% overall. The lower the ~ r; ~±~vii ni ~i, ~ti ~~~~~ ~~~~.. r~:a~>>~d<~~ AGENDA ITEM # SB Pase 4 open space calculation, the stronger the courtyard areas will have to be designed to meet the needs of residents. The slopes present on this site will require ramps and steps to separate open space/courtyard areas. The current plans show a series of 3 to 4 areas where steps are necessary in all courtyards. Where there are steps, accessible ramps for handicapped use may be required. Ramps will require two to three times the area shown for steps, which may reduce courtyard areas even more. 3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; The applicant will need to show that all Site Review criteria of section 9-4-11(i) are being met by the plan. The following criteria will need to be specifically addressed for this application in regards to the open space reduction being requested. • (A)(ij Usable open space is arranged to be accessible and functionaL Are the spaces proposed functional for the activities proposed? What are the proposed uses for the sport court? Will the hours of use be limited to assure resident privacv is not disrupted? • (A)(iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development. The south and east property lines show little relief from adjacent properties. ^(A)(v) Open Space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it will be functionally useable and located in a safe and convenient proximity to the uses to which it is meant to serve. Are the courtyard areas of adeguate size to function for their individual intended uses? Is there a need to develop larger or more courtyard spaces to meet the required 50% criteria for an open space reduction? • (C) (i) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard 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. At the Concept Plan level, plant materials and color are not requi~•ed. Preliminary plans suggest adequate materials will be provided. •(D)(ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles aze minimized. The number of driveways proposed accessing to College Avenue will increase potential conflicts with pedestrians using the sidewalk along the south side of College Avenue. ^ (D)(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, pedestrianways and trails. A south pedestrian path in necessary along the south properry line. A pedestrian trail connection along the south property line is shown in the proposed Transportation Network Plan for this area. Connections for the trail should be provided from the southeast to the southwest corners of the site. (F)(i) Building height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration are compatible with the existing chazacter of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area. The apartment buildings along College are a mixture of one and two story buildings. The distinction for this site is that parking will be placed below the units in parking garages, but will result in 4 story buildings as viewed from College. The 5!~• n~ rtt-i ~ i ti~, ~~i ~,x~~ i~~~~~~ n~;,hi, d.~~ AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 5 zo~ie change io HR1-X was done to stimulate redevefopment, which encouraged increased densities. Thts development is the first appkcation for ~~edevelopment u7 the area north ofAurora Avenue and will set the precedence for other requests. ^ (F) (v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporating architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians. The four 4 story buildings have been placed 10 feet from College and 28'~' Street jrontage road consistent with tHe 10 foot required setback of the HR1-Xzone. Tlzis setback will create a dramatic change in the street character along both College and 28'~` Street frontage road. Building heights coulcf be more graduatlr stepped up along both frontages to create a transition between buildings and the street. However, thrs is a new zone and the intent of the 10' sethack ivns to bring building frontages to the street. ^ (F)(viii) For residential project, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either onsite or off-site extemal sources through spacing landscaping, and building materials. The central courryards are located adjacent to front doors belween buildings and southern courtyards; the sports court and BBQ areas are adjacent to end units. What noise mitigation methods wil! be use to assure•residents are not unduly disturbed by use of these areas? The Restaurant as proposed will not require a use review if it doses by 11:00 PM. If a later closing time is requested, a Use Review may be required. Uses 31 and 35 of the use table permit retail and restaurants by right as follows: 31. establishments for the retailing of convenience goods meant primarily for the residents of the neighborhood, provided the total area devoted to retail uses does not exceed 2,000 square feet in size. 35. restaurants and taverns no larger than 1,000 square feet in floor area, which may have meal service on an outside patio not more fhan 1!3 the floor area, and which close no {ater than 11:00 p.m. In addition, under cunent regulations, two buildings connected below grade makes the two buildings one structure, for purposes of determining building height. This section of the code maybe amended this fall, but building height will be subject to regulations in place at the time of considering final approval. Planning Board approval of connected buildings with heights of greater than 40 feet may be required. There are also design elements shown on the proposed plans that make the proposed buildings exceed 40 feet. Planning Board review would be required to consider any heights over 40 feet. See Key Issue 7 for discussion of whether this request should be considered by Planning Board under the provisions of a Public Hearing. If Planning Board recommends the application be considered by Planning Board, the issue of heigltts of greater than 40 feet could be considered as a part of the Site Review application. 4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concnrrent with, or subsequent to site review approvai; Onsite drainage and detention azeas have not been shown. The areas required for onsite detention could significantly reduce courtyard areas. Off site or shared uses with adjacent properties will need to be shown on the Site Plan. This includes the shared driveway with the ~ r i~p~;~~!',~~vi~xninn~_2a:;,r,~,no~ AGENDAITEM# 5B Paee 6 property to the east of the site and pedestrian circulation along the southern portion of the site. 5) Opportunities and coastraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacitV problems serving the requirements oT the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible.need for a traffic or transportation study; The applicant is proposing to develop 4 driveways along College as entrances for each building. This will remove half of the existing on street parking on the south side of College. The applicant has stated that the driveways will result in the removal of only one parking space per driveway. That is actually not true. Each driveway will remove two spaces, or 8 of the 16 existing parking spaces along College. This is due to the distance between driveways and the length of pazallel parking spaces (23'). A maximum of two driveways on College are supported by staf£ One new driveway and use of the existing shared driveway at the eastern end of the property. Introduction of the restaurant will increase parking demand in the area. Consideration should be given to providing additional pazking for the restaurant use. The HRl-X zone does not require parking for this use, but to assure that the use does not unduly impact existing on street parking, and compiies with both Site and Use Review criteria the addition of parking for the use may be appropriate. Staff has reviewed placing additional on street parking on 28`h Street Frontage Road. It is possible to add 5 parking spaces along 28`h Street Frontage Road. If these spaces are developed, the public sidewalk will need to be moved into a public easement to assure that adequate area for street trees can be provided. The parking would also be designated short term to assure that it is available for use by the coffee shop. A trail along the southern property line has been identified in the proposed Transportation Network Plan for this area. This area supports a significant number of CU students and pedestrian connections within the area are an important feature to the successful redevelopment of this area. 6) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains 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; Other than the 29 feet of slope present in this area, there are no identified environmental constraints present in this area. 7) Appropriate ranges of I~nd uses; and The applicant has proposed a significant density for this site and an associated open space reduction. The applicant will need to demonstrate in the final Site Review documents that the plans are consistent with the open space reduction criteria for the HRl-X zone. The current plans do not appear to satisfy these criteria. Smaller units, or a reduction in the number of units may be necessary to meet these criteria. 8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. This area was recently rezoned to HRl-X and the BVCP amended to acknowledge High Density Residential use within the area. This ~~~~ 1~ E~~;-i ~~ ~t~ ~:t :ic~~ i~~~~~` zu.ab~~ do~ AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 7 area has developed as a mixture of uses, varying from motels, restaurants, retirement community, religious institutions and apartment buildings. The property to the north was converted from a motel to apartments in the 90~s. This conversion from motei to housing is supported by current zoning and BVCP changes that were approved last year. Inclusionary Zoning requires that 20% of the units be permanently affordable. The applicant is proposing to provide all of 20 permanently affordable housing units on site. ANALYSIS: Kev Issues: The following Key issues have been identified by staff to help guide Planning Board discussion of this application. Planning Boazd may add to this list or provide additional comments on the Key Issues ]isted. Is a reduction in the amount of provided open space from 60% to 45% appropriate for this request? Do the courtyard spaces adequately meet the needs of residents, supporting the proposed open space reduction? The applicant is proposing to provide approximately 45% of the site as open space. A reduction in open space requires half of the open space to be outdoor gardens or courtyards. The concept plan shows six courtyards three in between buildings, acting as passive open space. Three courtyards have been proposed south of the buildings. These spaces have been proposed for two barbeque areas and a court (basketball) area. The three southern courtyards will be approximately 12 feet below the properties to the south, which will keep them in the shade much of the year. During the summer months, this shouldn't be a problem, but cold winter will limit use of these areas. The courtyard areas proposed are for active use are very small. The southern courtyards should be expanded and connected to each other by pedestrian walkways to create larger activity areas for use of all residents. 2. Is the building design compatible with the existing character oS the surrounding area? The buildings will be four stories in overall height when viewed from the College, but appear as three stories from 28`h street and properties to the south. The surrounding area is primarily one and two story apartment buildings. While 40 feet is the permitted height, the third and fourth floors should step back 15 to 20 feet from the fronts of all buildings along pubic right-of-way. A stronger pedestrian friendly development will result if the buildings provide some relief in overall height along the pubic right-of way. The building recently approved at 28`h Street frontage Road and East Aurora (Perkins site) represents a similar building with little elevation break in the first three floors of the building. This building is setback and average of 20' from exiting right-of way. The south westem corner of the building is 12' from the back of the sidewalk to get a perspective for a 10' setback. ~ N » i~ii-i ~; ~i, ~v ~i:~~ i~o~ -zu;,h~, d~x AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee S Materials proposed are consistent with materials used in most cunent architecture. Brick and stucco are the two primary materials. Brick and the metal roof elements have been shown to break up the longer walls of the building and create the appearance of severa] smaller attached buildings. There are some elements on the upper levels of the building that appear to be ornamental. These elements can not exceed 40' in height, unless they serve to screen mechanical equipment directly behind the elements or a height increase is requested (Planning Board approval required). 3. Do the buildings present an attractive streetscape and incorporate design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale? The setbacks for the HRl-X zone require the front yards to have a 10 foot setback from the property line. The proposed building bulk and heights are consistent with this setback and building heights have been proposes to be consistent with the 40 foot maximum heights of the zone. However the third and fourth floors should be recessed 15' to 20' to create a stronger relationship of the buildings to _ the street/sidewalk frontages. This will reduce impacts ofbuilding height at the sidewalk creating a stronger pedestrian scale for the new buildings. Based on the provisions of the HRl-X the pedestrian scale of the buildings in this area will change as this area redevelops. Forty feet tall buildings within 10' of a property line (sidewalk) will not create an appropriate pedestrian scale. The purpose of the 10 foot setback of the HRl-X zone was to bring the first two floors of the buildings out to the street front to create a stronger connection with the street for mixed use projects. 4. Is the incorporation of a retail/restaurant use appropriate for this site? This site is adjacent to the walkway that goes under 28'h Street connecting the CU campus to the rental housing in this azea. A coffee shop at this location will serve the student population in this area. The site will be visible from 28`" Street and attract some movement of cars off 28`h Street to the site. There is no short term parking along 28`h Street Frontage Road at this time and existing parking along College is very limited due to long term parking use. Staff has determined that the applicant could provide parking along the 28`h Street Frontage road. If this parking is provided, staff will recommend the parking be designated short term parking. The applicant has proposed an outdoor patio. Under the provisions of a by right use For a restaurant, the outdoor space cannot exceed 300 square feet. The current outdoor eating area will have to be reduced. It is shown at about 450 square feet. If the larger outdoor eating area is desired, a Use Review requiring Planning Board approval will have to be made for an outdoor eating area of greater than 300 square feet (use category 37). 5. Are four driveways accessing to College Avenue appropriate for this site? The applicant has proposed four driveways, one per building accessing to College. Four driveways would remove eight of the sixteen existing parking spaces provided along College. These spaces are used every day within this neighborhood. In addition, the sidewalk along College is heavily used by pedestrians (students) walking to CU. Additional drives would increase pedestrian/car conflicts in this area. Two driveway cuts maximum are supported by staff as a result of these two concems. One, the existing drive at the east property line and a second more central to the site. ~ i> ~ti r~ta-i i! v, ~u ~~~ ~~ r'r~~~ z~; ,n~~ d~k AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 9 6. Do at grade building passages create safe pedestrian corridors as designed? The current plan proposes two passage ways cutting east/west through ali of the buildings. Because the site falls from east to west, the corridors are only v~sible for the length of one building. Safety of these corridors is questionable. Exterior walkways at the first level would be more appropriate and could reduce the overall length of the buildings north to south by 12' if eliminated. 7. Should Planning Board consider this request at a Public Hearing? The plan as proposed could be considered at the staff level and approved without further consideration by the Planning Board. However, there are a number of issues that staff has raised. If Planning Boazd shares these concems there might be a desire to see this appiication at the Board level prior to final approval. If the Boazd membershin thinks that final review and approval for this proiect should be considered bv the Board, notification to the anulicant would be ap~ronriate. This might help the applicant to set some additional direction regarding the final plan documents. For example, if additional height is needed to meet combined building requirements due to parking garage attachments, a height increase could be considered by Planning Board. Staff does not have the authority to consider height of greater than 40 feet in the HRl-X district. The Use Review for a larger outdoor deck for the coffee shop could also be considered. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Two phone calls have been rece'ived from neighbors, expressing concern about the proposed density. No written comments have been received to date. Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners wiffiin 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-10(g), B.R.C. 1981 have been met. ti p~ ti~ i~ii i; i~,~, vi a~~ ~~ ~,~~. za;;,t,~,~t~,~ AGEIVDA ITEM # SB Pa¢e 10 STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Concept Review and Comment is intended to give the applicant feedback on the proposed plan. The comments in this document and Planning Boazd comments at the Public Hearing aze intended to give the applicant direction on submittal of the Site Review Plans. Note, Site Revie~+ for this project does not require Planning Boazd approval. If Planning Board finds th~s request should be considered under the provisions of a Public Hearing, the applicant should be advised at this time to proceed on the basis that the Site Review application will be scheduled for a future Planning Board meetjng. In any case, Planning Board, an interested person, or the applicant could call-up a staff approved Site Plan for consideration at a Public Hearing with Planning Board. Approved By: c~i~ f ~ ~ -~~J '~ ~ ..~~ Peter Pollock, Director Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Development Review Results and Comments C. Applicants plans and written description of the project ~i~,t~pii-iii-,~~,~~i~i?~,~ionn-zu;,n.,a~,~ AGENDAITEM# SB Paee 11 ATTACHI~1Eh"1' A 1000 28`" Street Vicinity Map , ~ ._. - ~ - ~B-~ ; ~ ~.R-~ . _ . .. , , , NR-~ ~l ~ ` ~ ~ ~~ ~ -. ~ f ~ - '. J , '' . _ ~ - ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ F_ ~. ~~~'~ ~. ~ ~~ ' ~ - ,- , - - ~ ~ ~ - t _ . _ , _ -i . P-~ , - ~ L ~- ~ ' ' i ~~ I ~. ~~~~ I I.i . .'~ ~F - ~ . ~ { ~ I I ~ , - - , h ~'~ -~ ` r-_`• ~ I 40 4 ~ Y ; - , ~ ~ ~ ~~~ . ~ . ' ~ ._., . ' ' 1 I .~ ( P ~ ~ ~~ - _ - ~ '' . ~ _ I ''~,i ~ ~ ,"' !~~~ u ~ - ~~~I ~~ 1 ~> - , ~ ~ .-~ - ~ }-~~'~-.~ ~ ~ 4' ' ( Si~h~:t f~r~ ' ' I ~{+~P :t~7f~ Sf . ~ ~ I , J ~ ~~- ~ i:.,i~,i ~ ~ ~ TB-f}.. - . : _ : . ~ ; i;(#~j ~ I I ~~; ~7LIGf1. ~ 4~JL7 i F.~~7 : C ~ ~: -~r~•f~ I P n~jc=1 hJam~^_: ~ar~7mai~: ~o~t ~ _.,•,:.y +~ F.~'S~~r~~1 I~rF-_- LrIh~ILT~y~f 79~1 11~~1~~~~ nriu C~vnrR!~r~lY ~~ ~ f?~~{ ~, r.r~r. ~:x.~<- ~h ~4 h x*.tr. ~c ~r •~ Y wr~ ~ rr ~ v ~r1ri irr F:"e4'~f''~+ N~.JfIlI7~t" ~~~i~i~~-1~7f,1?T ..~~ ~~. .~.~~ , . 7 in~h C+~L 3~ _I 1 i~rt '~+~a~r;, ri~ o: r~ru~?.. H rr.i~.~r:r Arpli-~nt: ~'rm C.hani.rt - • r~~, ~~ s ~-i, ~~i it~ ~~ +~rr~:~-~~;,.;n~>.~,,, AGENDA ITEM # SB PaEe 13 ~: ~~; ~ ~. i~~;.~ ~ ~ ~:~> :,; ~ ;~t ~~ i ut,E -~k, ,t,,~ ct~~~ AGENDA ITEM # 5B Page 14 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: April 22, 2005 CASE MANAGER: Brent Bean PROJECT NAME. Landmark Lofts LOCATION: 1000 28Th St. COORDINATES: N01W04 REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review 8 Comment REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2005-00021 APPLICANT: Chanin Development DESCRIPTION: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT: For a 100 unit residential development consisting of four buildings containing 1& 2 bedroom units on 1.88 acres, at the southeast corner of 28th Street frontage road and East College Avenue. REQUESTEQ VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Open Space reduction to approximately 48% I. REVIEW FINDINGS This application is reqwred to be processed under the provisions of Concept Plan Review and Comment because more than 20 units have been requested. Concept Plan review provides the applicant with comments from Staff, neighbors and the Planning Board. Comments from Staff and Planning Board are intended to give the applicant direction on Site Review, the second step of the required review. Comments made in this review consider site design elements including utility needs for development, building design, site livability, open space, site circulation, and parking. The primary issue related to this plan is how it fits within the Site Review criteria. Concept plan criteria address many of these issues, but Site Review criteria are much more specific. The comments made in this review will require the plan to be redrawn to meet these criteria when Site Plan application is made. The internal courtyards proposed will need to be better defined to meet the needs of residents. Open space uses and areas will need to show how they function for residents and don't impact neighboring properties. What are the seasonal impacts on open space areas; sunlight and snow removal? The site will have a 12' minimum grade separation from the properties to the south and buildings with 40' elevations can be developed on these properties as well. A pedestrian connection from the southeast to southwest corners of the property is needed for emergency exiting and to meet local trail connection goals for this neighborhood. Building design will need to be changed to respond to design limitation of the site. The applicant's plans show a reduction in the required open space of 60% to 48%. Not all the open space shown in the applicants plans qualify as open space. (See discussion under Site Design.) To qualify for the reduced open space, 50% of the open space provided must be located within the courtyard areas. Courtyard areas have not been defined in the plans presented and it appears the courtyards will be less than 50% of the open space areas proposed for this site. Additional courtyard areas may need to be developed to meet this criteria. There appear to be a number of building code issues that have not been met with the plans as submitted. The primary issue is exiting and handicapped requirements. There are no ramps shown on the plans presented for handicapped use, where stairs are shown. In addition, two exiting paths are required for each residence. The internal areas between buildings only provide movements to the north by way of stairs_ A second exit to the south from the courtyards is necessary. No paths have been shown along the south property line to meet this requirement. Eziting can not go from an outside area through a building to another exterior exit. The applicant has also developed this plan based on four driveways accessing to College Avenue. One driveway is permitted by code, iwo could be considered if traffic conflicts can be shown not to exist. This ~ P" i~ P~t i' ~~1, vi V~~~ i~~,~~~-2sk~r,h~+<<,,; AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 15 property is adjacent to a heavily used sidewalk by pedestrians from adjacent apartment buildings. The applicant is also proposing to add a coffee shop to the northwest corner of the site, which will attract additional foot traffic. A major redesign of the plan will be necessary to develop the site with one primary driveway. A secondary driveway is already present at the eastern property line where a shared driveway exists and will have to be retained. Consideration of this request for Concept Plan Review and Comment will be sent to the Planning Board on June 2, 2005. The comments made in this document will be included as a part ot the Planning Board record. Comments made at this meeting are intended to give the applicant direction on completing the Site Review application. While the comments are not binding, the comments from the Planning Board, public comment and staff should be given strong consideration in the redesign of this project prior to Site Review submittal. Staff will be available to work with the applicant to develop a better plan based on these comments. The following Site Review application may be considered by staff, but any staff decision is subject to call-up to a Public Hearing with Planning Board, by the applicant, an interested person, Planning Board or referral by staff. 11. CITY REQUIREMENTS AccesslCirculation t. Multiple Drivewavs The Boulder Revised Code (BRC), section 9-3.3-15(c)(1), states: One access point or curb cut per property will permitted, unless a site plan or traffic study, approved by the city manager, demonstrates that additional access points and curb cuts are required to adequately address accessibilfty, circulation, and driveway volumes, and only where additional accesses and curb cuts would not impair any public use of any public right- of-way . Staff finds that the multiple driveways on College Avenue are problematic for three reasons related to this code section: A On-street parking: This vicinity is a high demand area for parking by CU sfudents. The demand for on-street parking is an area-wide issue, not one that is site specific. Furthermore, the convenience retail use at this location will further increase the existing demand for on-street parking See additional comments below regarding parking demand for the retail use proposed. B. Points of conflict: Driveways create a point of conflict for pedestrians and for vehicles. With large numbers of students using College Avenue as a route to campus, it is expected that the sidewalk on College will continue to have significant pedestrian activity. A minimum number of driveways is essential to mitigate the inevitable conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians along College Avenue. C. North-facing Driveways: Where driveways face north, icing on sidewalks is a common occurrence, particularly where multi-story buildings have minimal setbacks and where there are attached sidewalks. Minimizing the number of locations where this problem occurs is essential to providing safe and accessible sidewalks for pedestrians. Additionally, an existing driveway near the east property iine currently serves parking on another lot. This driveway would need Yo remain to serve the neighboring lot. Th~s driveway could be used as a second access point if it remains shared between the lots. Staff believes that a site plan can be developed that has only two access points including this existing shared driveway. If necessary, one or both of these driveways could serve multiple entries into underground parking within the site. This design would function as a short alley terminating at two garage driveways. Any additional points of access would only be considered if it can be demonstrated that a site plan cannot be achieved based on the criteria contained in BRC section 9-3.3-15(c)(1). 2. Sipht Obstructions All driveways must have an unobstructed sight triangle measured as a 15 feet from the property t N° ~~ ~~it i~ ~;~ : 1~r~u~~ ,~~ ~ 7F:-o~, d_~~ AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 16 line along the edge of the driveway, 15 feet along the property line measured from the edge of the driveway, and a long connecting the ends of those two lines. Exceptions are made for trunks of trees, ob~ects less than 30" tall or taller than S feet, or for objects that are no less than 75% visually permeable. The plan shows walls within this area for each of the driveways. 3. Detached Sidewalk on Colleqe The sidewalk on the south side of College Avenue along the frontage of the site would need to be reconstructed to meet current standards. This sidewalk would need to be a four foot wide detached sidewalk with an 8 foot wide tree lawn. This cross section appears to fit within the existing right-of- way. 4. Traffic Imqact Studv A traffic impact study is required for any residential development that is expected to generate 20 vehicle trips or greater during any single hour. This typically occurs with 20 or more dwelling units. Even with the high number of pedestrian trips expected to be generated, it is expected that this threshold will be exceeded. A traffic impact study will be a requirement of the Site Review. 5. Transportation Demand Manaqement (TDM) This site is well situated near the CU campus to take advantage of the short walking distances for residences. Also, with the large numbers of CU students expected to reside at this location, the number of transit users possessing transit passes is expected to be significant. It is therefore expected that a significant shift from single occupant vehicle trips can be achieved with this type of development. 6. Pedestrian Connectivitv A future pedestrian route is planned just south of this property. The pedestrian path on the east side of this property would need to extend to the south property line and be able to access this future route. This may require that steps be constructed to overcome elevation changes. Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer, (303) 441-4493 Affordable Housing Requirement: Chapter 9-6.5, B.B.C., 1981, "Inclusionary Zoning" requires that 20% of all new residential development be permanently affordable to low income households, with a variety of options available to satisfy that requirement, including on-site units, cash-in-lieu, or off-site units. Proposal: ApplicanYs proposal is to fulfill the affordable housing obligation on-site, with 20 of the 100 units as deed-restricted permanently affordable for-sale homes. This would satisfy the required number of affordable units. It further addresses the City's general preference for on-site affordable units whenever possible. If the proposed units will be rental units, there may be limitations on providing on-site units. Staff is available to discuss alternatives for such situations. Distribution of Unit Tvpes: The permanently affordable units must be composed of different unit types and distributed throughout the development. No specific affordable units and types are indicated in the proposal, but this can be discussed and negotiated with the Applicant as more specific plans are developed. Size Requirement: There is a minimum size requirement for permanently affordable units. For attached units,which is the case in this proposal, the average floor area of permanently affordable units needs to be a minimum of 80% of the average floor area of the market rate units, up to a 1,200 square foot maximum. Qualitv and Livabilitv: To qualify as a permanently affordable unit, the location, construction methods, floor plan, fixtures, finish and cabineYry of the permanently affordable units must be approved by staff. Covenants: Covenants to secure the permanent affordability of the units must be signed or any applicable cash-in-lieu contribution must be made prior to application for building permits. Incentives for Additional Affordable Units: Developments dedicating more than 20% permanently affordable units, or targeting lower income households may be eligible for funding or certain fee subsidies. Contact Housing Planner for additional information. Linda Hill-Blakley, Housing Planner, 441-3158 Building and Housing Codes 1. According to Sheet CS3 there will be retail at grade level, but sheet CS8 implies that the retail and parking will be in the basement. The retail must be handicap accessible and a minimum of 2 separate 5 i~~ ~~ r~; n ~+~, ~;i vv~ iv:~~ .F;r,f>> <~~, AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 17 means of egress to grade provided where only one is shown. The plan states retail use but with the outside seating it appears to be a restaurant, which could have additional code requirements. 2. The stairs, even though they are outside, must comply with section 1022 and 1019. This would prohibit openings within 10 toot ot sta+r and prohibits the elevator from exiting thro~gh the stair shaft landing or from entering the elevator from the stair shaft landing. 3. At yard level, all buildings have all or part of the occupants exiting through the court yards. Exit courts are outlined in sections 1023.5, several exit courts dead end at the adjacent property which would be prohibited. The tenants cannot exit through the adjacent buildings because once you leave the building you cannot go back into the building or any other buildings. A clear exit path must be provided to all public areas. The BBQ pits, retaining walls, fence or other obstructions are prohibited if they prevent or reduce the egress to an approved location. Egress must be on a designated walking surface. . 4. Handicap access must be provided from the court yards to the public right of way. The current plans show the exit path to be from the elevator to the parking garage then to the street in order to get to the public way which would be an unreasonable request. 5. There appears to be about a 26 feet difference between the north and south sides of this project, based on the grade change is this building going to be defined as a 3 story building with a basement or a 4 story building as defined in section 202. 6. Will the buildings be designed as multiple buildings on the same lot without separation or as multiple buildings with assumed property lines for building construction type and area purposes as outlined is section 503.1.3. Type of construction may be an issue smce frontage increases as descnbed in section 506.2 do not exist. Steve Brown, 303-441-3172 Building Design 1. The atrium, stairwaylelevator shafts, and other app~rtenances shown on the fourth fVoor appear to exceed the 40' height limit. If it will need to be shown that these appurtenances meet the exception criteria and are the minimum height necessary. Angled roof tops are generally an architectural feature, rather than necessary. 2. The east west hallways bisecting all the buildings should be reconsidered from a safety and security bases for the plan. Each building drops a minimum of 3' between buildings east to west and the view down the corridors is block by this drop or elevator towers. These spaces should be secure interior hallways, or removed form the building architecture and replaced with exterior entryways for each unit. 3. There are a number of other architectural features that have been shown on the plans above 40'. Unless there is a functional appurtenance need for these features, they must be kept below 40'. 4. The third floor spaces above the fitness Center and commons rooms have not been assigned a use. W ill the fitness center and common room have two story ceiling heights~ 5. The four buildings proposed will all be the same architecture. The front elevations along College should be varied from three to four story buildings. Materials and colors should also be varied to create the appearance of several different buildings with similar architecture. Case Manager Fees Please note that 2005 development review fees include a$125 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city response (these written comments). This request is for a Concept Review and Comment plan. Additional fees will not be due if the project proceeds to Planning Board for consideration based on the comments of this review. Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing system. ~ i~ » pt; i~~i ~t~ ~•i :,~~~ i~~r~:. ~x",ha~:;~ AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 18 Fire Protection All structures are required to be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to the appropriate design criteria. The sprinkler systems are required to be monitored by a UL listed receiving station. Access is required to be on all sides with proper turning radius and able to support fire apparatus weights. Fire hydrants must be in accordance the City of Boulder Design and Construction Manual. David Lowrey, 303.441.4356 Inclusionary Zoning This site was recently rezoned from TB-D to HR1-X, which qualifies the property as meeting growth management exemption requirements for allocations. The project would be considered a mixed use project and allocations can be issued to this site under the exempt procedures of the Growth Management ordinance (9-6-9(a)(5). Case Manager Land Uses 1. The density proposed for this site is 53 units per acre. Increased density based on a reduction of the required 60% open space requires specific criteria be met. The applicant is proposing to provide approximately 20,000 square feet in courtyard areas open space. It is not clear with the plans presented whether all of the areas designated courtyard qualify under the provisions of section 9-3.2- 6(b)(8). The courtyard area will need to be clearly located and their respective functions defined. e) Densitv in the HR1-X District: The open space per lot may be reduced from sixty percent to thirty percent of the lot if at least half of the open space provided meets the open space requirements of paraareph 93.2-6(b)(81, B.R.C. 1981. 9-3.2-6(b)(8) An outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard, designed for the use for the occupants of the building, with a minimum dimension of at least twentv feet. Seating and other elements encouraging use and occupation shall be included in its design and it should form an integral part of the circulation pattern within the project. 2. Buildings 2, 3, and 4 will be approximately 12' below the grade of the property to the south, which will place these units and there courtyards within the shadow of future buildings that could be constructed along this shared lot line. Are the uses proposed appropriate for winter and summer use? 3. Southern courtyards should have varying uses. One BBQ area only should be provided. Uses could include volley ball (sand area), courUbasketball, BBQ, swimming pool, or other recreational uses. 4. The entrance to all the second floor units are proposed to be from the east side of all buildings. It would be more appropriate to arrange the courtyards to have all the front doors located in the same courtyard. That is front doors facing toward the courtyards between units 1 and 2 and units 3 and 4. The rear entrances could share the other courtyards. 5. The courtyard design could be enhanced by removing the units at the south end of building 2 or 3 to make a connecting courtyard with a size that could server a broader number of functions for the site and residents. 6. The eastern property line has a shared driveway with 2900 College Avenue. No acknowledgment of the shared driveway has been shown on the concept plans. The driveway appears to impact at least the eastern 18' of this site. The driveway and maneuvering areas for cars parking at 2900 College will need to shown on the site plan. This driveway should be used for access to under ground parking in the eastern building. 7. The outdoor eating area for the restaurant can not be larger than 300 square feet. See Zoning sectior below. 8. The driveway into building one should be eliminated to preserve as much on street parking as possible adjacent to the restaurant space. Case Manager Landscaping No comments at this time. Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272. Legal Documents 1. Prior or simultaneous with Site Review, the applicant would be required to submit applications for Technical Document Review for Lot Line Elimination to remove the lot lines between Lots between 5 i~, ~ti~ i~~s_i ~~ ;i~ ~+i ~~,u~ i~n~iis~~of,i,d~~, AGENDA ITEM # 5B Pase 19 Lots 15 and 16 of Leach Babcock Subdivision and a Lot Line Ad~ustment to adjust the lot line between Lots 15 and 14 of Leach Babcock Subdivision. Julia Chase, City Attorney's Office, Ph. (303) 441- 3020. Miscellaneous The proposed building of a 100 unit condo complex, replacing the existing Lary L motel should not significantly impact police calls for service. The 100 residential units may impact traffic flow. Officer Bob Kessler, BPD-Community Services Division, X3385 Neighborhood Comments Comments have been received from several neighbors, expressing concerns about the proposed density and resulting impacts on the surrounding neighborhood relating to increased traffic, pedestrian movements and building height. Parking A coffee shop on this site will attract outside vehicular traffic because it will not only serves a student population, but also the large number of mosning commuters driving northbound on 26`" Street. The attraction of commuter traffic will generate a demand for short-term parking near the retail use. The plan shows no common, convenient parking for the proposed retail use. Retail use on the site presents some challenges for customer parking that are caused by the limited street circulation, the existing transportation infrastructure in the vicinity, and the high parking demand created by students: 1 Street Circulation. The vicinity of this site has limited street connectivity to 28~" Street. If the coffee shop use proposed were to rely on Colle~qe Avenue parking, it is expected that exiting back to 28'" Street would be difficult. Returning to 28` Street would involve either a three-point turn within College Avenue or driving east to 30'" SVeet in order to recurn on Arapahoe to 28'h Street. Either optio~ creates impacts to College Avenue and the neighborhood to the east that would more appropriately remain on the 28`" Street frontage road. 2. Existing Transportation Inirastructure. The 28`h Street frontage road currently has an on-street bike lane but no on-street parking. It is expected that the short-term parking demand created by the coffee shop would cause parking within the bike lane thereby creating conflicts between bicyclists and vehicles. 3. High Parking Demand. This vicinity has a high demand for student parking. The immediate vicinity is especially impacted by student parking due to the good access to campus created by the nearby 2g`n Street underpass. Convenient on-street parking can be effectively created by signing a short-term (20 minute) parking condition, however this parking must be convenient and accessible to the retail in order to work. These three parking challenges can be mitigated by constructing on-street parking on the 28`h Street frontage road. This woultl require that the curb on the east side of the frontage road be reconstructed 8 feet further east. The sidewalk would need to be 12 feet wide with 4 foot wide tree grates in order to achieve the required landscaping. The portion of the sidewalk that would extend into private property, would require an easement to be provided. Also, a retaining wall may be required to overcome the elevation change between the sidewalk and the lower elevation within the property. Another solution to mitigate parking impacts would be to include a surface lot conveniently located near the coffee shop. The HR1-X zone does not require parking for commercial use, but Site Review criteria 9-4-11(i)(2)(D) related to safe and convenient transportation connections will need to be addressed in the Site Plan application. Staff questions that without on-street parking on the frontage road or conveniently located on- site surface parking, a retail use allowable by the zoning may not be appropriate at this location. Some examples of less impacting retail uses might include a dry cleaner, a flower shop, or similar activities. Another alternative would be to piace the retail use along the College frontage such that it was not readily visible to 28~" Street, thereby reducing non-neighborhood use. Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer, (303)441-4493 Site Design De~sitv in the HR1-X District: The open space per lot may be reduced from sixty percent to thirty percent ~ i~~ •,~n~~-~;i',t~~~~v~~~n:.•,~x,;~ni:~~.,~ AGENDAITEM# SB Paee 20 of the lot if at least half of the open space provided meets the open space requirements of paraqraph 9- 3.2-6 b 8, B.R.C. 1981. 9-3.2-6(b)(8) An outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard, designed for the use for the occupants of the building, with a minimum dimension of at least twenty feet. Seating and other elements encouraging use and occupation shall be included in its design and it should form an integral part of the circulation pattern within the project. The plans show several areas that do not qualify as open space, that have been included in the Concept Plan information. The Atrium area on sheet CS6 does not qualify as open space (see the definition of "atrium"). Case Manager Zoning (C) HR1-X: High Density Residential areas in the process of changing to high density residential uses and limited pedestrian oriented neighborhood-serving retail uses in close proximity to either a primary destination or a transit center and where complementary uses may be allowed; The proposed coffee shop is permitted only under the criteria of use category 35. The applicant is showing an outdoor seating area of greater than 300 square feet (405 sf shown). Zone d~sttict HR I -X 35 restaurants and ~avems no larger than I 000 square feet in Floor area, which mav have meal sen•¢c on an outvde A patio no~ more Ihan I/3 Ihe Floor area, and whmh close no later than I 1:00 p m 36 restaurants and tavems no Iarger than 1,500 square feet m ~oor area, which may have meal service on an outside • pano mt more than 1/3 the ~oor area, and which close no la~er than I 1:00 p m 37 restaurants and ta~ems over I.000 square f'eet in Floor area, or wh¢h close ~ afier I I 00 p m, or wrth an ou[door sea~ing area o(300 syuare feei or mure III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Drainage 1. Storm water quality enhancement and detention ponding are issues that must be addressed during the Site Review Process. A Preiiminary Storm Water Report and Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards must be provided by the applicant at time of Site Review application. The required report and plan must also address the following issues: • Water quality for surtace runoff using "Best Management Practices" • Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas (MDCIA) • Detention ponding facilities • Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) • Storm sewer construction • Irrigation Ditches and Laterals • Groundwater discharge • Wetland mitigation • Erosion control during construction activities s i~~ 1~ ~~i+-i i i+~, ~u v; ~~ io~,~ -zx;,,t,i, ao~ AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 21 2. Per Section 7.13(C)(2) of the City of Boulder Design and Construciion Standards (Effective Jan. 5, 20~5), all proQosed projects and developments which disturb 1 acre of land or greater shal! provide Water Quality Capture Votume and a Water Quality Outlet in accordance with the UDFCD Drainage Criteria Manual unless other storm water quality faciiities are approved by the Director. 3. Discharge of groundwater to the public storm sewer system is anticipated to accommodate construction and operation of the proposed developments. City and/or State permits will be required for this discharge. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Boulder Storm Water Quality Office at 303-413-7350 regarding permit requirements. All applicable permits must be in place prior to building permit application. Additionally, special design considerations for the properties to handle groundwater discharge as part of the devefopment may be necessary. 4. City standards require that all projects minimize directly connected impervious areas in accordance with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Drainage Criteria Manual Volume III. Wherever possible, runoff from roofs and parking lots needs to be directed to landscaped areas, grass buffer strips, and grass lined swales. This requirement is in addition to the requirement that structural Best Management Practices such as water quality ponds be provided on the site. This requirement must be address in the Preliminary Stormwater Report and Plan at Site Review. (Steve Buckbee, 303- 441-3289) Utilities 1. The 6" CIP water mains in East College and the 28th Street Frontage Road are undersized. A Utility Report per Sections 5.02 and 6.02 of the DCS will be required at time of Site Review application to establish the impacts of this project on the City of Boulder utility systems. On-site and off-site water main and wastewater main construction per the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) as necessary to serve the development, as well as perpetuate the overall system, may be required. All proposed public utilities for this project shall be designed in accordance with the DCS. Golden West Manor, 1055 Adams Circle, is currently working on a utility report and plan for upgrading the water line in the 28`h Street Frontage Road. Coordination of infrastructure construction and costs may be possible, contact John Toros at 303-939-0897 for more information. 2. The applicant is notified that, though the city allows Xcel and Qwest to install their utilities in the public right-of-way, they generally require them to be located in easements on private property. 3. All proposed public utilities for this project shall be designed in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standa~ds (DCS). A preliminary Utility Report per Sections 5.02 and 6.02 of the DCS will be required at time of Site Review application to establish the impacts of this project on the City of Boulder utility systems. 4. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along the property frontage may conflict with existing or proposed utilities, including without limitation: water, wastewater, storm drai~age, flood control, gas, electric, telecommunications, drainageways, and irrigation ditches, 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. The applicant should note that trees are not permitted within ten feet of underground utility lines. At Site Review, the applicant will need'to demonstrate that their plans can meet both landscaping and utility requirements. (Steve Buckbee, 303-441-3289) IV. NEXT STEPS This request will be forwarded to Planning Board for comment on June 2, 2005. The applicant will need to provide 18 copies of the proposed plans to the Case Manager by Wednesday May 18 for the Planning Board packet. Please contact the Case Manager if there are questions regarding this requirement. V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ~ i>' »}~!+-i i~~~, •, i v. ~~ ~~~~~~: ,~;,ni: a~,: AGENDA ITEM # SB Paee 22 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT Guidelines for Review and Comment The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Boards 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. 8) Charecteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding nefghborhoods, 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; This site is the current location of the Lary L Motel. There are a mixture of uses in this area, varying form former motels converted to housing north of the site, apartment buildings east of the site along College and the Super 8 to the south. The CU campus begins west of 28`" Street. This site slopes about 29' from a high point on the southwestern corner of the site along 28`h Street frontage road to the northeast corner of the site on College. The current site has been leveled at a mid point to support the existing motel use. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing motel and a 9 unit apartment buildings. The applicant is proposing to develop four 25 unit condominium units on the site with heights of up to 40 feet. The new units proposed will be the first development under the HR1-X zone designation. Increased densities and building heights are anticipated in this zone. 9) 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, subcommunity and subarea plans; This area was recently rezoned from TB-D to HR1-X consistent with the a BVCP change to support existing housing densities and permit a redevelopment of housing at similar densities. This area is primarily student rental housing. The applicant is proposing to develop condominium units intended for sale. The basic density proposed can be requested in the HR1-X zone if the courtyard areas meet the criteria of section 93.2-6(bl(8). The current plan does not appear to meet the requirement for at least 50% of the courtyard areas equaling the total amount of open space being provided. The Site Review appiication will need to show that this criteria is being met both in site plan and by numeric table calculations. 10) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; The applicant will need to show that all Site Review criteria of section 9-4-11(i) are being met for the plan. In addition, the Use Review criteria of section 9-4-9(d) will need to be met for the proposed restaurant use. Because this site slopes significantly from the southwest to the north eastern corners of the site, building heights will need to clearly show that they do not exceed 40' in height, or a Planning Board review of increased building heights will be necessary. In addition, under current regulations, two buildings connected below grade makes the two buildings one structure, for purposes of determining building height. This section of the code maybe amended this fall, but building height will be subject to regulations in place at the time of considering final approval. Planning Board approval of connected buildings with heights of greater than 40 feet may be required. 11) 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; The HR1-X zone requires approval of a Site Review (and Concept Plan) if more than 20 units are proposed. 100 units have been proposed. Planning Board approval is required if heights of over 40 feet are proposed. The current drawing sUggest that buildings will not exceed 40 feet, but low points of grade for all buildings have not been provided on the submittal documents and the elevations provided, only show building heights for one building. Final plans wili need to show clearly the low point of grade for all buildings, and actual ~ i>; i~ !~~;-u i~t~ t~:i ~u~~ ~~ ~'~~'-zx, ,ni, d~ AGENDA ITEM # SB Pa¢e 23 buildi~g heights. There are appurtet~ances that have been show on all the units that may not qualify as appurtenances, which may increase building heights over 40 feet. Onsite drainage and detention areas have not been shown. The areas reqwred for onsite detention could significantly reduce courtyard areas. Off site or shared uses with adjacent properties will need to be satisfied shown on the Site Plan. This included the shared driveway with the property to the east of the site and pedestrian circulation along the southern portion of the site. 12) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or trensportation study; The applicant is proposing to develop 4 dnveways along College as entrances for each building. This will remove half of the existing on street parking on the south side of College. A maximum of two driveways on College are supported by staff. One new driveway and use of the existing shared driveway at the eastern end of the property. Introduction of the restaurant will increase parking demand in the area. Consideration should be given to providing additional parking for the restaurant use. This could be accomplished by adding parking along 28`" Street frontage road, or providing on site parking for the use. The HR1-X zone does not require parking for this use, but to assure that the use does not unduly impact existing on street parking, and justify the use under both Site and Use Review criteria the addition of parking for the use may be appropriate. A trail along the southern property line has been identified in the proposed Transportation Network Plan for this area. This area supports a significant number of CU students and pedestrian connections within the area are an important feature to the successful redevelopment of this area. 13) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains 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; Other than the 29 feet of slope present in this area, there are no identified environmental constraints present in this area. 14) Appropriate ranges of land uses; and The applicant has proposed a significant density for this site and an associated open space reduction. The applicant will need to demonstrate with final Site Review documents that the plans are consistent with the open space reduction criteria for the HR1-X zone. The current plans do not appear to satisfy these criteria. Smaller units, or a reduction in the number of units may be necessary to meet these criteria. 15) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. This area was recently rezoned to HR1-X and the BVCP amended to acknowledge High Density Residential use within the area. This area has developed as a mixture of uses, varying from motels, restaurants, retirement community, religious institutions and apartment buildings. The property to the north was converted from a motel to apartments in the 90's. This conversion from motei to housing is supported by current zoning and BVCP changes that were approved last year. VI. Conditions On Case Prior or simultaneous with Site Review, the applicant would be required to submit applications for Technical Document Review for Lot Line Elimination to remove the lot lines belween Lots between Lots 15 and 16 of Leach Babcock Subdivision and a Lot Line Adjustment to adjust the lot line between Lots 15 and 14 of Leach Babcock Subdivision. Application materials are located on the 3r° Floor of the Park Central Building and can also be found on the City's website at: http:/lwww. ci.boulder.co.us/bu ildinqservices/apps. htm#Aoplications 5 ~,~ ~~ i~~a i,! ~,~, ~~i ti,u~ io,~,.-zx;•;},~„~„~ AGENDA ITEM # SB Pa¢e 24 ATTACHMENT C ~ chanin development Landmark Lofts Concept Plan Submittal Written Statement The Property On November 8, 2004, Chanin Development, Inc., contracted with the private owners of the Lazy L Motel in Boulder to purchase the motel with the intention of razing the existing buildings and erecting a project in their place. On Match 3, 2005, Chanin Development closed on the parcel and is now the owner. The property is 1.88 acres in size and is located in the City of Boulder on the corner of 28~' Street Fxontage Road and East College Avenue, directly adjacent to the University of Colorado. The property addresses are 1000 28`~ Street Frontage Road and 2890 East College Avenue. The rectangular shaped land was recently rezoned HRl-X by the City of Boulder with the intention of encouraging high- density residential redevelopment with mixed use components. The Vision From the inception of this project, the intentions of the developer have been to conform in every way to the variety of new HRl-X codes, requirements, restrictions, and criteria. The submitted documents reflect this commitment to meet all of these new codes. The direction was to also meet the intent of City Council when they instituted the HRi-X rezoning as well. With this challenge in mind, cazeful consideration has been paid to many other aspects of the project. The vision for this project is to help provide an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the City, a mixed use urban infill development, a transit oriented development, and a project that not only benefits those who choose to live there in the future, but also the City of Boulder as a community. The Project The project consists of four sepazate condominium buildings totaling 100 residential units with one retail site on the corner. The units will range in size from one bedrooxn/one bath, 625 square foot units to two bedroom/two bath, 1306 square foot units. Twenty of the 100 units will be designated as Affordable Housing units per the City of Boulder standazds. The design includes sub-grade pazking for the entire project. There will be no exposed surface pazking. The project has been designed to meet all of the new HRl-X code criteria including height, setbacks, bulk planes, shadow analysis, usable open space (which it exceeds), pazking (which it exceeds), etc. Further, and in keeping with what the developer believes is the intent of the new zoning district to enhance the City of Boulder entrance, the pr8ject has been designed as an azchitectural statement integrating landscape, quality housing, pazking, retail, and usable open space as a place of lasting significance. This new project will be known as the Landmazk Lofts. I{nudson Gloss Architects have been engaged by Chanin Development to perform both the land plam~nig and the architecture aspects of this project. They have taken into account the demographics of the potential residents and how they live. You will notice in reviewing these documents that pedestrian 1705 Sunset Boulevard ~ Boulder, CO 80304 ~ T¢! 303.939.8400 ~ Fax 303.939.0001 www. chanindevelopment. co m circulation, connectivity to its surroundings, and adjacency to the University of Colorado have all been included in the design of this project. Bike rooms have been designed into each individual building with the intention of encouraging this type of transportation. The residents of the Landmazk Lofts will have many features included in the project for their enjoyment. Outdoor features include beautifully landscaped courtyards with shade structures, bazbecue and outdoor lounge areas, pedestrian paths that connect to sidewalks and the University of Colorado and the City of Boulder bike path network, and public bus transportation. Indoor feat~ues include a commons room, with audio/visual azea, a full workout facility, and a meeting/conference room with wireless internet access. An additional aspect of the project benefiting the residents of the Landtnazk Lofts as well as the other resadents of ttris neighborhood is the retail parcel on the corner. This site will become a coffee shop benefiting local residents on a practical level, but will also act as a social gathering place for the pedestrians accessing the adjacent University of Colorado. With the newly improved pedestrian underpass immediately across the street, a high volume of local foot and bicycle traffic passes tlus corner making this a nahual location for a neighborhood oriented retail use like the proposed coffee shop. The developer believes Uus will enhance the livability of the project as well as the neighborhood, and will further encourage pedestrian travel. Responses to Pre-Application Meeting Comments 1. Four Vehicle Access Points on East Col{ege Avenue East College Avenue is currently being used primarily as long-term parking for the "largely" student population of the neighborhood. This long-term aspect is due to the easy pedestrian and bicycle access to the University and lack of pazking on campus. By supplying moxe than tlie required amount in sub-grade pazking the project is lowering the existing demand for on-street pazking. The site plan calls for four driveways to be cut on East College Ave, and for there to be no curb cuts on 28~' Street Frontage Road. At the present time, the property has one cutb cut on East College Avenue and one curb cut on 28t1' Street Frontage Road. The net result of the project layout will be an increase of two curb cuts. The project designers feel this is the most effective way to handle the pazking for this project for a number of reasons. The first is that it will clean up the streetscape along 28~' Street, which has been an integral part of the intent for the zoning change. The heavily traueled and very visible 28`~' Street elevation has staggered setbacks to allow for intensive landscaping to buffer the project. This serves to improve the look of the City of Boulder for the residents and visitors who aze entering the City from the US36 direction. Further, while East College Avenue is heavily used for long-term paxking, the bulk of those pazking on the street aze residents living in the immediate azea. The net result of adding two curb cuts to the project street frontage will take away four on-street pazking spaces. However, the project itself exceeds the minunum required number of pazking spaces for its own residents. Also, the developer is not asking for a percent pazking reduction for the project. The extra garaged off-street pazking spaces more than make up for the lost on-street pazking caused by the extra curb cuts and will improve the visual character of the street by breaking up the on-street pazking. The driveway grades will meet the City grade requirements. 2. Safety Concerns , The City of Boulder Police Department has recommended adequate lighting on streets, in public and private spaces, and in corridors and hallways. The Landmark Lofts intends to light all of these azeas appropriately and to take into account the safety of its residents and of the neighborhood at large. The internal chazacter of the courtyards will d'vninish noise from both within the project as well as noise from 28~' Street. 3. Useable Open Space As referenced above, caxeful considerations have been given to useable open spaces and the overall enjoyment of the project by its residents. Pedestrian traffic flows through the project have been planned with waIlcways giving connectivity throughout the entire project. All wallcs will either be poured colored pattemed concrete, or brick pavers. Outdoor features include large landscaped lounge areas with shade structures, bazbecue areas, benches, tables, outdoor dining facilities, ornamental lighting, landscape planters, and a sports court. All of these amenities will be open and available for access by residents, and visitors of the project. Also included in all four buildings will be lazge atriums on the top floors that will have benches, landscape planters, and cleaz glass ceilings. Please reference the included color perspectives of all of these various outdoor open spaces. 4. Additional Staff Comments The pazking spaces have been changed to reflect the City of Soulder parking codes. Also, the pazking spaces have been changed to meet the City of Boulder disabled pazking codes which exceed those of the American Disabilities Act requirements. Again, the project has more thau the required number of parking spaces as defined in the HRl-X code, and the develoger is not requesting a percent pazking reduction for the property. There is a unique opportunity for this project to meet the City of Boulder Transportation Demand Management (TDM) criteria. The University of Colorado and the newly unproved underpass(tunnel which directs pedestrian traffic onto the University campus is d'uectly across the sueet from the Landmazk Lofts. Both the occupants of the project and the surrounding neighboxhood will utilize this underpass to access the University. In order to encourage walking and bicycling modes of transportation, the Landmazk Lofts has included a number of features. There are attached bicycle storage rooms with each building. Also, the on-site walkways connect to City of Boulder sidewalks directing walking traffic immediately into the underpass connection to the University. The caf8icoffee shop on the corner of the property will also encourage walking and riding bicycles as it will enhance the neighborhood feel. Foot traffic will be able to travel on all sides of the property as wide walkways have been included on through the southern and eastern sides of the property; as well as, having public sidewalks on its northern and western sides. . The proposed project will maintain or decrease the existing impervious amount based on the current site conditions. Based on City of Boulder Criteria, if a project does not increase the peroent impervious of a site from existing conditions, then storm water detention is not required. Therefore the proposed project does not plan to provide any detention ponding. The neighborhood where the project is located currently does not have any major drainage issues; therefore storm water detention is not warranted. The Landmazk Lofts development does not plan to provide a permauent water quality pond or similaz form of water quality treatment such as a Stormceptor. All of the proposed gazking for the pcoject will be structured and therefore protected from storm water runoff. Typically, the majority of storm water pollutants that developments are concerned about come from open pazking areas. With no open parking, the possibility of pollutauts entering storm water on site is minimal. Water quality for the parking gazages will be mitigated through the use of sand/oil interceptors to remove any pollutants from interior snowmelt, etc. All storm runoff on site will be from rooftops or landscape azeas, both of wluch have a very lunited potential for pollntants. All runoff will flow across landscape azeas, providing some water qualiTy treatment. Overall, the proposed redevelopment plan will greafly reduce the amount of storm water pollutants from the existing conditions because all pazking will be covered, wluch is not the current case. The proposed project will utilize the existing water mains serving the e~usting site. Based on City records, both 28`~' Street and East College have 6" C.I.P. mains adjacent to the site. The buildings will be fully sprinkled and will have one domestic and one fire tap per building. The expected required water demands for the project have not been calculated at this time. During preliminary design, the proposed demands will be inserted into the City hydraulic model to determine if there aze adequate pressures. Per the City, the water mains in the vicinity of the proposed project are currently undersized. The developer plans to work with the City to determine an acceptable solution to this situation. Sanitary sewer service will be provided by the existing 8" VCP sewer main in East College Avenue. Each building will have its own service line. The 8" line in East Coliege Avenue will be extended west if required to provide service. All other utility services (gas, electric, telephone, cable TV, etc.) will be provided by the existing infrastructure on site or in the immediate vicinity. The intent of the pedestrian connections through the project is to promote a feeling of porosity, openness, and connectivity beyond just the project. This is accomplished by not creating doored hallways at the courtyard level, but rather having six foot minimum open walkways conuecting all the courtyazds and perimeter public sidewalks. ADA standards will be met throughout the project including four multi-stop elevators. The buildings will meet the City of Boulder height regulations on a per building basis. The buildings step down from west to east in three foot increments. The proposed buildings aze oriented around courtyards arranged to maximize south exposure to the courtyazds. Appropriately, 70% of the units face the front or side to these courtyaxds. The private personal open space (patios and balconies) primazily front to these courtyazds and 50% of the balconies aze on the 4~' level and 50% aze patios at the courtyazd level. These balconies and patios do not stack up vertically for three stories as in a more typical three story condo or apartment project. The perception will be that there are fewer units than there actually aze. The balconies are partly recessed and have solid rails to both prevent views of balcony "stufF' and to contain interior noise, as well as diminishing exterior noise infiltration. The project has been designed to present a gleasing visual massing both internally and externally. The facades of the buildings stagger as much as sixteen feet in the horizontal and the distance between building elements range &om sixteen feet to as much as fifty feet in the courtyards. The building modules are articulated vertically by insets, level two and level tluee roof forms balconies, patios, stair towers, pazapets, and elevator towers. .The facades are further broken up by the use of different materials, colors, and plan breaks, both horizontally and vertically. The materials are all timeless and durable and will present a permanent qua~ity image to the City and the projects inhabitants and visitors. The project consists of two lots. The addresses are 1000 28~' Street Frontage Road and 2890 East College Avenue. The total acreage of the rivo pazcels is 1.88 acres. There is no indication anywhere in the HRl-X code that speaks to an anticipated density zange. In fact, the stated objective of the HRl-X is "to allow higher residential densities in close proximity to a primary destination, a transit center, or a multi-modal conidor." There is no limitation on the axnount of allowable density in the HRl-X districts listed anywhere in the City of Boulder codes. It is the feeling of the developer and the design team that the governing factor related to density should not be a per acre number, but rather the quality of the project. 5. Snmmary The Landmazk Loiis will be a welcome addition to the City of Boulder. It meets all of the requirements of the new HKl-X codes, restrictions, and criteria, but also the intent of the new zoning district. It utilizes cutting edge urban azchitecture, organic building materiats, and incorporates a xnixed use aspect to the project as well. Residents and visitors coming into Boulder from the heavily trafficked US36 arterial will be greeted by a beautiful new project instead of the existing structiue. The project encourages walking and bicycling as modes of transportation, and enhances the sense of community wiUvn the neighborhood. Occupants of the project have a wealth of features and amenities, both indoor and outdoor, improving the owner's and their guest's enjoyment of the property. The project has exceeded the parking and open space requirements, meets all ADA disability codes, and provides twenty affordable housing units. We are very proud to make this Concept Plan Submittal to the City of Boulder for the Landmazk Lofts, and look forwazd to working together with the city through the approval process. ~~~~_ -~_ `~`~, _~-~ ~---~ VIEW 2 FROM NORTHWEST ~ . ~ ^ ~~~~ ~~.~ t0 \ KEY PLAN Plannln9 6i205 AgenOa Ilom SB ~~ ~ VIEW 1 FROM SOUTHWEST VIEW 3 FROM NORTHEAST OO ~ ; ~~~~ f(EV PLAN Plannin9 6I2106 AgenCa Ilem 5B VIEW 4 INTERIOR SKYLIT ATRIUM / VIEW 5 COUR7YARD 1 ~ ~5 ~~ KEY PLAN vmoom9 wvos aqenea nem se