7B - Concept Plan Review #LUR2000-00004, redevelopment options for southwest corner of 28th and CanyCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 18, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: January 3, 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of a request for Concept Plan Review and Comment
#LUR2000-00004 for three redevelopment options far the southwest corner of 28th Street
and Canyon Boulevard (three retail buildings existing). The options are 1) minor renovation
of existing buildings, 2) a one-story 27,435 sq. ft. retail building with 94 parking spaces, and
3) a 4 story 55,220 sq. ft. retaiUoffice building with 161 parking spaces (75 second level
spaces). The property is zoned RB-E (Regional Business-Established) and is located in the
Boulder Valley Regional Center.
ApplicandOwner: Lou Della Cava
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Robert Cole, Director of Project Review
Elizabeth Hanson, Planner
OVERVIEW:
Review of the proposed Concept Plan for three redevelopment options for the southwest
corner of 28th Street and Canyon Boulevazd. All redevelopment options use the existing
structure at 1681 28th Street and portions of the existing pazking areas along 28th and
Canyon.
The applicant has reviewed these options several times with the Boulder Urban Renewal
Authority (BURA) and with city staff in pre-application meetings and is seeking feedback
from the Planning Board before proceeding with a Site Review application. Key issues raised
in the stafF and BURA reviews have included the appropriate mix of land uses, the
application of the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) guidelines, the character and
scale of development best suited for this site, and economic development objectives for the
BVRC.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\eh2700cany.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM #'7Q Page 1
STATISTICS:
Application: Concept Plan Review and Comment
Development•Name: 2700 Canyon Boulevard
Location: Southwest corner of 28th Street and Canyon Boulevard
(1681 and 1685 28th Street, 2700 and 2770 Canyon
Boulevard)
Size of Tract: 74,225 square feet (1.704 acres)
Zonipg: RB-E (Regional Business - Established)
BVCP designation: Regional Business
(Note: A proposed change to Mixed-Use Business is part of
the Yeaz 2000 Major Update to the BVCP.)
Existing Use:
Three retail buildings.
Requested Variations: Option A- Significant redevelopment of the site
Height modification to 55 feet, open space
reduction (5,000 sq. ft. where 14,851 sq. ft. is
required), setback variations from 28th Street and
Canyon Boulevazd.
Option B- Minor renovation of existing buildings
No variations requested.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Option C- Moderate redevelopment of the site (one-story)
Setback variations from 28th Street and Canyon
Boulevard.
During the city's pre-application reviews and BURA's reviews, it became apparent that the city
and BURA have many, and sometimes competing, objectives for this important redevelopment
site. As a context for the attached city comments (see Attachment C) and a reference for the
Board's discussion, a brief summary of some of the key issues that have been discussed is
presented below.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\eh2700cany.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~8 Paee 2
Summary of Issues
LAND USES
Housing: Staff proposes a BVCP land use designation of Mixed-Use Business for this
site, a designation where business uses will predominate and housing will be encouraged.
The applicant objects to this proposed change and is not proposing housing for this
project far a variety ofreasons, as described in the written statement (see Attachment E).
The BURA Board has expressed mixed opinions on the desirability of including housing
in this project.
Should housing be encouraged for this site?
Offtces: Option A(significant redevelopment) includes 29,570 square feet of office space
on the third and fourth levels. City Council has expressed concem about the amount of
redevelopment that may occur in the city's commercial areas under current zoning and
trends and has requested staff to develop options for reducing projected job growth. (This
topic will be discussed at the January 23 joint City Council - Planning Board study
session.)
Should new office space be discouraged for this site? Is there an appropriate
amount of office space, as part of a combination of land uses?
BVRC GUIDELINES
In addition to requiring several city code variations (listed above), Options A and C
would not comply with several key BVRC urban renewal plan guidelines, including
placement of the building and parking areas, and streetscape standards. The city has
consistently guided redevelopment along major streets and intersections to bring
buildings close to the street, with the main parking areas behind. BiTRA has noted that
the design guidelines are meant to be flexible; it may be appropriate to waive or modify a
guideline if the intent of the guideline is still met (see BURA staff comments under
`BVRC Design Guidelines" in Attachment C.) BURA has a desire for the owners to
redevelop this visible and underutilized site to help improve the image, vitality, and sales
tax generation ofthe BVRC.
Do Options A and/or C substantially meet the intent of the BVRC guidelines7
SCALE/CHARACTER
Option A, a four-story, 55 foot tall retaiUoffice building with a second level parking deck
would present a considerably different scale and character as compared to Option C, a
one-story retail building (existing 1681 28th Street building with an addition to the north).
Option A conveys a more "urban" character at this important comer, though maintaining
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\eh2700cany.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM #/~ Paee 3
view corridors and meeting open space and height modification requirements may be
difficult. Another architectural solution for Option C could create more of a street
presence with a one-story or a two-story development option.
What is the desirable scale and chazacter of development for this site? A multi-
story building to create an architectural statement at this important intersection?
Or a one- or two-story building designed to relate to the corner and upgrade the
site?
ECONOMIC ISSLTES
Throughout the city's pre-application reviews and BURA reviews, the role of this project
as part of a BVRC economic development effort has been discussed, likely more so than
comparable projects, given the current economic climate. During the past yeaz, the city
has placed an increased emphasis on economic health. The recent "on hold" status of
Crossroads Mall has led BURA to look more closely at the redevelopment potential of
other properties in the BVRC, a major sales tax generator in the city. The applicant has
indicated that, two yeazs ago, city planning staff and BURA Board and staff originally
requested him to explore redevelopment proposals far the 28th and Canyon site. The
applicant has generated multiple design options and examined site constraints and cost
analyses, resulting in this Concept Plan application. The retail components of the project
scenarios would generate sales taac revenue. Options A and C have similar amounts of
retail space - 25,650 and 27,435 squaze feet, respectively, where there is currently 22,572
square feet of retail buildings.
What role shouid the city's economic development goals for the BVRC play in the
city's review of a Site Review for this project? Should it affect the consideration
of the other key issues listed above?
Approved By:
~
Peter Pollock
Planning Director
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\eh2700cany.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM #/O Paee 4
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Concept Plan Guidelines
Vicinity Map
Development Review Committee comments, dated
November 29, 2000
October 18, 2000 BURA Meeting Minutes
ApplicanYs Written Statements and Concept Plan drawings
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\eh2700cany.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM #'7LJ Paee 5
ATTACHMENT A
Concept Plan Guidelines for Review and Comment.
( flGuidelines for Review and Comment: The following guidelines will be used to guide the
Planning Board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed
in this section will be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The
Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept
plan.
(1)Characteristics ofthe site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location,
surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site
including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and
prominent views to and from the site. The site is at the corner of 28th Street and Canyon
Boulevard, a key intersection in the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) and across
the street from Crossroads Mali. 28th Street will soon be a major regional transit corridor,
with RTD bus service to Denver/DIA and this site has been discussed as a potential transit
"superstop". Three retail buildings are on the site, which is currently non-conforming in
terms of parking and landscape standards. The Boulder Creek 100-year floodplain affects
portions of the site (see floodplain requirements in city comments dated November 29,
2000). There are signi~cant mountain views from the site and the 28th and Canyon
intersection.
(2)Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely
conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other
ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea
plans; Development of this site must be consistent with the BVRC urban renewal plan,
guidelines, and standards. The site is currently being considered for a BVCP land use
designation chapge from Regional Business to Mixed-Use Business. An Area Plan for the
Crossroads area, including this site, is planned for 2001. The site is also located on a future
regional transit corridor. Redevelopment of this property has been identified as a
potential economic development project.
(3)Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; A site
review apptication must s6ow compliance with applicable site review criteria, including
criteria for any requested code variations (e.g. height modification, open space reduction).
A site review application also must demonstrate compliance with BVRC guidelines and
standards. The apptication may be reviewed by the BURA Board and, if required based on
the project, the Planning Board.
(4)Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to,
concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; A Technical Document Review will be
required for final architecturaUsite/landscape plans, any ~nal engineering or utility plans,
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\eh2700cany.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # Pa e 6
right-of-way dedications, and development agreement. A building permit application
would follow.
(5)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 transportation study; The site review application should
demonstrate cross-access between the site and adjacent properties. Significant
opportunities will exist for connections to the new 28th Street regional transit corridor.
The applicant is strongly encouraged to discuss incorporating a transit "superstop" in this
project with Public Works staff. A sign program would be a condition of site review
approval.
(6)Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification
of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplain 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; The site is affected by
the Boulder Creek 100-year floodplaiu, as discussed in the city comments dated November
29, 2000. There are signi~cant view corridors to the mountains from this site.
(7)Appropriate ranges of land uses; and The site, designated RB-E and Regional Business, is
an appropriate site for a wide range of commercial land uses, including retail, personal
service, and office uses. The appropriate amount of of~ce space has been raised as an
issue as ii relates to job creation and traffic impacts. (See discussion of housing in No. 8
below.)
8)The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. The site is currently being considered for a
BVCP land use designation change from Regional Business to Mixed-Use Business, an area
where business uses will predominate and housing will be encouraged. There have been
differing opinions expressed as to the appropriateness of housing for the site. The site
would be required to comply with the provisioas of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. A
minimum of 20% of the new housing units will need to be Permanently Affordable, of
which a minimum of half of the Permanentiy Affordable units must be provided on site.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\eh2700cany.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~C7 Paee 7
ATTACHMENT B ~
City of Boulder.Vicinity Map
~
J_fi i
~'~~ ~
-- ~ --.-__1
~
;,~
c
Location: 2700 Canyon Blvd.
Projeet Name: 28TH & Canyon Mixed Use Projeet
Review Type: Concept Plan Review & Comment
Review Number: LUR2000-00004
Applicant: Lou Della Cava
2700 Canyon Blvd
Subjeet Property
~
~
//~\ ,ry.~,~.+~'~
yV . MapLlnk .
1:5782 atyarso~ma~cis
'I'he idormaiondepio¢d on ~M1i~ m~p i~
N provided a 6nphiul rcpnunwion edy.
The Ciry o(Bouider prov~do no wmay,
e prcu~dorimptied,umihaccuru~•
ad/orsomolnmeuof~M idarmnion
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: November 29, 2000
CASE MANAGER: Liz Hanson
LOCATION: 2700 CANYON BL
COORDINATES: N03W04 •
REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review & Comment
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2000-00004
APPLICANT: LOU DELLA CAVA
DESCRIPTION: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW: Three redevelopment options for the
southwest corner of 28th St. and Canyon 81vd. (three retail
buildings existing). The options are 1) minor renovation of existing
buildings 2) a one-story 27,435 s.f. retail building with 94 parking
spaces, and 3) a 4 story 55,220 s.f. retailloffice building with 161
parking spaces (75 second level spaces).
REQUESTED VARIATIONS
FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: The applicant has proposed conceptual plans for
three redevelopment optfons, as described above.
Option #1, which would make little change to the
existing buildings, would require no variations.
Options #2 and #3 show several variations to the
land use regulations that would be requested at the
time of Site Review, including setback variations,
and for Option #3, open space reduction and hefght
modification to 55 feet.
REVIEW FINDINGS
Staff finds that the appiicant has presented a range of conceptuai options between "upgrade" and "full redevelopmenP'
for staff, BURA (Boulder Urban Renewal Authority), and Planning Board consideration. It is clear from the application
that the applicant feels strongly about retaining one of the existing buildings and maintaining the iocation of the existing
parking. Planning Board direction will be particularly he~pful given the varied staff and BURA Board comments about
the site in the pre-application steps, and since Planning Board would be the likely approval authority of a Site Review
application.
General Comments
This site is currently designated Regional Business on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and is proposed for a
designation of Mixed-Use Business as part of the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Mixed-Use Business indicates areas where business uses will predominate and housing will be encouraged. The
property owners have objected to the proposal to change khe land use designation on this property (see attached letter
from Lou Della Cava). Based on their evaluation of this site, mixed-use development that incorporates residential
development is not feasible on this site.
An Area Plan for the Crossroads area, including this site, is planned for 2001. The appropriate density and character o
development will be determined in this planning process. Some of the larger policy issues that are being discussed as
part of the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and will influence the area planning
process and the potential redevelopment of this site include:
Ngenda Item a~_ Page k~ _.
• Concerns about future job growth in the city's commercial areas - The City Council has expressed concern about
the amount of redevelopment that may occur in the city's commerciat areas under current zoning and trends. The
planning department prepared revised employment projections this fall which indicate a potential for approximately
23,000 additional jobs in the city's RB-E, TB, and CB zones. Based on the large number of new jobs that could be
created as the result of redevelopment, the City Council has requested that staff develop options for reducing
projected job growth in the city's commercial areas. The City Councii and Planning Board will discuss this at their
January 23 joint study session.
• Mixed-use development - A key theme for the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is
encouraging mixed use development that includes housing in order to provide more affordable housing opportunities
in the city. The discussion has focused on the revitalization of commercial areas through redevelopment that includes
retail and housing as the primary uses.
• BVRC (Bouider Vatley Regional Center) Design Guidelines - During the pre-application step and the review of the
current concept plan options, varying opinions of how the BVRC design guidelines should apply to this site have been
expressed by Planning staff, BUR,4 staff and BURA Board. To reflect this range of opinions, Planning and BUR,4
comments are presented below.
Plannina Deoartment
At this time, the BVRC design guidelines should guide development of the site. The 28~h Street charrette that was
conducted last summer raised many issues related to the appropriate urban design for the corridor. In general,
participants supported a more intense urban character for the corridor as opposed to the current suburban character.
However, the charrette also raised issues as to the amount of additional development that is appropriate and
acceptable in the corridor. The area planning process that is planned for the Crossroads area in 2001 is the best
piace to discuss and determine the appropriate vision for this area, rather than through site specific variations.
As noted in the pre-application meetings, Option A(significant redevelopment) would require several significant code
variations (height, open space, landscaping, setbacks) and would not comply with several BVRC urban renewal plan
guidelines, including placement ot the building and parking areas, maximizing building street frontage, and streetscape
standards. Several recent BVRC projects which had similar code variations approved in part because those variations
resulted in further compiiance with the BVRC guidelines.
Several BURA Board members have questioned whether these specific guidelines are appropriate for this site and
have emphasized that they are to be used as "guidelines" rather than requirements. Planning staff has concerns about
the possible appearance of applying the guidelines in question in an arbitrary manner. For over 10 years, the city staff,
Planning Board and BUR,4 Board/staff has consistently guided redevelopment along major streets and intersections to
bring buildings close to the street, with the main parking areas behind. Therefore, if there is now a growing feeling that
some of the BVRC design guidelines should only be applied to certain properties or should not be applied in certain
circumstances, Planning staff feels that it may be appropriate to amend the guidelines by clarifying where or under
what conditions specific guidelines should be applied or exempted. This would provide more predictabitity of the
review process for applicants, staff, and boards.
BURA
BURA has indicated a desire for the owners to redevelop this site sooner rather than later, in order to improve the
image, vitality, and sales tax generation of the urban renawal district. This site is of particular interest because of its
highly visible location, in the heart of the district across the street from Crossroads Mall, and its obvious
underutilization.
As stated above, BURA has emphasized that the BVRC design guidelines are meant to be flexible. The introduction
to the guidelines document reads, "Any guideline may be waived or modified if the applicant can demonstrate that the
guideline is inappropriate due to existing conditions or the nature or scope of the redevelopment projeck" BURA
staff's approach has been to ensure that when it seems appropriate to waive or modify a guideline, the intent of the
guideline is still met, through either an aiternative design solution or extra amenities/ higher quality elsewhere on the
site.
For this project, because the guidelines regarding building/parking location and streetscape are designated "most
importanY' guidelines (for which a higher degree of compliance is expected), BURA staff suggested numerous design
improvements to the preliminary plans, which, taken together, might be acceptable trade-offs for non-compliance with
those guidelines. The suggested improvements are also BVRC design guidelines, and included the corner open
space/seating area, the walking arcade, the architectural design of the corner of the buiiding, the approximated second
~genda Item # _7~ Page # ~Q
row of street trees, the parking screening wail, the crosswalks through the parking lot, the quality of the building
materials, and the use of the transit stop facility as a street-corner interest. The applicant incorporated these
suggestions into the Concept Plan (Option A and C), and the BURA Board found them to be acceptable trade-offs for
the location of the parking in front of the building and the reduced 28'h Street streetscape.
In its review of the Concept Plan, the BURA Board reiterated that not all guideiines fit all sites, and found that for this
particular site, having the parking behind the building is not critically important, and that the proposed streetscape is
generally acceptable. These tindings were based not only on design preferences, but also on the financial and market
considerations that the applicants presented to the Board. (BURA Board October 18, 2000 meeting minutes are
attached.)
The BUR,4 Board debated the additional building height shown in Option A, versus the single-story Option C. They
generally agreed that while greater building mass would be desirable at this corner from an urban design standpoint,
the City and community are likely to have serious reservations about approving additional height/ square footage that
is proposed to be office space. The Board had mixed opinions on the desirability of including housing in this project.
In regard to amending the guidelines, BURA staff notes that in this case and others, the guidelines have been
instrumental in providing a common goal for the applicant and staff to work together to evoive and improve the design
of a proposal, through a series of revisions and discussions. However, clarifying where and when some specific
guidelines should apply or may be waived might be helpful, and the upcoming BVRC Area Plan seems an appropriate
vehicle for doing this. Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-4278.
Based on these policy issues, the Planning Department finds that retail and mixed-use residential are the appropriate uses
to consider for this site at this time, and finds that significant additional office development shou{d be discouraged.
Comments on the three alternatives:
Option A- Significant redevelopment of the site
Development of a 4-story retail/office building on this site:
1. Is not consistent with the proposed BVCP designation of this site for mixed-use that would incorporate housing.
2. Sets a precedent for more intense urban development of the 28~h Street corridor that diverges from past trends and
expectations for development in this area. Given the fact that the corridor is currently more suburban in character, any
change in the design character should be set through the 2001 area planning process or at least be consistent with the
BVRC guidelines.
3. Would result in significant additional office development on the site and corresponding job creation and traffic impacts
to 28~h Street. The city has been extremely supportive of retail redevelopment and revitalization in the 28~h Street
Corridor. However, this corridor has not been considered as a desirable location for new office development, and the
associated job creation and potential traffic impacts suggest that this is not the appropriate future development for 28~^
Street.
Option B- Minor renovation of existing buildings
Option B(minor renovation) would not require a site review application. While staff strongly encourages redevelopment of
this important corner and upgrading of the underutilized site to meet current city code and BVRC design guidelines, Option
B would aliow for future redevelopment.
Option C- Moderate redevelopment of the site with a one-story retail building
At this time, this option seems the most desirable of the three, since it provides for retail redevelopment on this site.
Option C requires fewer code variations (no height modification or open space variation) but aiso does not comply with the
BVRC design guidelines related to building/ parking placement and streetscape. As a moderate redevelopment option
(reuse of existing building, minimal increase of square feet), Option C would also need to show compliance with the site
review criteria (see below) and the BVRC design guidelines. One of the key issues for this Option C is the architectural
solution. The applicanYs design alternatives which create more of a street presence (scale, mass, height) make the one-
story option seem more appropriate to the key intersection.
Ayenda item # ~L~ Page h ~~
Site Review Criteria
At the time of site review application, the applicant wou{d be required to demonstrate compliance of the selected
redevelopment option with the applicable site review criteria. Based on the conceptual plans, issues related to view
corridors, building design (character and massing), and landscaping would be important to address.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
AccesslCirculation ~
1. The ramp shown in Concept Plan A that connects the neighboring property to the second floor garage raises some
concerns for vehicular circulation:
a) The neighboring property to the west is several feet higher than the site, however the ramp appears to be
accessing the on-site parking and the neighboring property's parking within a short distance. The Site Review
submittal will be required to show how the grading in this vicinity will work with the ramp.
b) The ramp's focation with respect to the loading dock and the vehicular connection with the property to the south
does not leave adequate room for the nearby at-grade parking. Any two-way drive isle with parking is required to
have a width of 24 feet.
c) The vertical clearance between the bottom of the ramp and the at-grade parking spaces will have to be addressed
at the time of Site Review. The minimum clearance of 7 feet is required under this ramp.
d) The ramp accesses the neighboring property to the north at the location of parking spaces. An access agreement
and easement with the neighboring property would be required and this specific issue addressed.
Without further clarification with regard to these issues and adequate context with respect to neighboring sites, staff
cannot support this ramp as shown.
2. Concept Plans A and C show a vehicular connection with the neighboring property to the south. This connection
occurs at a significant grade difference between the two properties. This issue will have to be addressed at the time of
Site Review.
3. The written proposal states that both Options A and C will have a transit superstop incorporated with the site. Concept
Plan A should show a similar arrangement for a transit superstop as is shown in Concept Plan C as per the written
proposal.
Suilding and Housing Code
It is not clear whether the applicanPs plans to retain a portion of one of the existing buildings woutd be defined as
"demolition." It appears that several existing walls would be removed. Clarifying whether this would be defined as
demolition may be important both for application of floodplain regulations. It also relates to the applicanYs interest in
keeping the existing buiiding and not fully complying with BVRC design guidelines and code requirements. Piease address
this issue prior to Planning Board consideration.
Flood Control
Option A:
Section 9-9-6 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 states that any person making a substantiai modification (expansion or
enlargement of a structure which equals or exceeds 50% of the fioor area of the structure), or a substantial improvement
(improvement wfiioh equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the siructure), to any existing non-residential structure
shall floodproof or elevate the lowest floor, inciuding the basement, of the substantially modified or improved portion to or
above the flood protection elevation and shall floodproof the remainder of the existing structure. The plan proposes a
200% expansion and therefore requires floodproofing of the existing structure. A finished floor elevation is needed to
determine the extent of the floodproofing requirements.
Option B:
No change to the existing building is proposed, therefore no floodproofing would be required
Option C:
hyentla Item a _.~~ Page # ~v~_ .
The plan proposes a 48% expansion and therefore is not a subst~ntial modification. If the improvement does not equai or
exceed 50% of the market value of the structure, the owner shall floodproof or elevate the lowest floor, including the
basement, of the expanded or enlarged portion to or above the flood protection elevation. The existing structure would not
require floodproofing.
Fire Protection
See Informational Comments below regarding fire protection and access.
Land Uses
Planning Department comments regarding the proposed and potential land uses for this site are addressed above under
"Review Findings".
Some BURA Commissioners suggested that residential units on the western side of the upper floors might be an
acceptable location for housing. Fay Ignatowski, BURA Ptanner, 303-441-4278.
Landscaping
No requirements at this time. Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272.
While the proposed concept plans do meet the specific requirements of the streetscape standards, the BURA Board found
the landscape concepts to be generally acceptable. The interior row of street trees along 28`h Street (west of the sidewalk)
should be strengthened with at least one additional street tree. Fay Ignatowski, BURA Planner, 303-441-4278.
Miscellaneous
1. Given the emphasis placed upon this area for a strong view corcidor, it wouid appear that a multi-storied building is not
in keeping with the BVRC guidelines.
2. Please address how does this proposal "connects" with the other centers in the area such as a proposed redesigned
Crossroads Mall, and the area to the north of this corner as well as how it will strengthen ties to CU and to Downtown.
Missy Rickson, City Attorney's Office, 303-441-3020.
Review Process
This Concept Plan Review and Comment application has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the January
18, 2001 Planning Board meeting. In order to qualify for this hearing date, 18 copies of any revised plans and a written
response to these comments must be submitted to the case manager no later than Friday, December 14, 2000.
The BUR,4 Board and the applicant have both requested a joint BURAIPIanning Board session to discuss issues related to
the redevelopment of the applicanYs site and other issues related to future redevelopment of BVRC properties. The
Planning Board has also expressed interested in a joint session. This session has not yet been scheduled but would likely
take place sometime before Planning Board's consideration of this Concept Plan and possibly earlier on the same meeting
agenda.
The three proposed redevelopment options wouid require different review processes. Option B, which would make little
change to the existing buildings, may require a"by-righY' building permit. Options A and C would require Site Review
approval. Option A includes a 55 foot tall building and therefore would require Planning Board approval of a Site Review.
Options A and C show several variations to the land use regulations that would be requested at the time of Site Review,
including setback variations, and for Option A, open space reduction and height modification.
Site Design
General Planning Department comments regarding building massing and placement, parking area placement, setbacks,
and landscaping are found under "Review Findings" above. Several specific site design comments on site layout,
including suggestions for other site and building design options, were discussed with the applicant during two pre-
application meetings. These comments and suggestions also apply to this Concept Plan submittal.
Per BURA Board comments, the applicant may wish to reconsider whether a portion of the building could be brought to the
street in Options A and C, and/or whether in Option C a portion of the building could be two-stories high, to add more
significant building mass to this site. Fay ignatowski, BURA Planner, 303-441-4278.
;:gend~ Item ~ ~-- ~age 81.~
III. INFORMA710NAL COMMENTS
Access/Circulation
Any increase in traffic of 20% above the volume accessing the site from the existing curb cut on 28th Street will require a
CDOT Access Permit. The need for this would be determined at time of Site Review.
A traffic impact assessment may be required at time of Site Review depending on the need for an Access Permit and any
anticipated significant increase in traffic generated from the proposed site. Please contact Steve Durian at 303-441-4493
to coordinate before Site Review submittal.
Potential Transit "Superstop": The 28th and Canyon intersection is an important location for city transit service. Transit
service on 28th Street will double in the next two years, as service to/from CU, Denver, DIA and new local service is
added. Bob W hitson, Senior Transit Planner has suggested the idea of a joint effort of the city and the appticants to create
a bus "superstop" on the site. Buses would remain in the right-of-way, but the site could support expanded transit facilities
such as real-time bus information, sheltered sitting areas, and complimentary uses like a coffee shop. It is staff's
understanding that the applicant has met with Whitson to discuss a superstop scenario and staff encourages an ongoing
dialogue about this potential shared use.
Bicycle facility on 28'h Street: The Transportation Master Plan and the BVRC Bicycle Connections Plan call for a multi-use
path and/or bike lanes along the west side of 28'h Street. The fina~ decision of exactly which facility will be determined
through the 28~h Street Corridor Planning Study, currently underway. The appiicant should check with Transportation staff
on the status of this decision before Site Review submittal. Fay Ignatowski, BURA Planner, 303-441-4278.
Generai emergency vehicle access: This site is difficult for fire apparatus to reach from the closest station, Fire Station #3,
at 30'h and Arapahoe. Currently, fire apparatus must go ail the way around the block (west, north, east) to access this site.
I would ask Transportation staff and the developer to consider installation of an "emergency vehicle onfy' median break on
Canyon, to allow more direct turning access to the site from westbound Canyon, west of 28'" Street. This is especially
needed if the site is to be redeveloped in a major way. Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350.
Drainage
Options A & C:
Storm water quality enhancement is an issue that should be addressed during the Site Review Process. The applicant
must provide a preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction
Standards at the time of Site Review application. The required repo~t and plan shall address the following issues:
• Release of storm water runoff to the storm sewer system.
• Water quality for surface runoff using "Best Management Practices".
. Erosion control during construction activities.
Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121.
Flood Control
A portion of the subject property is located within the 100-year floodplain for Boulder Creek. Any work within the regulatory
floodplain, including grading, will be subject to City of Boufder floodplain development regulations (BRC 9-9) and wili
require a floodplain development permit. An approved floodplain development permit will be required prior building permit
application. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121.
Fire Protection
Any of the three options are workable.
Considerations:
Options A and C would require addition of appropriate fire protection systems for new construction, such as automatic fire
sprinkier system(s), standpipe system for parking level/garages, etc.
h,grntl~ Itorn N _~ Page #~}~
Significant redevelopment of the site (Options A and C) would require addition of at least one additional fire hydrant,
probably at the Canyon Bivd. entrance.
On-site vehicular access would need to be designed to SU-30 vehicie template.
If it is determined that a ramp to the parking level(s) is required, and that it would be part of a standard vehicular
connection, it may need to be designed to allow for the passage of fire apparatus. I would suggest a minimum 15-foot
vertical clearance. This would largely depend on the eventual site design, and whether fire access is required to that side
of the building.
Adrian Hise, 303-4413350
Landscaping
Please note the following preliminary landscape plan requirements to be submitted with a site plan application:
Plan drawing at a scale of 1"= 10', 1"= 20', or 1"= 30', to include:
Standard title block including scale and date
Scale
North Arrow
Date
Location of property fines and adjacent streets (with street names identified)
Zoning and use of adjacent properties
Existing and proposed locations of atl:
- Building footprints for existing structures and building envelopes for proposed structures
- Sidewalks and curb cuts
- Parking lots including layout of parking spaces, interior and perimeter parking lot plantings, bike paths and
pedestrian walkways, drive aisles and curb islands
- Utilities and easements, including fire hydrants, water meters, & height and location of overhead lines.
Existing location, size, and type of all trees 1 1/2" caliper or greater
Where fencing is used for required screening, a scaled drawing of the fence elevation.
Planting and irrigation specifications
Identification of type and location of irrigation in conjunction with plant groupings by water requirements
Layout and location of ail landscaped areas including:
- planting strips along all streets
- parking lot screening
- interior parking lot landscaping
- perimeter site landscaping or screening
- all other landscaped areas
Botanical and common names and sizes of all plant material proposed preliminarily.
Locations of all proposed plant material, shown at the size they will be within 5 years of initial planting, and
appropriately spaced.
Location, size, and species name of any plant materials proposed for removal.
Proposed planting of all ground surfaces. Grass surfaces must be identified as sod or seed with the blend or mix
specified.
Location and treatment of any proposed detention ponds.
Location and dimensions of site distance triangles at ail intersections of streets and curb cuts.
Summary chart with calculations to include:
total lot size ( in square teet).
total parking lot size, including all drives and driveways (in square feet).
total number of parking stalls required and the total provided.
total interior parking lot landscaped area required and the total provided.
total perimeter parking lot landscaping required and total provided.
total number of street trees required and the total provided.
total quantity of plant material required and the total provided.
Bev Johnson, 303-4413272.
k;i;~~~7da IPem fl %Q Pago #_~~__
Utilities
Options A & C:
1. No exterior portion of any building shali be over 175 feet of fire access distance from the nearest hydrant. An
additional hydrant wili be necessary to serve the building expansion.
2. The applicant is advised that at the time of building permit application the following requirements will apply:
a) The applicant is required to provide an accurate existing and proposed plumbing fixture count to determine if the
existing meter and service are adequate for the proposed use.
b) Water and sanitary sewer Plant Investment Fees and service line sizing will be re-evaluated.
c) If the existing water and/or sanitary sewer service is required to be abandoned and up sized, all new service taps
to existing mains shall be made by city crews at the developer's expense. The water service must be excavated
and turned off at the corporation stop, per city standards. The sewer service must be excavated and capped at
the property line, per city standards.
d) The applicant will be required to grant to the City any easements that are required to meet the needs of this
development. Grant of Easement Legal Instruments must be submitted to the City for review, approval, and
recordation, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
e) If the Boulder Fire Department requires that this buiiding be provided with a sprinkler system, approved fire line
plans must accompany the fire sprinkter service line connection permit appiication.
Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Miscellaneous
Option A has potential view impacts. A photo sirnulation showing view impacts, looking southwest from the northeast
corner of 28'h and Canyon, should be submitted with any Site Review application requesting a height limit variance. Please
refer to BVRC pesign Guideline 3.1.G..
For Concept Plan review by Planning Board, it would be beneficial to present comparable perspective sketches of Option
A and Option C. Specifically, the perspective sketch of Option C should be drawn from the same point of reference as the
sketch for Option A-- that is, closer to the site and exciuding 28'h Street in the foreground. Fay Ignatowski, BURA Planner,
303-441-4278.
IV. NEXT STEPS
1. Submit 18 copies of a written response to these comments and any revised plans to the case manager no later than
December 14, 2001 in order to be scheduled for the January 18, 2001 Planning Board. If the item is rescheduled to
another meeting date, the case manager will notiry you of the new date for final pian submittal. You will receive a copy
of the Planning Board agenda and an approximate time for your item.
2. Planning Board hearing of the Concept Plan Review and Comment. Planning Board will comment on the application
but will not take a formal action of approval or denial.
3. If desired, a pre-application meeting prior to a site review application.
4. A site review application, meeting ali applicable requirements and including the site review fee, for the chosen
redevelopment option. As noted above, there are minor renovation options which may not require a site review
approval. Based on the application, the site review may require staff or a Planning Board action.
5. Based on any conditions of site review approval, technical document review may be required for any dedications, final
engineering and utility plans, and final architecturailsite/landscape ptans.
6. Buiiding permit application wouid follow any required site review and technical document review.
i;gsnda Item N__7~~ Page ~ 11p
YY11~ r~~ r ~ crv .. .._.r .
2d1B 3ah Strsat
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Phan~,47-0166 Fu 4~2•176b
6wan FachstOne
Glry ot Roulder Planning Department
via tax so 909-441 32~ i
Re; 3 IoLs at SW eom9r 6t 2B~ Street and Canyon BoWcvord (16z5-I6B1 28"' Straet: "c7UU Ganyan
Blvd and 2770 Canyon BNd).
Dear Su~an;
i understand as psR ot the Comp Plan uF~date now undarway, tnat you eie reeommending our
propertics 3t tne above address be redqignatea irom R6 (RegionAl Busin69s1 zonmg :c ; new
oategory of Mixed Use, a~hieh would intlud8 resltlemin uses as S desimble goaJ. We c::~j?r.t stronplyla
any change in zonin9 of this properry, and request that it remain in Ics current RB deaipnaiion. 1 he
reasons aro as tollows:
As I discussx! wittt you thu maming, for elmnst 2 yedrs variotts city agancies have r~re~~ ancouraging
us to propose a re^evelopment c' this oioperty ea part ot CiN Ohjeetlves l~ revital¢e oonmcrnal acWny
in thp BVRC area. And over tho las! yer3~ wr~ ve met uAtn Brad Power. Faye Ign~tow~k~., Gn a!+ie Zucker,
Phil Snull and others to examine whi-t Conllguralior~s ;ivc~ht woAc on this Oroperty. W? wWir. dlrected
u~»t the City woWd profer a scrong architar.~,ral statemont, oretsranly at least 4 stones in neiqht.
t-
The property is comprised of thrse separate Iets wr,ich when wnsidcred tqgecher are mnre sauare
ralher ifian recffiI~gulIIr. 1 h6 Lromhinetl parral is surroundetl by rather un(orgivinr~ conaitions, majo-
artCriel9 on th¢ nOR11 eftd edyl (Canyort Dlvd end'd8°' St,1: truiWings nverqround Ieaees m tn2 sour.h
(Armadillo 2staurant and Buflalo V81i1ge 6tnp center) and iecenUy constn:Ctetl ~ulitlings :_ uie wr.st
(Marriou Hotel and Black Eyatl Pea). Axass ~~ uitf'~cult. and e Iflfgo p3rt of the propnrty is ~n thc floatl
plnin.
Wa've studied a number of altemahves, inCludiny cmas whiGh attempted Inclusion of ~evidentiai usta.
In ~II cases where re9bential was Invoived, the number of units were Ilmited (18•18 unitsl entl ~ne oasm
of proriding that usa were p~ohihitive due to thc neetl tor 6lgvalnrs aFld undergrountl p~rKing. There
.w.~s lime apportunity io sell or leese unrts at compeNtive raees, and thc added Curden c~ p~ovidirp fhe
aftordaCle houainA Dcnalry rentlered lhis a non-starter Given the constralnts, we were adviacd 1e
Niminflto housing from the mir on this Droporty.
Ay:'ftU~.^.~iLlili; .~~..__i~ap2~~-
Susan Richstone - p 2
Within the last three months we've met wtth BURA, planr.~^g staK, RTD and the city trar.sportation staff
on at least three more occasions to review a design whicr ~nCludes retail and office uses without
housin9, and attempts to roach toward providing desirable streetscaping and punlic transportation
apporWniUes. We meet again next week with BURA staff and board members to review our latest
retinements.
We want to be etear about tha fact that we are generaity supportive of mixed use redevelopment within
areas of the BVRC where they make sense. On this site, I believe we've ali done enough work to
conClude that commerCial mixed use can work, but housing just won't.
Susan, given all the work to date and the history of examination on this site, ! believe there is general
agreement that residential uses are simply not economically feasible for this pat~el. We can see no
reason to confuse the sihiation by making Comp Plan changes to the site's zoning designation at this
late date. We're reques6ng that the s~dsting zoning nat be changed.
Sincerely
ouis J. DelfaCava
Principa-, DeitaCavalfe6o Development Co.. LLC
Cc: Stephen D. Tebo
~;g~r~~a Item ~ .~_?aia ~ _~
ATTACHMENT D
MEETING MINUTES
BOULDER URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
October 18, 2000
A Regular Meeting of the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority was held on Wednesday, October 18, 2000,
7:00 p.m. at the West Boulder Senior Center.
Commissioners Present: Chair Phil Shull, Rich I,opez, Jerry Lee, Francoise Poinsatte, Richard Epstein,
Susan Connelly, Joni Teter
Commissioners Absent: Denis Nock, Ira Barron, Clyda Stafford
Staff Members Present: Brad Power, Fay Ignatowski, Mark Feeley BURA, Ruth McHeysar, Planning,
Liz Hanson, Planning
Invited Guests : Steven Tebo, Lou Della Cava
The meeting was called to order by Chair Shull. Brad Power, Executive Director, took roll call.
Minutes from the Regular August 16 Meeting and the Special October 4 Meeting, 2000 Meeting were
amended and approved.
Sally Martin proposed amending the minutes to the August 16 meeting, indicating that her representation
during that meeting was as a member of the Steering Committee for the Interactive Learning Center and not
as a representative of Macerich.
Funding request for Canyon Cultural Corridor Brochure
Power said that BURA is listed as one of the sponsors of the brochure and the Authority has received a
funding request for $2,000 to help pay for the production of the brochure. Funding will be made from the
2000 BURA Operating Budget
Motion: Commissioner Epstein moved that BURA approve the $2,000 funding request for the Canyon
Cultural Corridor Brochure. Commissioner Teter seconded the motion.
Agenda I(em u _'~~ _ Pag2 # ~~
Vote: Aye, 6 - 0
Use of the Boulder Valley Regional Center Revolving Loan Fund to Partially fund Relocation
of the BURA Offices to the BVRC
Power said that moving into the BVRC would result in the following benefits:
- BiJRA would be closer to its core constituency
- Could serve as an eventual location for a BVRC-centered business improvement district
- Provide increased opportunity for greater participation in BVRC activities/trends
Potential impacts were also identified:
- Less day-today informal communication with other departments
- More time required for traveling between office and downtown campus for meetings/events
- BURA has other constituencies not located in the BVRC (City staff, property owners/developers)
Power said that the annual cost of having an office in the BVRC would range from $13,300 to $22,400 based
on current lease rates. Funding sources would be provided by reallocating Facilities Asset Management
(FAM) charges, ($8,800) and a 2% increase in BURA's base budget ($6,500) which provides a total of
$15,300. He proposed that any "rent gap" be funded from the BVRC Revolving Loan Fund.
Commissioner Teter said that the form BURA takes in the future should play a role in deciding whether or
not it should have office space in the BVRC. Commissioner Lopez agreed. Teter said that the money in the
Revolving Loan Fund should be used for community development purposes rather than office space
expenses. Commissioner Lee said that he would favor BURA moving into the BVRC due to the benefits
proximity would bring. Chair Shull said that it is too early to take action on this issue, but it should
continue to be examined.
Out Door Ice Rink Status Report/Next Meeting
Power said that the out door ice rink will be located in the Civic Plaza, north of the Dushanbe Tea House.
Power said the next BiTRA Boazd Meeting will be November 15, 2000.
Discussion Regarding Completion of a BVRC Area Plan
,4gentla Item u__ 7g__ Paga N a~~
Ruth McHeyser, Planning, said that an area plan for the BVRC would provide for more detailed
examinations of the land use mix, street network, desired street cross secrion, shazed parking and other issues
specific to the BVRC. She said that two major themes for the BVRC are affordable housing and enhancing
the overall chazacter of the uea. She also said that the process would initiate after the completion of the
BiJRA market analysis and adoption of the update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. It would
involve property owners as well as representation from the various Boazds and Commissions. The City staff
involved would include Planning, BURA, Transportation, Housing and Parks and Recreation.
Commissioner Epstein said that timing was an issue, given the situation regarding Crossroads Mall and the
pending market demand analysis from ERA. Power said that the timing of the Crossroads Mall project may
not exactly merge with an area plan. McHeyser said that an area plan could take six months to a year to
complete.
Commissioner Teter said that she wanted to have the results from the 28`h Street Charette incorporated into
the area plan. Chair Shull said that the Planning Department needs to be aware that the BVRC is in a
transition period, and that an area plan needs to incorporate public participation. Commissioner Teter said
that the area plan would be useful in identifying gaps in transportation and parking in the BVRC.
• Presentation and Review of Concept Plan for 2700 Canyon Boulevard
Lou Della Cava discussed the challenges and opportunities regarding the redevelopment of the southwest
corner of 28`h Street and Canyon Boulevazd. He listed challenges as being 1). The ability to be responsive
to the current market, 2). reaching towards the BVRC Design Guidelines and 3). generating a profit. He
offered two development scenarios in the form of either a one-story retail structure or a four story retail,
office, parking structure. He said that for both scenarios, building closer to the street would not be feasible.
He also said that the 20% open space requirement dictated by the height limit would also be difficult to
achieve with tha four story building.
Commissioner Epstein said that given the chazacteristics of 28~' Street ( not as pedeshian oriented as Folsom
or 26`h Street), he did not think that the issue of building to the street was critical. Commissioners Teter and
Lee agreed. Commissioner Epstein also said that the azea would be appropriate for massing and scale. He
asked if the idea of having residential in the backside of the building had been explored. He also suggested
pulling a portion of the building out to the street and putting a bus stop at that location. He also said that
winning a height exemption from Planning Board would be difficult. He also suggested doing two-stories
such as the Pearl/Circuit City project if the issue of appropriate pazking could be solved.
Commissioner Poinsatte favared the design of the four-story building and would like to see a better design
for the one-story project. She said that it should be a pedestrian-friendly design, even though it's on 28`"
Street.
Commissioner Lee said that the site needs mass, but it would be politically difficult due to the lack of
housing in the plans. He said the one-story project is very supportable.
Agenda Itom k_7Q ____ Paga # o7/
Commissioner Epstein said that he thought a height exemption for the four story plan would be difficult to
receive from Planning, especially in light of the absence of housing units in the proposed developments.
Chair Shull said that housing in that particulaz part of the BVRC would not necessarily be desirable.
Commissioner Lee expressed support for the four story development because it would provide needed
density. He expressed his desire to have the City Council and the Planning Deparhnent support the project.
Chair Shull said that the site is not amenable to residential units. He said that he would like to see high
quality architecture at the site to reinforce the urban nature of the location. He expressed support for the four
story project, saying that it was more reflective of the BVRC. He said that a bigger building would have a
strong impact on future development in the area. Commissioner Teter expressed an interest in seeing
existing building materials used and questioned the issue of creating density merely for the sake of density.
Stal'f was direcCed to attempt to set a joinC meeting with the Planning Board for a conceplual review of this
project, and redevelopmenc issues iu Ihe BVRC in general.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Approval ofthese minutes constitutes ratification oftheformal actions taken by the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority
on the matters before it at this meeting. It does not constitute approval of any other statements appearing in these
minutes beyond the record of actions taken.
BOULDER URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
S:\CMO~BuraW DMIN~BOARDVv1INUTES~2000\10-18-0O.reg.wpd
Agenda ltem ~~,(j ,.__ Paga S c~oZ ,
A 1 1 At;ri1V1L~ 1V 1 1~,
DellaCava / Tebo Development Co., LLC
2418 30th Street
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Louis J. DellaCava
Phone; 303-447-0165
Fax: 303-442•1765
December 15, 2000
Members of the Boulder Planning Board
Members the Boulder Urban Renewal Aulhority
Ms Liz Hanson, Case Manager, City oi Boulder Planning Dept
City of Boulder
1739 Broadway, PO Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306
Re: Planning Dept Comments; Case Studies tor Redevelopment of 2700 Canyon Blvd
Dear Colleagues,
Stephen D. Tebo
Phona: 303-447-8~26
Faz: 303•447-0206
The following discussion is providetl to address, clarify and respond to the comments included in Planning S1afPs evaluation
identified as Review Number LUR2000•00004, dated November 29, 2000. Following item 1 History o1 the project, our
responses are keyed to the corresponding topics in that Land Use Review document.
Historv otthe Prolect:
The parcels are located at the southwest corner of 28'h Street and Canyon Boulevard, and are owned by the DellaCava/Tebo
Development Co., LLC. Three structures currently occupy the site, one on each of three separate, but contiguous parcels.
The property is currentry occupied and is iinancially stabfe.
Approximately two years ago, during January and February, 1999, BURA members and City Planning staft requested and
urged our company to bring forwdrd proposals for the redevelopment of this site. Due to declining economic conditions in the
BVRC area, and the continued uncertainty of the future of Crossroads, we were not, and have noi been eager to proceed with
the significant cost and time investments required to deal with City redevelopment processes on this site. Our project wasn't
broken, - and didn't need tixing. Nonetheless, in respect of the urging of those aforementioned City agencies, we agreetl to tlo
preliminary examinations of redevelopment options which could reach towartl City goals while meeting at least a minimum
financial prudence standard for our company and lenders.
Over the past two years, dozens of design approaches have been stutlied, none of which succeeds in achieving 100°io of the
myriad competing objectives for the site. The site itself is constrained due to its location at one of Boulder's most intensely
used intersections. Safety is a challenge, as are circulation, tloodplain issues, and transportation objectives along 28'h Street.
Further, achieving all of tha BVRC tlesign criteria objectives, wfiile maintaining a semblance of reasonable risk control and
financial viability are proving to overwhelm the efiort. A revealing fact is that while the site c ul contain approximately
t48,500 square feet oi space under the e~cisting City F.A.R. of 2:1 (see commern 2. Below), the maximum area we're able ro
reasonably achieve is about 55,000 square feet, due to ingress/egress, circulation and parking challenges. And reaching even
this modest goal requires setback, open space and height variances. Obviousry, the opportunities for incentives fo generete
successful outreach toward other community goals such as affordable, or even market rate housing appear limited.
The earry design studies included attempts at providing some residential uniis on upper floors, but proved so tentative and
risky that they were rejected by Charlie Zucker and BURA members in favor of mixed use without residential. Because of this
work in 1999, we objected strongly to any zoning redesignation of this site during the currently proposed Comp Plan update
(see Ietter of Lou DellaCava to Susan Richstone attached to Planning comments). We believe the wvrk to date has met the
challenge to examine those opportunities, and we see no gainful purpose in duplicating or continuing an eftort which has
already proven fruitless.
~~entlaliem#_._Zd Pagah,~_
City of Boulder - page 2
!. Review Flndinas:
General Comments:
1. Job Growth in Commerclal Areas:
Regarding job growth in BVRC / Statt study suggesting 23,000 additional jobs. The development proposals presented are all
far less intense than full allowable build-out under current codes.
Current F.A.R. = 2:1, Allowable floor area (otticelretail) = 148,510 Square Feet
Alt A. 55,220 SF; = 37% of total allowable density, or
= 26% incremental SF to additional allowable density.
Alt B. 22,656 SF; = 15% of total allowable density, or
= 0% incremental SF to additional allowable density.
Alt C. 27,435 SF; = 18% of total affowable density, or
= 4% of additional AF to additional allowable density.
It is clear from the above that even the most ambitious alternative yields a result which does not place significant negative
burdens on this balance, especially when weighed against the potentially positive contribution of a vital and successful
retlevelopment of this rather conspicuous commercial corner.
2. BVRC Desian Guidelin
- Generally, comments received from BURA and review of planning documents indicate a desire by the City to
encourage a more urban character (rather than suburban character) for this area.
- It has been emphasized that the BVRC Guidelines are in fact guidelines, and not regulations or absolute
requirements.
- It has also been acknowledged that the BURA review and City of Boulder Site Review processes are intended to deal
with site specitic issues and constraints, weighed against the Guidelines.
- The development proposals presented (A and C) are intended to comply with as many Guidelines and zoning
requirements as possible, given the constraints of the site and existing building, as well as offer trade•offs which can
help revive the Crossroads area and provide other benefits to the community. These development proposals have
been enhanced through a cooperative efiort between this property owner, BURA, and Statf, based on a sincere desire
to attempt to satisfy the intent of the BVRC Design Guidelines to as great a degree as possible, within the constraints
oi prudent financial and risk management.
Comments on Three Alternatives:
Ootion A- Signiticant Site Redevelooment:
1. BVCP designation of mixed•use, including residential for this site has been previously opposed by our
Company, as previously addressed.
2. BURA and Planning have indicated that a more urban character is appropriate for this area rather than
current suburban character (Re: 28'4 Street charrette comments). We believe that this is also
consistent with the BVRC Guidelines.
3. The office component of this project represents only 20% of the total allowable density for this site, and
the retail component represents 17% of the total allowable density. Based on the City's projection of
potential additional Jobs in the City's RB•E, TB and CB zones, this project v~rould represent a little over
one-half of one percent of the projected job growth in these areas. As noted above, this wvuld not appear to be
"significant additional office development".
Ootion B- Minor Renovation of Existina Buildj19s:
Current plans for leasing ot the larger renovated building v~rould most likely delay any significant
redevelopment of this site for 15-20 years.
~;gentla Item a __~,4--- Faga #~~..
City of Boulder - page 3
Ootion C- Moderate Redevelooment of the S'rta•
Staff comments have indicated that option C is more desirable than A or B. However, this is a more suburban
design approach to redevelopment of this site. Architecturally, we could possibly provide a more urban "look and
feel", although creating apparent height and presence at the corner v~Athout a functional justification (i.e. additional
fioor area) is difticult to achieve trom either a design credibiliry or cost standpoint.
Other Ootions:
We confinue to look at variations of these altematives, particularly approaches which may fit between a one srory,
and a lour story form. One promising study currently in preliminary evaluafion involves a partial second story office
plate above a larger retail plate. Time does not permit its inclusion with this package. But should this approach
prove to be financially and architecturally reasonable, we'll present it for your review at our January meeting.
Site Review Criteria:
As Indicated in our Concept Review Submittal, our studies show that strict compliance with all applicable guidelines
and zoning regulations on thi's site will not be possible to achieve with any tinancially acceptable redevelopment
proposal. W e understand that the Site Review process is intendetl to allowfor flexibility in application ot the
guidelines and regs for site•specific issues. We've attempted to present the major issues regarding compliance
tlifficulties, and our efforts to reach toward meeting the intent oi the design guidelines and app~icable site review
criteria. Please provide specific reference to applicable regs regarding view corridors and building design as
related to the Concept Review Submittal. This will assist us in preparation of a Site Review Application, should we
decide to pursue it.
II. Citv Reaulrements:
Access and Circulation:
t. The ramp connecting our site with the property to the west is a conceptual element of Proposal A. This
connection was hypothetical and can be eliminated. Other issues regarding ramp and parking
design/engineering will be addressed at time of Si1e Review Application.
2. (See above).
3. Plans would be updated at time of Site Review Application based on a scenario acceptable to both the reviewing
botlies and the owners to proceed.
Building~nd Housing Code:
The development proposals considered (Options A and C) include the removal oi the eMerior covered walk on the
east side of the existing building. This is done to accommodate additional landscaping on 28'" Street (parking area
is moved to the west) for greater compliance with BURA guidelines re: landscape requirements. The structural east
wall of the building includes steel columns with non-structural infill storefront wintlows and enhances. These
proposals maintain the structural east wall components, and the infill storefront is replaced with new storefronts as
indicated in the submittal.
The structural north wall will remain and be incorporated into the addition to the north. New openings will be cut
into this wall which will become interior to the structure.
The existing west and south walls will remain with minor cosmetic modifications. Based on these proposed
modifications to the existing structure, we understand that this wvrk wrould not be considered "demolition" of the
existing building per the City Ordinance. Please confirm or clarify our understanding.
Flood Control:
Option A- Flood proofing requirements wvuld be investigated prior to Site Review Application.
Option C- It is our understanding that only a small portion of the addition (at the southwest corner oi the addition)
wnuld be within the limits of the 100 year floodplain. It would be our intent to flood proof that poRion of the new
construction (See attachmeni A).
L nd es:
Housing options on this site are diHicuN to integrate due the intensity of other uses, e.g. parking, circulation,
transportation, commercial traffic, etc, which present safety and market acceptance risks as described previously.
n, , ,a, ,., - _ ~~ .. Pana ~
.,y~iWd~toll~~~ir _ . .~.
City of Boulder - page 4
Landscaoina;
W e've been asked to add street trees in multiple previous iterations of these design studies. W e've studied and
responded to these requests by adding trees and eroding parking to the degree we feel overtaxed at this point.
Parking ratios are now below standards required by retailers who have expressed interest in Boulder. W e believe
any further deterioration in provided parking seriously risks success in attracting the vital retailers we're ail seeWng
to help revitalize the Crossroads area.
Miscel laneous:
It is stated by Planning Staff that a multi story building is not in keeping with BVRC view corridor guidelines. ft
should be noted that a single story building sited per the BVRC guidelines is more detrimental to view corridors
than a multi story building sited as proposed in Alternative A or C(see attachment B). This inherent contradiction
in the BVRC guidelines must be considered on a site by site basis, weighing the trade-ofts presented by all of the
sometimes competing goals. Otherwise, strict interpretation of this comment would suggest that buildings should
not be allowed on the west side of streets in the BVRC. Obviously, this is not rational, and we do not believe that
is the intent of BURA or the BVRC guidelines.
Siting the building to the south of the Canyon Blvd ROW setback line (scenario A or C) will allow greater solar
access to the street and public sidewalk along Canyon Bivd, as well as provide vistas to the foothilis as vehicles
turn west from 28th Street onto Canyon Blvd.
2. We are not aware of a specific redevelopment proposal which is moving forward for the Crossroatls Mall site.
Please advise of any, and forward applicable information so we may consider "connections" with this site.
we believe that incorporation of the transit super stop, proposed vehicular connection to the south, improvetl
ingress/egress from the site as well as internal pedestrian corridors and improved interconnections to adjacent
sites will cumulatively advance "connectivity" and circulation patterns, both within, and from this site to others in
the BVRC. Additional amenities such as the "comer caf~" and "people spaces" withln the site will benefit the area
as well as adjacent properties.
Review Process:
Acknowledged.
Site Design:
Though we believe we've examined this site exhaustively over the past two years, we remain receptive to suggestions
from all parties, and particularly look forward to inputs from the Concept Review meeting with Planning Board.
ill. Informational Comments:
Access/Circulation:
- CDOT Access Permit - Investigate turther at Site Review
- Traffic Impact Assessmenl - Investigate further at Site Review
- Potential Super Stop - We intend to continue to work cooperatively with the City Transportation Dept to incorporate
the fransit super stop into any redevelopment proposal.
- Bicycle facility on 28~" Street - as Staff is aware, available space on the west side of 28'h Street is severely restricted,
and it may be difficult to incorporate additional bike lanes as well as desired landscaping, bus venues, pedestrian
walks, public art, etc. Please forward bike lane requirements as soon as possible so that we can assess potentials.
- Emergency Vehicle Access. We assume the City will reviewthis marier and advise.
Drainaae:
Comments acknowledged
Flood Contr4l:
Comments acknowledged
,;;t~m~a itam ~ __/~~__ Pq~a i~._ c~~o _
City ot Boultler - page 5
Fire Protection:
Comments acknowledged
Landscaoina:
Comments acknowledged
i iti
Comments acknowledged
Miscellaneous:
View impact analysis will be submitted at time of Site Review.
Any proposal brought forward for Site Review will be modeled accurately to view impacts. Views of the building and
site from the street approach will be studied further at that time.
Respectfully submitted,
~i~{~~~~~(..~1'd ~.~~
L. J. aCava
Cc: J.E. Hartronft, Hartronft Fauri Architects
S. D. Tebo, DellaCavalfebo Development Co.
~yonc;al4eii~ir_._._7~ Waq2~._.~~.--
~t*NYoN Surv.
. : J~).S.J ~
. ~
j
.
~ .
; Y' -'I r
,
__'.~l „ `~~' )
, . . ...r'~..
""'""'"""" """"' i~. ' I
~~r~~ ~
~
MapLink
City of Boulder GIS
~
Scal 1:1200
1 Inch = 100 teet
100 0 100 Feet
The inlormaUOn depicled nn tMS map is O~o~itletl as a graphical ~epreaenlelion only. The Ciry of Boultler pio~~~tles
no warranry, ~:[pres5e0 ~~ '~mplieE, as iu th¢ accurocv anO/or com~l~,~ nafi~,of,~hc ~nlowetion cuntai~'0 he~~.
~1 1 ''Sl
~.~r~^p~~~ n ~ Note: This drawing will be modi(icd
~ 1' ~ ~1 to show current mvisions
--- - for January submittal.
~~\ \
~ ~ ~
~~~~~~ ~
raaa ~e~n strt~er io ne Ta a nnmaNS ~ s\~~~ 1.
~~~
~¢ "OPTION A" -~`~• a~~ ~ ~
_ __ ,~-~ ~ > > T, -~ ~ ~~
~ -'- _
'OPTION C"
"BVRC" FOOTPRINT
SECTION THROUGH SITE
Canyon Blvd.
U
28th Street
"~ " FOOTPRINT ~ ~
-~
"OPTION A
FOOTPRINT
~
a~
a~
-~
~
~
~
~
N
~
NTS CANYON GATE - HARTRONFT/FAURI ARCHITECTS
PROJ, tl 9971 12/14/00
~~T~u-~C''l~-~.h- , r j'
~~~
\ ~~~,~
~`~ ` ~~~ ~ ^ 6
-~ _ ~vra , .~~ucT`"~
~ o~~ ^u = n s c~ ~
~~ E -----~
)N S1 POSITION
~~ E -----~
DN S2 POSITION
~ iQ :. E'ac2 ~
I
PLAN - ALTERNATIVES/VIEW IMPACTS
ATTACHMENT E
~
' City of Boulder
~`
{
Concept Plan Review and Comment Application
28th & Canyon Retail/Office Development
1681 28'h Street, 2700 & 2770 Canyon Boulevard
DellaCava/Tebo Development Company, LLC
6 November 2000
BACKGROUND
HARTRON FT The three subject properties are currently developed as three freestanding
buildings which are presently leased, income-producing properties. However,
FAU RI the property is under-utilized given the zoning and location as a potential for a
ARCHITECTS higher-visibility, higher revenue-producing retail and/or office building. The
challenges experienced in the redevelopment of the Crossroads Mall have
called into question the viability and future land use direction for this area of
Planning the BVRC. The Owner of these properties, the DellaCava/Tebo Development
~rchi~ecru~e Company, is investigating redevelopment potential for this comer based on an
expressed desire from some Planning Staff and BURA representatives to create a
~merior Design better image and continue with Urban Renewal efforts in the District.
Through the course of investigation of redevelopment potential, the Owners
aoi M~~~stReE,x3oo have made presentations to BURA and conducted two pre-application
~o~~sva~c, co soov conferences with the Planning Department. Several development alternatives
TEt: 303.673.9304 were explored to achieve the BVRC Guidelines regarding building placement
673
9319
rnx: 303 on the site. These alternatives presented many negative consequences
,
. including reduced on-grade parking, dead-end parking lots, constriction of
www.~r~rc. coM vistas to the Flatirons from major thoroughfares, and reduced lease potential of
the retail spaces. On 9/13/00, during a pre-application meeting with City Staff,
it was suggested that this project would be appropriate for a Concept Plan
Review with Planning Commission due to the significant differences in the
options considered for redevelopment of this site. On 10/18/00 the three
different development scenarios were presented to BURA. At that time, the
various advantages and disadvantages of each scheme were discussed. Based
on varying levels of support for each scheme, the BURA board has suggested a
joint meeting with Planning Board to discuss issues common with this
development and other properties in the BVRC.
Therefore, the following three alternatives will be considered by the Owners,
based on input received from BURA and the Planning Board (also see attached
drawings).
OPTION A- SIGNIFI~ANT RE-DEVELOPMENT OF $ITE
Option A would include a 4-story retail/office building with a second level
parking deck. This proposal would appear to be a totally new development on
this site. However, the existing one-story building at 1681 28'" Street would
remain and be essentially enveloped by the new construction. A portion of the
east facade would be removed to provide a greater landscaped setback adjacent
to 28th Street and to provide a wider pedestrian arcade around the building.
The two smaller buildings on the north would be removed. This proposal
would incorporate the following features:
• 25,650 GSF of retail space
• Outdoor patio/seating area for potential cafe seating; approximately 970 SF
• Potential cafe/bistro tenant at northeast corner
• 29,570 GSF of office space
• 86 on-grade parking spaces
• 75 structure (second level) parking spaces
• Provision for a"super-stop" trensit station at northeast corner of site
• Variances from zoning regulations and BVRC guidelines would be required,
but site aspects would be more compliant than current conditions.
n
!;t;6'f1:1~: IPem rf ~ -Q {~?ri~ ~, _.0..~ 0
OPTION B- RETAIN EXISTING BUILDINGS WITH MINOR RENOVATION
Option 13 is based on leasing the properties as existing, witii minor renovation,
(i.e.- paint and general maintenance) which would not be subject to site review
and compliance with BVRC guidelines.
OPTION C- MODERATE REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE
Option C would be a one-story retail building which utilizes the existing 1681
28'" Street footprint with an addition to the north of 8,980 SF and a 1,150 SF
"pad" type semi-attached pavilion for a cafe or other complimentary use at the
northeast corner of the building. This proposal would incorporate the following
features:
• 27,435 SF of retail space
• Semi-attached pavilion for cafe at northeast corner
• 94 on-grade parking spaces
• Provision for a"super-stop transit station at northeast corner of site
• Variances from zoning regulations and BVRC guidelines woufd be required,
but site would be more compliant than current conditions.
COMPUANCE WITH TITIE 9. LAND USE REGUTATION
Zoning: RB-E Regional Business Center
BVRC Boulder Valley Regional Center
Minimum Lot Area: 6,000 SF Actual Lot Areas: 1.704 Acres
(combined) 74,225 SF
Off-Street Parking Required: Non-Residential: 1/400 SF
Interior Parking lot Landscape =(33,3~~ SF)(.OS) = 1,665 SF
(Option A at 116% of required parking)
(33,500 SF)(.10) = 3,500 SF
(Option C at 137% of required parking)
Min. Front Yard Landscaped Setback = 20' Existing = 0
Min. Street Side Yard Landscaped Setback = 15' (20' corner lot) Existing = 0
Min. Rear Yard Building Setback = 20'
Major arterial of 4 lanes 78' from center line or 25' from lot line
(whichever is greater)
Max. Height = 35' Max. Stories = 3
(Site review for increase to 55' not adjacent to residential)
FAR 2:1, if under 35' FAR 4:1, Residential FAR 1:1
Option A is generelly in compliance with Title 9 requirements except with
respect to the following:
9-3.2-3 - Building Height - 35'/3-story maximum height -
requested approval of 55'/4-story per Site Review.
9-3.1-7 - Usable Open Space...Uses Over Twenty-five Feet
55' building height requires that 20°fo of lot shall be usable open
space, or 14,851 SF. Approximately 5,000 SF of open space is
provided. Another option for additional open space is the roof-top
deck areas.
The structured parking 'ss more costiy but provides higher utilization
of the site per BVRC guidelines (3.5.6).
Fa;l':il.;i~:5iii(7 _.~1.,;) ._t'S(~`2iiy~.~_._...
Option A& C both improve the property in terms of greater compliance with
landscaping, screening and setbacks. Cu~rentl~ there is zero
landscaped setback from the RO~N on both 28' Street and Canyon
Boulevard. Options A and C would require a 25' setback at both the
north and east property line. A landscaped setback of 11' is provided
on Canyon Boulevard and landscaped setback of 8 to 10 feet is
provided on 28'" Street by removing a portion of the existing building
and relocating the parking area further to the west.
A landscaped screen wall is provided adjacent to the parking areas
on the north and east. Street trees are provided on Canyon and 28'h
per the BVRC guidelines. However, the double row of street trees on
28'^ would be deficient by three trees on the inner row (every other
tree would be doubled).
Usable outdoor "people spaces" in the form of cafe seating and the
trensit facilities are provided per BVRC guideline 3.6.A. The street
front facades presents a pedestrian scale with storefront windows,
pedestrian arcades, awnings and appropriate scale of detailing.
TECHNIOUES AND STRATEGIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
AVOINDANCE/MINIMIZATION/MITIGATION AND PRACTICAL AND ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT TECHNIOUES
The Owners of the subject project are proposing that any redevelopment of this
site wouid utilize the existing structure at 1681 28'h Street. This strategy will
reduce the amount of new construction materials and energy consumption
which would be reyuired to re-build this amount of square footage if the
building were to be removed. Further, transportation, energy usage, and
pollution caused by demolition and haul off are eliminated, as well as the
additional refuse from demolition which would end up in area landfills.
O~tion A is a higher density development of the site including a mix of uses
instead of a singular land use. These aspects increase the possibilities of
combined automobile trips as well as a higher utilization of public transit
systems.
O~tion A& C provide a potential retail opportunity for a 25,000 - 27,000 SF
tenant. This type and size of retail establishment is common in the new retail
centers in east Boulder County and Broomfield. However, fewer opportunities
exist in Boulder for these types of stores. Providing this type of product in the
Boulder market will reduce vehicular trips to surrounding shopping areas,
reducing regional traffic, pollution, and energy consumption as well as increase
the City's sales tax revenues over the current conditions.
Transit Features are provided for both options A& C. It is anticipated that the
northeast corner of the site would be utilized as a transit "super-stop". This
facility would link bus lines between Canyon and 28'" Street routes and would
incorporate state-of-the-art public information systems and bus route
information, as well as provide shelter for persons waiting for a bus, whether
local or regional. The actual bus stop on 28'^ Street would be a paved area at
the curb, located a sufficient distance from the intersection to accommodate
turning movements from Canyon Boulevard. The stop is closely integrated into
the site plan and a small cafe or other appropriate use would be encouraged at
the northeast corner of the building to support the concept of the super-stop.
The she~ter itself and related paving, etc. is envisioned as a piece of public art,
signifying the entrance to the Canyon Boulevard Cultural Arts Corridor.
D:\dau\doc~\PRO}NETV 999pro~\9971\corr\planll@.doc
,~.y%r~~ti~ ItF~in u~ _~•~ 4'ag~ +~ _~
~iui~iii ~ i i iiiii i
~'~ ~ ' F ! -`'-~[. {' ~~y`' ' ~• { " I 1 ~ ~ ~ I j ~ ~ ? "r~~~ ~~~~ ``~
, , J 1 ti .. .. ~ _ __
.. ' ~~ ~w,.°3a..~ ~~`av8~. ~._.I~ ' I~~i~"7~~!~.~,y~-L~~L~.~~.. ~,~ ~L 1 I.. ~ !_~ _ .~...z~`_ r~..~ ;~.. "'J _ ". " '_ "-_- .
i ~ _. ~ ~ ~ ~ _.L~.,~,` ...:~ T . :~ .. . - --~,~._._~ ~ :~ ..:: ~.-:--: ~ : - ~
..: ,e1~T~ ~ r~ ~. ~; ~ ~,~ .. (J" ~~ ~ .._~ ` . . .._~,: ' l~ r 'i~i wn amws~n' ~ ry ~I
{ - . ..v.. ~ _. t ~ . F-~ ~ l'~.-+r' , A~' ` ~ I ~ ' ' ......-._ i~ ' ~- ,~ / ` ~~ , .:.: .~: . _
' 1m _ . ._r ~~7 qx ~ ~~ ~~ r~~ '. ~ ~{~ ~3 L 1 : ~ '`~1.( U 3~' I ~T~ ~S~E _ ..~ - ~ / . ..i ' h BftLDA i . '. i
r:w F~.~ ,~ - ~ i ~Q
,~ , _ f 1 I _. ~ ~ .;.^.
t ~7? (~ ~ - ~ ` 4 ~ K, _... ... -~ ~ ., I fi' ~' • I47-D~ 2 &cx+,oww r_" '~
f .,. ~ MR :) ~ (1 I ~* t «. . ~ ' GGSIDNGLN ~ ~
1 1 ~ i ~ i I , ., I rt :.%'F ~' ~~. ;~,yl ~1; ~ I ' i :~ ___ . ~S'-c L.. B._._ I t ~ W A/ '~ ~.~._- ~~ FEOISONCT ' . .._
II _1 l~~F ~A.~.: ~T ...~~'C_~. A~~f°,",~,~ ~ EIII . _... ~ , I d -~UC _HM5-~ ~fl{.I.J .t _ L,7'.J~ ~~v~ ' ~-.~S-D .. ~ I EEOiSONtN i I ~ -,,.
_
~. ~ .
~ i.
~ ~ ~. ~._..i ~~~1.~~ ~~~ ~ f ; ~ _~ ~.I { ~ILL~ }`,~I ` ^ ....~.. _ ~i Q.uFFST~ ~' 71 ~ 1~. ~G- STERf] ~a F.CURECT~~ ~ ~' i r
~ .-- .~ f, ,~ , ~-~,~~-q~ ,~~~ 1 I
' ~ " _ ~'._._ , t ~. ~ '... \~ ~ _.L. ' _ 4 ~ ~/? ~ ~
; i ''~~`~ Y~%' '~ .1°'r ~LL7I:L.~y;)I~' .L.~: _ - ~ {~'1 ` -- ~':~,•, ,; ¢~~.._ ~ -----~ ~~ ~ ~ HARTRONFT
~m- ~~~l~t ~~ ~q~~L1A~ ~ ` -~VE'i" ~ i T~p,I 1 L~i i ~},~:~r-. ~ ,~.;l--_, ~~t ... __. FAURI
ALP ! : 'R?', l~ ~ ~ i ~( . ~ 1 . ,'~ ~ s1 ~ ].,~~ li I ~ ~ , ~.S'E
E ~ `' ~ ~ /~ ~ I ~"----~-p~ --~`'~i ~ ARCWTECTS
. r7 -~-.~ I ~;\; ~ I - i i ~ ~, ~ ~ . ~ ~ i4"V .' ~TS ~ ~ - ~~ ",. ~ 1 . ~ A4E ' - I V-~ 11 1 ~', L.--^_'"_~ I
~ r ( I i n S ~~ ~ P1 n i Ji r i i i r , t i ~ ~. ..~ ec.+e=.w+mR.M.m
I L.+11 "l~(.~t~ y'a'~~~I I1~.~•'+~u l~'~~} ~~~ :i~ F 4 y,. ~~ '~. ; ~ ; ~•,,...-.^`
a+ t i ~~w~ t i '`~..+ T.~fy~N .,~~~("~ ~ f y~~* ~~.it i J n iy..i-t c r ~
~ ~I ~~Ir ~t ~( ~+ ~~f~ r7•~.511~~ l~ L~f t~ r n,_v v ~ ~ ~~~ .i, ~ P.E ~ ~ / ~ i`~ E ~I
. ~~t ~ 1 ~`~i,, 1`~ e `~ ll . ~L~w,,l~yp (~ . j ~~,^,RY 1 Y~IY~ r? 14'~Nl~ ~ ~jiY r . ~.1~~~,~ J !^' 1 !•~ ~~, i ~.f~ -' P-E E01 MAIN $iRE[T
1 ~ ~. 1 ~ ~~r\ 1 ~ l l ` t~ }~ {~ ~1. ^
~.i ~ t r ~ y ~'~. t Y"' wy`. N„b,. r'~.' I S~~ ill~ i+ ,r T`' ' I i~ ,~~.-+( ~'_ r (~~~~ : . s u~. E 3 o a
~ 1 i i~r~(` t ~' I~y r..~~ ,, J, ~ ~"`d~ i i ~ i ~T .v~ii ~,r i+~ .-~~' I~ ~ ~~` Y- ~ vo~3o~i~~.seoaU
i i, ~ ~ t . a 1 ~~ ~ i~ i ~ ~ ' i
~ ~y
4~ ~r VO^ ~"~y ' ~ ~•1 ~~. ~~ ~JMbI~'~` i,~ i U ^ e ~T4' (..-~ i I i ~ ~nx 3oe.cn.nu
MH
.ii J' ~@. ~~ ., . ~`'ly ''`" ~~`~ ~`~ ~ r1 ~~r+~ r yi- ~ ^^ ~~` . iii~~' ~ rr (~ . i : - A r
c19n ` ~ 1 O
. i,i { ri1 ~ ty:. 7/' ~ ~ 1 y 1 ~ ~ i j 1 Y w. ~v+~ `''^~ Yd1J ~'f 1~ I I~,n 1 ~i ,. ` L' ~ ~ .` tiJ - N..~__. I \~\i ~ ~ 1 rm r ~~I~/~,~ ~%
i ~~ ~'.~~, y ~ ~~~" t i ~.+."~ 1rt"ni~ ti ~~~~~51 tr i~ ~ ~~~~% ^~~~' M~ ' ~II"S" ~. i ~ ~. \ ~( ` ~, Fd S IS-D ~ .. ~-.~.
1 ~.
t .'. ~ ~ '~ n r i'~. i"' i ri iJii 4~- \ r ~..h
.. 1'' } .,~.~{~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ..h i 'j~~i~~~' ~' i ~~~(y~~r}~'..'~ ~ T'~ ~~~3"" ~'i. i'~ ' ..r.~ At~. . ~ ~i / IG.D•l ~ -,._.1 / ~,. -...~_._... ~-
5 rf~ i~~ ~~' T~ ~1'~'~~ . ~~i ii, ...t i~~ , ii'~~ ~" ~ PE ..._ ~a~_" _'f.L`.... ...., . _ _ _.___.....`.
{~ .~. viS~'t-r*..pj-S. ' ~ .~ rryLk. Y ar'- mr ~~ ~Tl:sYl~. ._..._ - ' ~ ! "' ' " =PV2' _ `;^"'4 . "_ • Q
~i'~yi .,1~ ~_y.+,~ i~ ~ : id~ .i ~{,fi:r~'" ~ i. `~\ ~S-E ~ ~ '~`r` f ~ ~ ac
i ~
.w~ ~ .-r . \ ~ y, <
h~ ,1G ee~..
µ~ 1 ;1~5 ~r`~y~~ ~.~i~!1~ V .~~' iS~' .^t~~ t, JM,x 1 ~ 'i ~~~.. ` ~~, ' t~' ~~ WR~ T'ICR`j~ ~.. ~ -~ ~ J/y~ O
~ ~r :'!1'~ ~ '' )YPi~,Ff y~~^~..~ 1 i~'.~ {~``,~_ /~ f ~\ ~"~ ' ~~~ "~ ~ ~ W U
L ~ .r~~ ~~1 ~ .Y y Y' >~ L `1~i ` 1 . ; 9'r .~T` ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ' J.~ ~ U
1W' ..~ 1^. 1 ` ' vJ S4 ii N1 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ , ..~ ) '.~ y W,~ ZO
o- i~~ '. FT ~*4JEN i.. yr.~ iT r~ ~~ ~~ ~1~ 1 i~ ~ `c~ ` I `~ ~r f"~ _ . C~
~Y r^~ ~S~ ~~t I'? ~~~~ ~~~y,~'~'~n ~~ ~,~ -.1~~ U ."\ I 1, II i I f . O<
( ~ . ~~ ~ r ~~ i '. W ~ ~ 1 ~ . ~ ! r ,r+~^~ i \ ' , j .
~ ' : 4i~ CY" ~ ~L q ~y,~~ ^
i ~ ~i ~ ~ii . ~~y ..-~~`~Y ~~} ~i ~~~"y~~y~ ~~ ~Y4i i'^}'~V~ ' ~ ~. ~ a\1_~ ~ ~ i ~ ~O aQ
~ i r,,. ~ ~ ~ ~''~9`' ~ l ~ ~ ~. ~ ~..~J'' t%i ~ ~
~ J^ i H -
. ~> ~~ ~ i~'1 ' ~.~,~~..~ , ~~ /, ~ ~'7 O~
~! .r...• ~~ . ~~~'ri~ ~ ?~ _~~ ~7 ~:1~~Y~~ ~:..: ~l ~ B.V.R.C. ~~' _..~- ' ~ ~ ~r~ `~\
G ~
f 1{'}~~~~+fr ~..ni ~~1..;.~~'~~~.~ ..~ ~~ ~1.i~'~~ IK-~ ~i a"` ~ il I ~' N ~ 1.~~ ~~~, //, ..~ wQ w~
~ ~ +~'~ ~ 5~~, ~~~r .~ ` ~~~' ~ ~~'l~.t~" 7':.i'(l .~ _ . ' . . .. `i ~ f. ~%~/ Iw._'. ~V ~
, - . ^
;- ,~" ~t ~ - CANYON BLVD. I ! ~`~ •~ ~ ^i % d
. ; ~ ,. . , ~ , • a ~~ . ~ IG
~ ~ ,~~ - ~~ y~{~C.N~ ~ ~. S -. I : :i ~6LMEH_ iV y,,~ ~ ~ 4;. '
1
i...1 ~~~yL 1f":~: 1.L~.' I~~ SVH I~ I ~' ~'~t~''+ ~, ~iC-~~ ~~mO
~ , F : ~ ~ ' . ..
f TI ~K ' Y 1 ~~~ I ` I I ~ ~
~ ~ ~' ~ ~r. . i ~ ~ ~ .{~e~ H ~ I ~ ~ i . ~ x~ /' ~ 7 \
~ 1
~` `~ ~~ ~f ~~ ~I ~d ' ~ ~ ; ; ~ ` E N
~ _ ' yQ~voa ~f
r. , 'i1911- 1Lli a 1 %
!{^~.~ i , YT ~ ~`.~ - ' " . .. . . ' .._~ ._. ~ ::, ~- ~ t!, ' IP_.. ~W E... m
^~ \ ~, , x (n Q
, ~,
,y~ ^,;~~~~~,,~ ~ f , ~~~~i~~r~l~~j 11~ 1 ~ - -
f 1 ¢ ~
~ ' , ' ' ,lyi~ r ~ '•,~ ~' ~ ~ >
i : ~ ~.~ ` '~ ~ ~' . _ I ~ 'i ~ /i
~ ~/ {. ~ -'~~~1.~ ~1 ~~' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~i .l~ 1~~dvE ~ ~ ~~i
, ~ ~
~ .. ,~ f --,,t 1[ ~}; i% 1 ~~~ )~R'' ~[7 ~ ~I~; =1~ t;;. ° . : : _l_ ~ ~ ~&o ~ - `_ ~ ~ ` .~ j ~ u
~ , ~ ..___..---~ ~ . _..._._..._......__.- _ Q
~ 1af r . 1 I ~(l ~~~~L _
..
4 4 . ' .'7 . ,~ r .A J
L y ;;: ' ~'~1 '. ~_~.: C~ [~ ~,, ~.[~fl1_ . .li~ I~.~l` : .. ..~_ _.._ - _ ._. _....
I Ir Ir r .. . . : ~ 7" ~ ~9 Lyr~'~'~}'~ ~: Eaoini IC
M ~
` ~f,... ~''~`.~~ ~ ~ ;:~:.i;l ~1.. ~. _.~ ~!_ . 1 .1. ~ `.. -~ .r .., rr ~._. _ . . - 1_•-i . I. ~ 1 ~ e~ . r ~,~ ! ~' lL::.~~1 N ~
1 ~ ' ! '~
:.5+- . g.~ u'?'~ , :,r.. 's ~. a TI 1 ~~~ ~ ~ ' ~1~l~rl -~. ~ .._.. ~ ~'. +'/~` '.
~ ~~ ~.. 'i~ ~..~~'~ ~'~ ~ ~.:..~ "11.:L: ~ J ~ r~ li ~~. ~ ( i .. LI ._. .. ' . .._...N :--.-. ~. ~ . : '`\ ~ ; ...1- ;1~ ~ ; ~ R ~~ -
. ~ , .,~ >~, ~ . ~ E ~..._..._._. W _ _ _. , ,~~ H -D , i ~
1 ~. ;~~ G 1 ~ '3~V' ~i ~'
~,.~ ~~ ,. } } ~ ;~~ ~ c Hff~ <_<~ ~ ~ ~ ~,_~~~ ~ ~i .._.~~1 lV¶'~~('~I,~ ( ; r;~~ ; ,3 ~ ,.~ ~ ` i _
. °r .; ~ . L - .^ , . . . .' N ~ ~' ~ .a+Re 1-- ' ~ ~ 1 _...I
~ ~ ~c~ ~p ., ',,, ~1 : ~ ., f ~ ~ ~~ " Il~ ~IL I~1 ':~ ._ - I' . .lll l -.., /
S 1 J~ Il _ I l~ ~
, ' '
~~ ~,sh,,; ,r 9 ~,~ x , _ ._ ,,€~,ss.~. _ .._ _., ~ _ SITE LOCATION I -~ ,~~y,;11 ~', _~m -~. ~,;
.. , ~ ~ -~~, i , ; ~ ~ a
,` ~;'"r ~ 1g -,'~ ~ ~ ~ '~... i i } ' R.~ 'i ''-~'~ ; ~~ ~~~" ~°'
~l" E.,ru? ' ~ '~`~ ~ ~ r -~ ~ i cR ~ #~.. ~~^ ~1 ' _r1 •~ ~'.~~ _. ~'~:_
~..~'~'f~1'~ ~ ~µ .,~,~ :'~_~°~ ~ ! "~-~ i I ~ ; ~ ~'~ = {~.i~; :17~I~ ~- _ 1
~ ~, _ ' ._._ [j
i~i~~ !.'_l l~1 ~` ~~~I~ ~ 1~ ~d' ~ ._~ ~ ~~ PE ~ ~`~ '~'0~.~~~II~ D~_~
~; I \` ~.Q' TAfi OA HR E ~' ~ - i ,~ t v
~ ~ 7 .~ ~ ~ LL ~ ~ ~ ~ . :. -_.'_--_-'-'~-' -_. __.. ! , ; ~~~'aipa y+o~~tlF-' _ I .~ ._ .,..._~. ~ ' s ~ i ~ . ~ h~ ~. _ ' ~p PROkCT d 9971
r 1' [' T'-' ~ ~ -~, „~ I ~ ~ I I ~ 2k~/MR-E ~^ I i /~,~{PF..--. ~ ~ 1 ~~ N1 L -c.- DAIE '~'CE/GO
1~~, ,. ` ~ L _ FP~" 4E16HtS~AbF-.~: '~ ' i ' t_"= ~ L ~ ~RAWN BY:
I I ~'~ ~~' I ` . r ,'. SPflINGDPLE r~ ~` . ~} ~
--~ ~ ~ ~-n [i~i1 C'r ~- l ~ ~R ~ ~,~ _! ~ ~ ' ~r S -1 ~'~ GRI7UT,ro QfC~D BY:
~~ '1 -!7-1: C ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ; p~}y~ 1}R '••,t '~~.~ ~ ` h , ~ ~1 r~ e~vmaus:
I .1 , r ~r~~.,'G~ t [ ,~'i ~', ~ [
~ ; ~ ' y ~-
_ . ~mmu _ . , • i ~ } i ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ __ M~' _ ~' w rqasvr~
= r ,~ i+~'+' Y'~C'' I ~ ' / `:,/D ~ ~~ ~ : :
_ :... ._~ _: y : : " ~a ~ ~...~~~~. _.__...__.~......_._ `Jp~.~ F .1,1 ~i ~
• . _~_..~... ..._._...._.
_ __ _ _, a
m f
. ~COCOR ~ :~~ -'7 ~ ,'~
~ =..- ~C~' "~R'~7'Vfi c ~ ' '1i 1 ~~ ~ }l .L.~ ~ ~~~ ~I ni ,~.a tn m or
. _ :_ ~~ ~
~ ~ _ ~,~: r P E A ~ '~`~ u , .- . . - ,
.......-, :=:L =-- ~ f.>.. 1 .. I ~ ~ i I, ~ a~.~.. ~ t '~ ~: ~ ~\ R~PS~ ,t '^.~, . i~ 9 ~5' Pc~IX ~PM~t
9~ r; ~ . ii W "ELqISECE `i. x 4~ j -~ , ~`~ ~j ~,~ ~•L.~.-.,. i x
.~ ~. ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ,~ IYI ; ' 1 ~1 MR•D I~ ~ „~Zhl3 ~~ \'~~ ~~ ~,S-T~~s^, - 1 jq `.i ,~ oa wr x~n ~:~~' xoi
. ~ 5 ` ,g~ AE
.. f i i ~ \, ~ / r 'r
~ t- - ~ ~~ -.a~ci _ `~ - _ ~ ~~" i~"~ ~ f J"~A' n ~~ ~ l,~ i~ ~ j Iw_ -..-
~ M p~ { p ~ ei r ~ ~gppp ~
_ ~~ ~~ c y ~~ ~~ ii ~ y O t ~'' r' ~I~" ~ r ~-: JR\~ 1 '~~if~$1 5! '~~~~ ~, ~~~1y'~~ F~/~/r ~u " ""~}~,~ ~~~ I,^rn
~ F ~ \ ~ ...~~ Y~ '7"' , 1 ~~t .~ ~ a'~~\ ~t~`. ~ I ' . B~U.VCI~
~ ~~ ~ I ~ _ ~ ~`, /,•`' cv ~ ~ ~ _ , \- ^~ .~ F' ! ~ ~~ra+ J~. e+tLr~ ~, 3 ~i --I'r ZONUJG
~~ ~ ~ - ` -- - ~~• ' ~,~' ~~ ~ ~~~~1~ "' ' $E''~,^`~. ~ .~iX~ %,0~~""' ~~ .~~ MAP
~ ...
:;
~5 ~~ ' ~ ~ ~~'~ ~`~tif~`. • ~ . ~A„'._. _. ...' ~@ v ~':~ ~ a ~. ~ • ~~\i~i ?.~ ~: b.. J L.
,
~ ~ W- / .> ' i . ~` ~ . y i ~ ~. ~1 +~ ~ ~. .
~ F ~'~J " e :~•;~~, ~`, ;;,~C~v., ,, eP
~ ~'.:._ I.~>_ - ~._ ~' _... -_~_.. _ ~I!....sK\~''`:~~.1T.. ..,:'QF ~ : ~°¢T&d~ .~tY~> ;.. ~ . .. r EAURORAAVE..%.l~.~'x.a;hii~x~~. `, rnv^.~~ ~:C ~ ~_ .~~4
~ IIIII~ ^I~II
LEGEND i
~~wa~~ ~
FSEMiHVW
0.~GPGAATGN ~ ~
•
9')M RIOM.CE6
NOGP nW ~
dMAA0.N5iLP •
vOfrMlk rtm ~
~ip
:i ~~i.ro
=r~
~~ ,: `
:.~-'~~kw~
¢
'.~
~
K=D$[<
M~~
y:~ J r.~ .
SE
~i~
~,~
M
CI 1Y~ d~N? ~~ ~ 5~
~k my
w ,i
g
J
~ ~EtevL' g. a,. ~
h
~
~
°
~
~f
"
E ~
A~
~.
~
e
•'6
.. ~
.RU -.
~
(
Y ~ ::
~ g
. $
2W LR ~, g°..
HOTEL ~ , '~ ~:~
,
~:
~
~ .
# . ~ ;z:_
~
,
~ ~g ~ e~ ~ :
„
`'
' ~. d
~ ~ TAIL
~~ '~~,~,' ` ~~.; `
~
~~ b ~V~~. ~ ~'~
,, w
~ ~~ ~
~
n
:
~ ~ ~a.
~~ ~ ~ ~: V, ~
c.fit a... .: Q ;~~ ~
e.~, Y;
{x~ 3'
~ 5
'WS.e, $ { ~~
s ~
'n °~°
v ~
~
~ ~
~
~a
n
-.
,
,,
i~"- ar~ ~,?
~e s~§ -~~
~
~ ~
'~
~ e~
~
z~
~ ~
M1m i'
~ ~
`
7
5 ~ ~~ '~~ b
1
~~
~
~
A
a'a
~
~+tx
~
Q
" ~ ~.
-.~
`
~
"
~
p
" ~ .~-"~'_~ "`~R~~~" ~,~5p4 ~
- ~ s~ ~ s-~
~ b~~ `..S°' W i ELre," 9"p`1.C $'b--
t `
? ~ e
'
~~
'~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~' ~4 ~
'
~
I
~,~~-~
,.- A .~ F`~ y~"R
;~ e a°;,E .: ~ ~~'~~.
'
~
°
a § .+~ F w
s a .~; .
~
~ - ~
~
~~f ~
~P~t'p'u ~~~G/~
#
~
a ~~Ea~
S "_
~o
~'~. . ~"tl~
..y~ ~w ~ ¢ ~ q
- ~
"~.
~
~ ~A
' ~
" ~ .
t
~~
,
.5 . .~i. M; ` a s;-.1
.~ a
~~
i I~
~
r-.` i --
I ~ :i! ,.
~ !4 ~Pa, ~5, ~ I , ~
i _ . . . ~ . . , . ~ . .
i
i
; ~~ I ~ I i~~~.
i ~
+ ~ I I ~ ~ I
~8 ~ ,
I C IB RA °~~ c~
~ ' ~~~~!~ I .
u° ' ~1 Z NL 5?PCBS
~ ~ r
r~r~.~~.~ I ~ 75 SPA,~ES "f0--'A
'1 I ' ( I
~~ W ~ ~ ~ IB . A~.S ~ I ~~ 8
~', ."~..~ E .. I~ I I ~
\\ ` ~
~5
2ND LEVEL PARK(NG PLAN - CONCEPT "A"
~. _ =°. ~
~
i
i
~ ~
'~NV~iE~.ifioN
~°~:c:T ~P
~y
I u~e~-
I 4A~u~x
I
i ~ I
V i U
7 M~' ~
E~x~
~ ~
~
~._
~ I
~
~
~ ~ <
~ e..~i
i ,
~--
~ \ ' ~
L-. 1~
i
'
I~~
~~~ ~ I
;
i '
-i~f
~ ~_~r
A 1
7s~a~ss
I~
~- I
ul I
~
I
I~
~ ~
~ ~~ i
N ,;'
~; i
~I
Y
a . e ; .,
,. ~
~ I T~I I41R~ s ~ snv~ta..
~. .
~ ~ . «+ . {'... :'..~,~.
l'
~gb Spar~~ T,rrp~-
~ I l ! I l~+I~~l l I I ~~: . ~ ~ ` ~. . ,
- --~•-~ ~-~---;...,-----° •-- .. I
~~_ L~ry- -i`- --r--;7-_~: -~ -
;'~ ' .' ( . ~ : . . ,i ; : j' z ~
~=
~
i
; ~~.~. ~. ~
I CwfE~NTa .'~. 2$
; ' ` R ~-
~'
'~IB, urAlLacx~mo+v ,; ~: ~ .eo`,~a ~
f , i~~ ~
~•
`• ~.'1: fo.~"YCn
~'__ . :~
Y 4 9 ~'" P
~X!511rIc~ t~-r;~li,
Ktw~EV1o 11,230¢ Neu---~'
sroze~oirt
f~G
r
~~~~
Ifo
6L~
^ ~ ~ ~ e . .
SITE2PLAN - CONCEPT "A"
~~
roraa. zzra;~a,Z., - zasscae "'"`"~
~~rAl- 0aL'w1G SPncES -±9~
~
~ q
~
Umo
;z ~o
0o a~
0.Z ~0
WQ WO
v~ U ~ .
]oZf mp
~ ~'
~W ~"' ~m
X(/~;
~~ U
W J
N Q
i I
~ ~
,I i
I I
P0.0ELT i 9971 ~I
~ DATE oensKa
~ ORAWNBY:afi (
~ RfO~ BY:aw ~
RE4~1CY5: ~
I
c~rt mo, i
%d )4IA Jd ~fA~tl dprtdpl ~
91tl1aryH'F1ry$1 i1 pS4FY I
~ nNWt tA1P'dMnt;l I
4arR imi yntsM )x ~
CVIRGfI ~A~ I
~
I
~ ~
i ~
i ~
~ ~ i
I ~
I ~ '
I of ~cet~ ~
111~ II I~ III ~ I 11~ 1 1 I
~ k ~~~.
t
~
f'
~.
r^
h-
28T" AND CANYON MIXED-USE PRO~ECT
Dt i i:~C~v~ T[~o DtvF ~ oP~~[~v r Coni~nn,v, LLC
__ --- --. _
fi~e~euNr~i fwRiAecrdirzcr, ac.
, ,,,,.,,,P •:~,~h~mn~,~,t .,i~;,~~,~
CONCEPT "A"
~ ^
i
I ~
~
a
3
1 II II I III II
l I
) .
~
. ~. ,
}'- • /
~ I =
1 ' CANYON BOUGEYARD
T~
~ ~ w 10~ F LMf Ci 6 I i~
{
VT~ ~ bM 4~
~ Kt~ ~rt.A~
M
•~.
'~ ..
C 1[ Y~4~.. ry .'.
~
•
w~umu
~ m rr N89' ~' ~~' t~
'
,
- ,
~ c.m r~~
••
Y~ N• • NRYO H~f.[5-. M~~ M r~~i1T0 ) ryRtiN4 1MC6. .
I
~
i "aY
_ :'.r' ' ~ i I ~ ~
~
~
/
\ I I, s- i
II
~~ ~
'."' ~ °,
' o ; ~~:~
N'S O .S:
.~ i ; ~ ~
~ ~~ i~~
iL O I
~ o
p.i
G ~'.~ ~a
Z.` -m
G ~ {£€
~ ~ I
~~` ' -
i ~
I '
~
~~'~~.. ~ ~
rw+o rnn[~m .,+. . •
On ~KaE'E CM9 ~
'~~
~
1
s
atouu~
i~'"~••.~ T 9M1RRW WCfg' 't ~'~
~ I I I 1 i! I ~
'iJ~wii'// :~ /. .~ . [a~
/~ : ^:a::~~ .,~
~.t
~ •'/ji~// / ~ / :i M ~..n
' %~ ~ sron uia euuowa
'/~ 2~CA WIOII IWLCWNO. '' '
%///// / : ' -
; / /, % /' ~ g ,
' •- -i. ,
~'. ~ ' i' ~ ~/:' r e
~
// i. ~~•'.~~ ' N~A~PGSV<GFS~
~~ '/ '/ eae.. ~ i I
i ~
"°---F----"-- ~ -~'~~ -~.
:? /`:..`~. e
~
~ ~~~~/
~ s`, //~~
.~~
~
~S<nelr
~~~
/~ 5~~\ l..- ~
~ C. ___...•_ ._._ ' f
..._~t~'41 _ ...._ ,4
a
'- c~~~ _'_ '_
q° --
~boa -- - -
- °t,°c,ro -~..... ~.._
6~ ~~ ~? _
i%/ i / ~ ~~r/~/j~
,
~ ~ : ~ /,'/// //// /
/~ / ~~ / ~/% ~
~ ~j ~/ .' j ~ /~ . :
~~ i /: '/ ~
, ~ ~ ~ %~i
~~i~~~ ~ :! ~~' ~
52~x 4t!F~ ~wF.~OW aGWEABtO[altlp4 , ~~
i6l~ t!M 5'~CF" / / ~/.%
~ ~ ~ /~~/ ~ ~
i / /
/ / // ~~ // /
// /// // / /
~"i~~~i;%%%
.. __ v~c,. y~ 0 -.u..~~ Nw ~ . . -
589°55'30 W 272.51'
~ rRUe arxr ~ ~ , ~ d
oF sECixninc
~~~
.~ ',.
~~~``~
~n~: .
~ ~i
>a`
e~
~oi, -- P~.
~ ~~iW ~~ .
!V COMER ~' I'~9
~nMxPtKE ~,v~ . _
¢~
9yp pp V .n+IM unF ~mWnp( qyo
Xe9°15']0 C
'e ~ARAP4NOf ROAD --_ _
SW COR.SEC.29 "I
i N, R70W. 6tN PM. `~
~~wr usEO rwssavvEn f _ -- .. ~ -
xan°ss'~a x u~u ~..
_.._ . . . .__ __~ . ~ ~
~~
i.~
!
inumf ~
_~~
.I
~' `.
V `' .
~ '. .
~
g,
3
, a
.
I
i
i
~
~
/
/
_. .. . '.` ~~ ' ~ ^~ I
- f
' W~~
_ 'i
_ ._ .
.
_ ~Q
} .
N C
P
l o .
' Y ~
~
u
~ , ..y.~. ~~~ F~ ~
~~ :. ±
~
'
, f
I{
~ i
a
v ~
I I~
~~ ~
: I ~. : ~ ~
~ ;
' J
~
..
~
' ~
• e i f
_z,!
- ' a ~~
^ ,
~~~r~' ~
~ ~
,. 3
~
I
~ 1j~
~ ••~
g ~
Z I
~
~a
hN
SEtpi S'xl/4 SYII/4`.~.
SEC 29 --~
Ix0iyf0l-. i SuNErI
I I
.. .,~...M
COpICICIXG At lN6 BOVlIMbT lCla~ Of GpD01 -GC6 (SVpDtYSSiOX~
IMIOI IS (pG2~D I~f Ytl6 SOPitlYrSS ~/~ W S6CRCM If, Sqt~B[IP 1
110R%. MN46 TO MBS! OT 1116 6'M Y.N,. /BFCRRIMC 'N 5716 PGT O!
w6M0 OI S~ID MFPOp yLAC6 SM R96 Wf3Gi 01 i96 NIIMiT CLCP% MO
MSQNR06R OllOOfDO WNM1'!: 2f~tE WPmf.Y AfANC iXC POR1M LIXL OT
Mt1N'tY i0A0 N0. 36. ~CMN AS AbJPAMCt OR VALCtY 0.~Ap, 11 0[St~NtE OP
~60 ttm'P; MLYC[ MOFMQQ.Y AMU FINAGLC. Y[TN'M6 YCSS (SNt W SAtO
68CSIOM t9~ ~ OISTANCd Ot 660 (C6Y 10 ffi SAVC Po[NT Of ![GIIIXI9G;
rxan s~[e ro[rr or ewmm~+c s~xmu eom~amcr +wn auuu.Q. rrn xxc
MLSt LIlE OT fAiC S!R(ON 29, A GIYGAC[ Of 7]S RR tO A-OIMC fOR
TNE NO0.SlMCST MPNQR Of Ttl35 '[PAR: 111EgCQ FI31' ll10 PAPALLEL MI1N
7N5 MOR1tl LIXE OF SAIp SGU'fil'AESS 1/1 Sp1~NwF,51' 1/1 Of SAID SEC:ION
t9 m rai vux ccxe or m~rr~e wu eo. is, uso ~marx u ierx
mcex; teuice aartx uose me vrsr uxt or s~m munzt aow eo.
Ib, A OtStAP2 0~ 1T~ ~p~ tD A P~IM 660 PCPI' X00.1% Ot SXC IroGTM
LItlE Ol SAIU A-.tGAIfpC POAD~ TXCNCC p$q,~qp PMI.LL6L ~ITN 1MC MORiM
Gid6 Of SAM fQAPANO[ f~AD 'N '!9E tRtlL Po[N'C 01 66lNFING.
C%CffR2MC PAPCLL NppCym SO 081i11~'[ Ot IIICRIASS~ bSAtL 0!
WLOAAW RPNPOm IN lOpR 1038 M 1lLE tl! OF BOPIda IONTY DGD
RCNYD4.
uu • i.ro~ xcars ~~i,~:s spaane ~tu~, noas aa crss.
NaES
t. eruixes ue ctsawm m tas sovtx eme at rae sviN oe nce
Swl/t 01 S[CtION ]9, SSN, R~b+ AS lEWIN4 tl89Y5'10'C (tPVE
MERSDIdN) P61 PGT OF N. AEGIAAI,D PGRS SOB~IYi5I0d.
2. GSQIBM'S, RItlRS-OP•XAY lld0 CEC11I, DESCRIPtION 11Rd SNOMN GQ
NICNN~GLS11 GNO ?SSLB I~SV0.W[2 COIfPANY TITCF IW. C918988,
LFYCRIVE DATE: OCi08FA ifi, 1990.
1. A110R2HG5'fERLY p01t^.ON OP SO61QC: p&OPERTY LI°S [X 20NE 8 kl~
A 90VtMiEStEBLi POR:tON LIES IN ZON: Ad OF PLOOD XALNO ARE1S
w suowr a rtnx rtcaa inwaaa~s iurc xaz, cin or eam.oca,
COLORAW, MMRMSTY-P.WEL MIl~OI 090021 OI30 0, MAP RNISL~
AUGUSI' l, 1918, fmEAA: C(ERG&C( MANAG£IEY[ AGE;IC(,
a. ACCORDZNG 10 fItY OP BOUtDEi LiND VSE AEGULI?IONS SL'BSECf
PiAPE¢SY !S tAqFD AB•E IP~IONAG 9USINF35 CFN:OI Ot BOVIDER
IKGff) Ap0 SXC MINIMi[ lOiAL HUIDLINC SSiAAGi AA6 IS
ML[OJS: SSGB YAP- IS MCR~ AS N/A, HLVt YllPO IS 10 ~lEf,
MNOR ~RtLi1AL STRStTS OF 6 LWES IS 90 PEE't YAON CMERLINE
Of M6 9ICIIMAY ON IS TEFt P~tl SN6 fLT G[NC A0.MI9~NC IH¢
YZCAS OI MAY. MN2C1l90t IS GRGTHI. ANO NAJO& lATG4IAL SSREf[5
OP f GXES IS 1! ILES fRpX :NE @RGQ:I9: OP 19: HtGtI~AY OR i5
~EtT l0.0X SHL Wp ~ye A~iO{dING'[[IE &LGMf OP ~AY, fAlZIXEVpt
IS GRGTC0.. '
C~ALC ROS[II i
I010 P:ApL CtyT C3TCLC. S~ISE ::~
ewco~, cama~oo emoi
O0]) N3-~UB
CSM[tIW T0: 3tCPMtY 0. TEN ~
OR. NOH2WECV.O. ~YAL
carmwxuuctx wm nrce zxs•unrsce coneurc
~xzs ts tn crnrtn nur Mu nv on eu* wo rne wavn on
rnr
MtlSGI IT IS LiSm ME&C NME IN Att96D4'MY YZ'[R •N2v[q,^,1
RAN7AR0 06fAIL REQVIRHBR~S' FOM1 A11x/ACSX GNO T[TLE
MtVC44' ]OIFfCY ~'[ABLISXtD p10 AD~P[m BY ALSA LW ~CSX
M 191~f ~ M~5 Ttlt ACCppAGq RZOVI3CfC~TS 0! A CG54 A
SUpVSt. 13 OCtbID 1'XL4PIN, NIO INCf.O~°3 ITAS 3, E. 1. 5,
1, I, 1~ 30, ll AIN li Ot TApLB ) SAtRFA1.
I NHftlEt CLP7II'!'fIGT iHIS SVNEY MASlUD6 VXOOI MY DSRPCt
PPSP095SBILITl~ 60PERtl{4(OM, ~0 C~LCEtNG Od TXE 5'[tl CAY OF
YOYLxBER, 1990; SXAT i%3 0.GL vPOPEY! SURVCYCI 25 LOGTEO
ix tve ccn o~ wmz~, <a~urs ut WVf.OQ, 5fATL or
rnwium~ a+er. ~a zna ecsr ar'n w.ouceoca u~o eeueF:
tess ~,w ox rux or rxe yvavs~ coaaern.v moxs me
WC6iI0N5 OP ALL Btlit-0[NG?, ~~~• ~0 ~~
IXP0.0'1L'IL'~'I'S S:SVASEO Oq SAIO PPE~SSLS; 'lIL~T E%CCPf AS
SWauM. 1'NQ6 A4L MC G3~~LYT4 OA PIGMTS~OP•vAY O( RLCORO.
Yi5(Bi.C OR OTNLMSE IMO4tl p7'XE ON. ACa055, OR 1PF6RING
SAID PREYISES: AND MOS LCCEt1 u M4~M1, TNERB ARe tl0
pICAOAClLYOffS OM AptO2NE.VG PRLMISFS, SREE:S, OR aLLEYS BY
11N2 GP SA[0 &lItDSXfS, $TpUCNpPS. 0& PI'HER I!@ROVppSS.
~~ C'~~~5 Op SA[C PRSM15G5 BY 90ItDINCS,
$T0.VCNRPS, OR 0'NER I:/PppyEypfCS S~N W]OINIVG
P0.E1125E5. ... ~0>n.
SCALE~ I' • 20'
M N~
l[pCxO
t0. , .hEU:Wt
EB.. . . 6[!~n[ ACa
E~.. . . . RU~~C YE~G
rM nn<xroew.
1V.. . R~0 Pot[
EY. . . .. Otl YE~ER
4v . 4i5 MLVE
nc nuaic+n
~> ~iGirPo~E
ux . ~uxxqf
IP . . ry1ER qL(
iB ~RWft4CRB%
ro *u~iK OO~E
•v ~ntfuu[rta
WP Y'p00 M1LLIP
. Wif4v0iif
K> vRq~i~ED h<r OrvE
xcn Sf~xWK'fOSOKIRENK
LMe CORqWAfEd ~£~4 ~NE
(~o , CaSi wM rr(
-55~ S~viRM~ ffWFaLK
-5~ ~ S10ww 1E~Ca ~~N
_. __ . ~~rEx urE
-E - RCCreit UMf
-LN rSBIC ~V LIM
_ i ~ ~hE^nOxC ~K
.____ foc[ ce iSaru_~
ZB'" AND CANYON MIXED•USE PRO)ECT
DELLICAV0. TE80 DEVELOh1ENT COMPANY, LLC
HA0.TNONR' fhUAI AACHITECTS, P.C.
Pl~nnin8' Ai<hil<Ctu~e ~ (nle~ia~s
Concept "B"
OLTAlACSM LANQ TITLE SURVEY OF
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE
SWI/4 OF THE SWI/4 OF SECTION
29,TIN, R70W OF THE 6TH PM.,
C~TY CF BOUIDER, COUNTY OF
BOULDER, STATE Of COlORA00
fOR~ DR. MOHf60EEN 0. KAYAL
w~m~unawa~~ +nu~wm A
~
- Dreael Bar:ell ~.....s.... ..„..
%\ ......e.~o-. .~.e. .. i'".,.W
- i.a,u+wo.:.ew .~ m.,,.:.~~
M~!-pn On..q
- .. "_-_ -_ .,,.~~~» 0.s i 1940'E
E~ ^ Q n'47
EXIStl~1$ CO~Iti011S
28th & Canyon Mixed Use Pro ject
Concept "B"
IIII ^ ^ IIIIII T III ~III~
View to the south from Canyon Blvd
View of existing west elevation
View to the southwest comer of 28th & Canyon
~
~
~
~
Z
4
T
~
~~
~
; ---------- ------ ---- - - - .
_ _. _ _-_-- ~ ---- ---------
~ ~ ^ ~g~aa ~~~~~ MIXED USE PRO)ECT ~~~°~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ;r
;-~ ~ ~33~$~ , ~~~- 28TH ST. & CANYON BLVD. ~~a-= ~~ ~
.
~ ~-~ ~-~ ~ . ~~~R~ ~~ ~ $ ~ DELLA CAVA / TEBO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY :: ~ ~
~ ~ xaY~~~ ~ BOULDER, COLORADO ;;~e„ ~ ~ ~
_ __. -- -- - ----- -- --- -- --_ _-
^iiiii ~^^ ^^ n~i ~ ~ ~ ii i i
~
l
'/
,~ _- ,-
_._-~- f '
i,
% / '~/ 'L'-------------~
28T" AND CANYON MIXED-USE PROJECT
~~' DELLACAVA TEBO DEVEL01?MENT COMPANY, LLC
. ~ HARTRONFT' FAURI ARCHITECTS, P.C.
. Planning • Arahitecture •dnleiiori
CQNCEPI "C°
^ i iiiiu ii~i
~
,
~
,
!
~ - - ~ _~ _- _=- - -_ _ -- -- -_ - - _ _ - - : -
28th & Canyon Mixed Use Pro ject
Concept "C"
Preliminary Design Sketches
~
-~~,~ _- 7~
I~~ I 4 Y ~
~~ `
^I~IIII ~ I I
lf
POTENTIAL SUPER STOP DESIGN l PUaLfC ~RT
< ~y~;,,
.^~ ~` ~lmE.••+`~h
;. •a~ ~'~y~~~~"` 3teaM "°'
~~'~ ~~~ u i sn., ,~'t.,_~ ~,.,.
GJGLtUe'afND4,?,q9Gy.:P?rK+. Wu~j' Y .,-. ~v-r~
~ ~ ''(RA6`s tI .`A7Pf fCSGP .. ~._.:Ij.14IDD . . . __; __
EXCERPT FROM I-IISTORICAU CULTUR~L (30ULD[R
23r~~ STREET CORRIDOR ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
,
w~ ~~, ~
~~ .
-. _ ~~a.
1
EXCE~PT FROM HIST(~RiCAL I CULTUi~AL BOULDER
ck'.'.vM`ilu~l
2Br~~ STREET CORRIDOR ILLUSTIZATIVE ~i LAN~
d' `'' NJi..~°1^~"3'~.:~p' m,s1 ~ ~~
~~( ~~,,,,a'k~~X~,otA {.'y~~"M'`~ ~1, ~. J
1 ~` ~m f
::lMr, s ~".,,.'~-tt.+'.nl~ ~ +J '.,1 .e . . '~. ,.....
Lr1:~k+
~-r,--
nn ~~i ~
1
POTENTIAL SUPER STOP DE51GN
~• ,:
a .~
~ i Q
~ .,.,... ~ spn
l
~
~~ ~I ~
/ ~~ ~~ -~
~ ~ ~
'i ~i I I:. ~ ~ ~
.._.T"_ ' , I
I il
1'_ I ~-~
'" ~I~ ~ ~Nr
~I ~ j(°,~._ .~.~ ~.,N.,,:~ ,~,~ '
f~"Pf~~r1~NT 'A`
___
;` ~.~ t \\~°' ~ \\\\\\ : ~\\\~;~ \~ . --_ ~ ~ ~ - 11'I ~ ~'~~ :~~:, -.~
\ ' ~ ~ \\. ~ ~\; ~; '
,
° 1'~1 ~ , ~ ` ~»~ ~ 2~
~: ,
\ , t,~
\ \'' ~ \ ~ ~ ` j ~ ° i
~ ; ~ \\ ~~~~~.~~~~~~~,,-I;''~ 1, `: ;' ~~ ,.,' ,I,
~ \ I \\\ . \ i ~ d~ ; ~ ``~ ,
~~~ ~ \. . ., i ~ ' ' ~ l `
~
_ .. --.. ~ ` _ ... -
_.. ,,.... ~ ,
_......_, .
_ ... ,
(A ~ <_s:c.' ~ ~ ~~
.
., o p ~ ;
..
... .. , .
" a<*N'f N 6u! ~
: . ,
_--
~-:='
__ ,.^---- -._ ._ ---.
. ~ _
-, ~ `~~ :~ ~' %
._ '
1~Rat'o58t~ ~ / .,-'%=
~ /~i9D1~1 '
~. ~) , !/ . . ,
~ ~ i' :
.::~::..
~ ~i `•` •• \~ ' ~~ ~ I ~i.;i %
::::...:.
.:::;..
..._~ , ,~ ~~~ ~,~ , ~ ~ ~
\ \
' 1
, , ,
, ~ : i:
, ~, ' I ` ~ ' I;~
; ~ ~ r
~~ ~ ,---- ~ ~ 1 ~ , ~ ~
- ~~; ~
. '~L.ou p-f ~ ~ ! ~ I ~\
P~ F~-~4 ~ i i ~ \
:'~:~`~yf;~~~~:>;:;?:~;~' :
~
~ °"~' ~'~;~:.~~~:. :.~t ~ \
_ ~ i
- -~n-tis, ::;~'a~::::~~~;:,:::~ :<. ~ ,
~,,~ .:_:::.:<; ~ I f4
.~,
~ ~ :; ; i
~ s . :~~?t= ::; '
~' ~ •, • I
~ ''''., .. ~ ------ '
- ~i %r_' i ~ i ~ i
. . ~ ~ , ~; •r, ~
. i ' I
. ;, , i - ;; ~ . . ;~ i, ~~ d~ ~I
i c , ' ~ _ • : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~\
i~~ r J
~~ . ~ .- ~ . .l '
1 J I I .._~ II
~1 ~ 1 -
1 \ ~
~ '' :..,,.r ..-. ....•.. .' i.,4 ' ,
~ ~,;. : ~;..f e ~ i~~~, ,~~~ .
i -/f ..1~ ~ ~r.l-. 1 /i~ ~ Z~ .~ . ' '
. . ~ ,' / ~/ ~ _ ..I -.; .{ I.F I '
~.. . ,'. I i , l .
1
Y I. 1 I
. ' !' . . ~ r ~ . ~ _,^ _- f~s°._._~....
' ~ '' ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ij ' F ~~-'~ %~JE '~~f/~ ~ i i '. I
' . F r fF! ~ f F; .' T '` '~f J/`f ~~ i~ f ~? a/ ~ ~ f I j~~' ~n~l+~ i
' \ 1 ~~i ~/~` / / f \
'~ .%''~~y~~ri~~~ 1{.'C.:s:p~a ~:d~~I~F''.~rn`~~i..tu ~F~.~r~fr~' ._- _ ' ....
I
. . . _ . _. _ _ _. .._ . .
... . ..__.__. . .. _ .._.. .._._....._.. . .. . . . _._ . .__..~..
~,`~, ~ N
~~~~ ~ Scale 1:1200
~ 1 Inch a 100 feet
100 0 100 Feet
MapLink
City of Boulder GI S The InlormaYOn depicled on Ihic map Ic provitletl ac a propNpel repreceMefion only. Tlw Clty ol Boultlar pro~nEes
Ilp wBlIBllty, exp~lb68C m ~mplieE, as to Ihe eccurecy antllor tompl„inett of lhe ~mformellon containe0 herr.~ ~v,
^ ` \ ~ ~ \ `
~ ~~
,,~o~,~,~ ~~ ~ ,~„~ ~ \ ~°~,,,
~ fROM 7BIh STRi~T TO T!E TOP OF iIATRONS Po~~ Jy~
~~~~_ _
1 - _ „OPTION A" ~S`~ ~ \ ~
'OPTION C"
"BVRC" FOOTPRINT
SECTION THROUGH SITE
Canyon Blvd.
~~T~u-~'1~1- ' ~j'
~~
\~~
~ ~~~
`~~~ \ ~~\Po~
~S~ "osrrroN ~~ ~s ~.
~~~~ ` ~ '~~cT ~ ~
U
28th Street
"~" FOOTPRINT ~ ~~
-~
~
~
~
L
~
~
~
~
~
N
•----~
POSITION N1
•----~
POSITION N2
, ,..,,. ,,. . ..., ,,,.,..