1A - Ordinance to eliminate conditional height provisionsCIT.Y OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2001
Agenda Item Preparation Date: July 3, 2001
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on an ordinance to
eliminate the conditional height provisions for the RB1-E and RBl-X zoning districts set forth
in section 9-3.2-4, B.R.C., 1981, and setting forth details in relation thereto.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
Recently, significant concerns have been raised regarding the appropriateness of the zoning
standards in the Downtown, especially along east and west Pearl. These concerns have stemmed
from the site review process associated with 902 Pear1 Street and a general review of the status
of the Downtown plan recently discussed at the Downtown Alliance meeting of June 9, 2001.
The 902 Pearl Street site is zoned RB1-X. The applicant has proposed a mixed-use project with
retail, office, and up to nine residential units. Building height would be up to 45 feet, and the
floor area ratio would be almost 2.2:1, the maximum permitted in the RB1-X zone with the
addition of residential units. In addition to the prominently featnred issues associated with view
blockage from the West End Tavem roof deck, and the larger issue of mixing residential uses
into a commercial environment, there is an issue raised by the mass and scale of the structure in
the context of the south side of Pearl Street running from the end of the Mall to 9`h Street. These
concerns have been raised by members of the Downtown Design Advisory Board, the
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, numerous members of the public, and the planning
staff itself in its review of 902 Pearl. (See staff comments re: 902 Pearl, Attachment A).
Simi]ar concerns were expressed by some at the Downtown Alliance meeting of June 9. While
the Alliance is not a voting body, some of the constituencies represented at the meeting raised
the issue of the appropriateness of the mass and scale of recently developed, approved, or
pending projects. In subsequent conversations, I have determined that most of the concern
centers around the development along Pearl Street, to either side of the Mall. For the most part,
development along the Walnut/Canyon corridor, while substantial in mass and scale, is generally
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ppdowntown.doc AGENDA ITEM # lA. Paee 1
deemed more appropriate in these areas largely void of historic buildings and established
building character.
The implication of these concerns is a re-examination of 4he appropriateness of the limits set on
building mass and bulk through our zoning for the area to the north and south of Pearl Street
west of i l`h Street to 9`" Street and east of 15`h Street to 18`h Street. That work will take some
time. In the meantime, applicants could seek to develop under the "by-righY' standards of the
code, thereby thwarting any changes the community deems appropriate. While there are a variety
of tools that could be used to deal with this issue, including the use of a development
moratorium," I recommend to Planning Board a very particular change to the code that will
address much of the concem.
The land use regulation allows for an increase from two to three stories and from 35 to 45 feet in
building height for buildings located at the corners of two public streets in the RB 1-X and RB 1-E
zone through an administrative review process. This is limited to an area including 50 feet along
the front yard street frontage and 70 feet along the side yard street frontage. The purpose of this
provision is to encourage the location of building mass at street corners where, historically, more
prominent buildings occurred. See Attachxnent B, Section 9-3.2-4, Conditional Height, "d' RBl -
X and RBI-E Review Criteria, and Attachxnent C, map of the RB1-E zone and RB1-X zones.
In light of the lassons learned in the review of 902 Pearl Street and the concerns raised by a
variety of groups, this building mass bonus may no longer be appropriate for "by-righY' projects.
Applicants can still apply for such building mass through the discretionary review process, i.e.,
site review. I would therefore recommend that Planning Board recommend to City Council the
revocation of the conditional height bonus in "9-3.2-4 c."
Approved By:
I , -~-~-^
.-~-Y~eter Pollock, Ianning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Land Use Review Results and Comments
Attachment B: Section 9-3.2-4, Conditional Height, "c" RB1-X and RB1-E
Review Criteria
Attachment C: Map of the RB1-E zone and RB1-X zones
Attachment D: Ordinance
s:\plan\pb-items\memos\ppdowntown.doc AGENDA ITEM # lA. Paee 2
t-i i i Al,rilV1L~ 1V 1 A
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE.REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: June 22, 2001
CASE MANAGER:
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
COORDINATES:
REVIEW TYPE:
REVIEW NUMBER;
APPLICANT:
DESCRIPTION:
REQUESTED VARI,
Brent Bean
MAXIM PLACE
902 PEARL ST
N03W07
Site Review
tUR2001-OOQ33
STEPHEN CHERNER
SI.TE REVIEW FOR HEIGHT MODIFICATION
~TfONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Updated 6/27101
See landmarks
comments
Maxim Place at 902 Pearl Street
-Height exception to 45'
-Three story building other than at the
corner of the property.
•Reduced loading area (500 sf required)
Application does not meet criteria for approval of a Site Review; a revision is necessary by August 6, 2001 or a
recommendation for denial will be made to Planning Board at this time. The location of this requests is at a primary
entrance to the downtown area and also serves as an intertace between the downtown area and lower intensity
commerciallresidential areas to the west of 9`" Street. The bulk and scale of the building proposed are not consistent with
the buildings present in this area. Staff would recommend the building be scaied back to reflect the permitted building
heights for this site
The building can have a three floor element at fhe corner that is 50' wide afong the Pearl sfreet frontage and 70' along the
9'" Street frontage. Any encroachments outside this envelope will limit the potential for staff support of the request if they
can not be substantiated.
The site plans indicate a building height of 45' at the corner of 9`h and Pearl. The low point of grade appears to be 5355' in
the alley 25' out from the southeast corner of the building. If this is the case, the building would be considered to be 48.4'
tall at the corner of 9`" and Pearl. A by right building can not exceed 45' based on the alley elevation and the Site Review
elevation can exceed 45' if approved by the Planning Board. Corrections to the building height may be necessary. A
building height of greater than 45' requires a total of 20% openspace, however the current plan is showing in excess of
20% openspace.
The survey shows an encroachment of the West End Tavern building along the east property line. If this is correct, the
site is 81 square feet less in total area (16,979 sf, not 17,060 sf), which would permit a maximum FAR of 37,354 sf (2.2
FAR, including the 0.5 FAR for housing).
Staff has received numerous comments from the Downtown Alliance, Landmarks Board members and the public
regarding the nature of the design for this site. Primary concerns have been expressed about the fit of the buiiding within
the context of the existing neighborhood. The existing buildings along the south side of Pearl are primarily one and two
story buildings with height varying from 18 to 25'. This building has been proposed to be a three story building from the
perspective of both Pearl and 9`h Streets, which takes it out of character for the area. By right ordinances permit a third
ffoor element at the comer of 9,`h and Pearl, but this element shouid be carefuily designed to fit within the context of this
area of downtown.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
AccesslCirculation
1. It is expected that this site will generate significantiy fewer trips than the previous use as a gas station. Although a
formal Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this site is not needed per the requirements set forth by the City of Boulder
Design and Construction Standards to show that this is a correct assumption. It is necessary to determine the
expected trips that would be generated by the proposed use compared to an estimate of the trips that would have
Address: 902 PEAFtL ST ~ ~BII~3 ~(0m R ~~~ ..P8c9 R~
been generated with the previous use. This can be provided in the form ot a letter to city staff. Steve Durian, Public
Work5,303-441-4493
2. No mention of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) was included in the proposal. Please provide information
on what will be done to address TDM for this site. Steve Durian, Pubiic Works, 303-441-4493
3. A minimum sidewalk width of 8 feet not including tree grates is required along 9'h Street. This sidewalk width is
provided on the plan, however right-of-way must be dedicated to include this minimum 8 foot width. This right-of-way
dedication is expected to consist of a 3 foot wide by 82 foot long area along extending from the no^h property line
along 9~" Street. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
4. A bulb-out section of sidewalk will be required along Pearl Street at its intersection with 9'" Street. This section is
required to extend 7 feet from the existing curb on Pearl and 20 feet past east of the flowline of 9'h Street. Steve
Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
5. The handicap ramps on the comer of 9`" Street and Pearl will he required to be reconstructed to align with ramps
located across 9`" and Pearl Streets, respectively. Steve Durlan, Public Works, 303-441-4493
6. The removal of curb cuts and replacement with new curb wili be required along both Pearl and 9`" Streets. A plan and
profile for each of these locations will be required at the time of Technical Document Review/Final Plat. Steve Durian,
Public Works, 303-441-4493
Building Design
The site plan should reflect the "by righP' bulk and scale elements of the RB1-X zone district. Third floor elements should
occur only at the corner of this site. 5ee Site Review Criteria attached.
The building height exceeds the proposed 45' fimit proposed. The low point of grade is in 1he alley at 1he southeast corner
of the site (5355'). Final building elevation should be based on this low point of grade. As currently drawn the building is at
least 3.4 feet taller than 45'. This would require a height exception to approximately 49'and a requirement to provide a
minimum of 20% open space on site.
Ail building encroachments in to the public right of way need to be defined. The current plans suggest first, second and
parapet encroachments into the right of way. First floor canoples and parapet encroachments are supported by the
current policy, but other encroachments are not. Brent Bean, Senior Planner (303) 441-3137
Drainage
The Drainage Statement needs to be stamped and signed by a State of Colorado registered professional engineer. Scott
Kuhna,303-441-3121
Fire Protection
Chapter 5.10(A)(3) of the City of Boulder Design and Consfruction Standards requires that no exterior portion of any
buiiding shall be over 175 feet of fire access distance from the nearest hydrant. Proposed fire hydrant locations should be
coordinated with the Chief Fire Marshal, Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350.
Prior to final inspection, applicant shall install automatic fire sprinkler protection throughout proposed structure. Sprinkler
system to be monitored by an approved UL-central receiving station. Adrian Hise, 303-4413350.
Housing & Human Services
ApplicanYs current submittal identifies a total of 9 residential units to be developed at 902 Pearl Street, which are subject to
9-6.5 Boulder Revised Code, "Inclusionary Zoning:' For the 9 residential units, the Inclusionary zoning requirement is for
20% to be permanently affordable, which results in an obligation of 1.8 permanently affordable units. The expectation is
that 50% of those units are to be provided on-site. The remainder of the obligation can be met through several options,
including: cash-in-lieu, dedication of off-site u~its or land dedicatio~.
Applicant proposes to provide 1 permanently affordable unit on-site, with that unit consisting of 1221 square feet. This
would meet the 50% on-site Inclusionary zoning requirement, as well as the minimum square footage required for
Address: 902 PEARL ST
Agenda Item k ~ ~ Page #.~
permanently affordable units based on the proposed square footage of the 8 market rate units. Applicant may choose to
meet the remainder of the Inclusionary zoning requirement through the options described above.
Given recommendations regarding the bulk and scale of the proposed project, should the number and size of proposed
residential units change, adjustments would be needed regarding the Inclusionary zoning requirement.
ApplicanPs current plans orient the residential units primarily to the north, west, and south, and away from the existing
building to the east. However, the proposed permanently affordable unit, Apt. 8, appears to be the only residential unit
oriented to the east, where an issue has been raised regarding potentially non-compatible uses between the existing
restaurant and the residential project. Applicant is encouraged to consider other possible design options that could mitigate
this impact on the permanently affordable unit. Linda Hill-Blakley, Housing Division, 303 441-3140
Comments from the Landmarks Board
Notes from 6/19/01 meeting, added to this document June 27, 2001.
The Landmarks Board does not have formal review authority over this site, but because of the projecPs unique setting
beriveen the downtown historic district and an individual landmark (the Jacobi House at 842 Pearl Street), the Board would
like to comment on its compatibility with the surrounding context.
Context
This block of Pearl Street between 11th St. and 9th St. is characterized by one-story commercial buildings which
historically provided a transition between the more intense, higher scale downtown commercial core- now the
Pearl Street Mall- and the less intense, lower scale mixed-use residential character to the west. The site is at the
very edge of the historic district, which ends mid-block. The West End Tavern, immediately east of the site, is the
last building in the historic district. Across 9th Street to the east is the individual landmark, the Jacobi House, a two
story nineteenth century multi-family building. The Jacobi House is situated next to a series of one story
commercial building, reflective of the historic mixed-use character of the area. Buildings on both blocks are all
under 35' in height.
This block of Pearl Street is also distinct from blocks on the Mall in. its character. The photo montage submitted by
the applicant illustrates this very well. Whereas the Pearl Street Mall area is characterized by two and three story
buildings with large glassed store fronts, the buildings on this block are both smaller in scale and contain
significantly less transparency in the first floor display area and in the upper transom area. This results in a greater
solid to void ratio than on the Pearl Street Mall buildings.
Review of the Proposed Project against the Design Guidelines
The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines were approved by the Downtown Alliance. They have been adopted by
the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and are used in the review of projects in and out ot the historic district
by both the Landmarks Board and the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB).
The following guidelines apply at this conceptual stage of the project:
2_2 Alignment of architectural features and established patterns with neighboring buildings
2_3 Maintaining the line of building facades and storefronts at the sidewalk edge
2_4 Compatibility of scale and massing
2_6 Creating pedestrian interest at the street level
2_9 Maintaining the rhythm established by the repetition of the traditionai 25 foot facade widths
1.2.7 Maintaining the proportions of storefront windows and the established pattern of upper story windows
The project appears to meet guidelines 2.3, 2.6, and 2.9 related to location of the building, facade widths, and
street-level pedestrian interest, but does not meet guidelines 2.2, 2.4, and 1.27 related to scale, massing, and
proportions of windows.
The proposed building is not compatible in scale or character with this unique block. It is more characteristic of
buildings on the Pearl Street Mall or in Downtown Denver. It does not reflect the predominant character of window
patterns along the street either in terms of amount of glazing or window proportions. The upper story windows in
particular read as a horizontal band whereas the dominant character on the rest of the block is strongly vertical in
proportion.
Code Issues: Corner Building
While the zoning currently allows a larger building at the corner, the Board questions its appropriateness on this
block. Historically, in more intense commercial areas, a taller tower element was found on certain corners, but not
for the extent of the area currently allowed (50' x 70') and not in less intense transition areas such as this block.
Given the predominance of one story commercial buildings from 11~h to 9th Streets and the lower scale mixed-use
Address: 902 PEARL 5T Agendalt2m H~Pa9e # `~
character betweeri 9th and Bth Streets, this block serves as a transition, and is not appropriate for taller corner
buildings.
Land Uses
Maximum office/retail square footage can not exceed 1.7 FAR. Current site plan is consistent with this requirement. Brent
Bean, Senior Planner (303) 666-9343
Landscaping
Please provide a landscape plan that meets the standards of B.R.C. Sections 93.3-1, 9-3.3-2, 9-3.33, and 9-3.3-
4. Please note the following requirements for the preliminary landscape plan:
Plan drawing at a scale of 1"= 10', 1"= 20', or 1"= 30', to include:
• Standard title block including scale and date
• Location of property lines and adjacent streets (with street names identified)
• Zoning and use of adjacent properties
• Existing and proposed locations of all 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 specifications
• Layout and location of all landscaped areas including:
- planting strips along all streets
- 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 dimensions of site distance triangles at all intersections of streets and curb cuts
2. Please note the tree grate and planting pit standards outlined in Tabfe 3-3 of the Design and Construction
Standards. Tree grates must be a minimum of 4' wide by 10' in length for large street trees. Bev Johnson, 303-
441-3272.
Legal Documents
Please update the title work to within 30 days and submit authorization from the corporate/partnership documents for a
person to sign on its behalf. (Melissa K. Rickson - CAO)
Lot Layout
Three lot lines are shown on the plans and these will either need to be eliminated or the owners will need to sign a
Covenant to Hold as One Parcel for any building to be built over these lines. (Melissa K. Rickson - CAO)
Miscellaneous
1. Any proposed groundwater discharge to the storm sewer system will require both a state permit and a city agreement.
The steps for obtaining the proper approvals are as follows:
Ste° 1-- Identify applicabie Colorado Discharge Permit System requirements for the site.
Steo 2-- Determine the history of site contamination (underground storage tanks, groundwater contamination,
industrial activities, landfilis, etc.) If there is contamination on the site or in the groundwater, water quality
monitoring is required.
Steo 3-- Submit a written request to the city to use the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). This submittal
should include a copy of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) permit
application. The written request should include the ~ocation, description of the discharge, and brief
discussion of all discharge options (e.g., discharge to MS4, groundwater infiltration, off-site disposal, etc.)
Address: 902 PEARL ST
Agenda Item N~/~ Page # ~
The request should be addressed to: City of Boulder, Stormwater Quality, 4049 75th St, Boulder, CO 80301
Fax:303-413-7364
Steo 4-- The city's Stormwater Quality Office will respond with a DRAFT agreement which will need to be submitted
with the CDPHE permit application. CDPHE will not finalize the discharge permit without permission trom the
city to use the MS4. :
Steq 5-- Submit a copy of the finat discharge permit issued by CDPHE back to the Citys Stormwater Quality Office so
that the MS4 agreement can be finalized.
For further information regarding stormwater quality within the City of Boulder contact the City's Stormwater Quality
Office at 303-413-7350. All appiicabie permits must be in place prior to building permit appiication.
2. The applicant shall identify the existing monitor wells on the property, in conjunction with the requirements of the
ground water discharge permit.
3. All structures (planters) and landscaping proposed in the right-of-way or.public utility easements shall comply with the
standards as set forth in Chapter 8-5, "Work in the Public right-of-way and Public Easements," and Chapter 8-6,
"Pubiic right-of-way and Easement Encroachments, Revocable Permits, Leases, and Vacations;' Boulder Revised
Code 1981.
4. No portion of any structure, including footings and eves, may encroach into any public right-of-way or easement
without approval of a revocable permit. Some of the encroachments that appear to be proposed at the second and
third floor levels do not appear to be consistent with current policy for consideration of revocable permits in the
downtown area. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Neighborhood Comments
Neighborhood comments have been received and the following comments have primarily been made:
1. The buildings are out of scale with the neighborhood.
2. The buildings will block the view from adjacent properties.
3. Residential use of the site may limit non-residential use (night club, restaurant and bar) located on properties
within the area.
4. Additionai methods for mitigating impacts between residential and commercial use need to be considered if
residential units are developed on this site.
A copy of all comments can be made if a request is made to the Case Manager, Brent Bean, Senior Planner (303)441-
3137
Parking
Full-size parking spaces are 9' x 19'. Up to 40% of spaces can be compact (15' x 7.5'). The spaces shown in the
parking garage are less than the full-size dimensions and must be corrected. This area also must not be encroached
upon by any structural elements or columns. Additional parking space size cannot encroach on the 24 foot wide back-
up area. Options exist for widening the parking drive isle including narrowing the storage and mechanicai areas or the
narrowing the ramp into the garage from 21 feet to 1 S feet which would still leave room for 19 foot long spaces
adjacent to the ramp. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
2. Any dead-end row of parking containing more than seven spaces is required to have a turn-around area equivalent to
one full-size parking space. This must be shown on the plan designated as no-parking and the parking space count
adjusted accordingly. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
Plan Documents
Building heights need to be recalculated and shown on the elevation plans based on the low point of grade within the
southeastern portion of the site.
Review Process
Planning Board consideration of this request is required due to the proposal to place a third floor outside the permitted
third floor area boundaries for a corner property(50' X 70' area at the corner) and the building heights above 35' outside
this area as well. Brent Bean, Senior Planner
Address: 902 PEARL ST Agentla Itzm #~~.Page N ~/
Site Design
Planning Staff finds the site plan is not consistent with the existing character of the area. Third floor elements are not
found in this area. The additio~ of extensive third floor elements are not appropriate for this area. The design should be
reconfigured to reflect the permitted bulk and scale limits of the RB1-X zone. Brent Bean, Senior Planner
Utilities
1. All water meters are to be placed in city right-of-way or a public utility easement, but not placed in driveways,
sidewalks, or behind fences. The plans show a proposed water meter to be located in the 8-foot wide pedestrian way
of the sidewalk along Pearl Street. The proposed meter will have to be relocated outside of the 8-foot wide pedestrian
way and nearer to the curb and gutter and tree grates. Trees proposed to be planted in city right-of-way or a public
utility easement shall be located at least 10 feet away from existing or future utilities, including services.
2. Per Section 8-5-13 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, no person shall excavate an area in the pavement of a public
street for a period of 3 years from completion of resurtacing, except in compliance with said section. Pearl Street was
resurfaced in 2060, which means no excavation may occur until fate 2003 unless certain criteria can be met.
3. The existing storm sewer mains in the alley south of the property are shown incorrectly. The applicant's engineer may
contact city staff for locations of the existing storm sewer main.
4. All existing utilities need to be shown on the Drainage and Master Utility Plan, including the existing water main in
Pearl Street. Revise the plans as necessary. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
AccesslCirculation
The removai of curb cuts and replacement with new curb will be required along both Pearl and 9'" Streets. A plan and
profile for each of these locations will be required at the time of Technical Document Review/Final Plat. Steve Durian
Building and Housing Codes
Building must meet the requirements of the building code in effect at the time of building permit application. Note the
egress from the bedrooms on the east side do not appear to meet the requirements of section 310.4 of the 1997 UBC.
Steve Brown
Drainage
The applicant will be required to continue conveying drainage in a manner which does not adversely affect neighboring
properties. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Utilities
1. 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 meters and services are adequate for the proposed use.
b) Water and sanitary sewer Piant Investment Fees and service line sizing will be re-evaluated.
c) if the existing water and/or sanitary sewer services are required to be abandoned and upsized, 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 ihe corporation stop, per city standards. The sewer service must be excavated and
capped at the property line, per city standards.
d) If the building will be sprinklered, the approved fire line plans must accompany the fire sprinkler service line
connection permit application.
Address: 902 PEARL ST Agenda Ilem 8• /R Page #~
2. Fioor drains intemal to covered parking structures, that coitect drainage from rain and ice drippings from parked cars
or water used to wash-down internal floors, shall be connected to the wastewater service using appropriate grease
and sediment traps. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
IV, NEXT STEPS
Staff would recommend the applicant meet with the staff to review changes needed to be made to this site pian proposai
based on the by right limitations of the site. Please contact the Case Manager Brent Bean to schedule a meeting.
Agenda llam #~~ Pa e N [~
Address: 902 PEARL' ST ' 9 -_L__
SITE REVIEW CRITERIA
General Criteria
No site review application shall be approved_ unless the approving agency finds that:
Boulder Vallev Comorehensive Plan:
Yes/no The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan. The plan provides for the development of a mixed use pioject within the downtown area which is
consistent with severa! BVCP pollcies; mixed use policies, 2.20 ro/e of the Centre/ Area. However the
request in opposition to the new policy for ihe "Preservation f Communiry Character and Historic
preservation policies 2.27,2:28 and policy 2.31 "Design that respects existing character. A new mixed use
p~ojecf is very appropriate for this /ocation, however the fit within the existing building character of this
area is alsd very important. The current site plan with the addition of third floor elements outside the
permiited building envelop are not providing an app~opriate fit with the historic one and two sfory
buildings presenf along Pear! and !he /ower intensity mixed use neighborhood west of 9`h Street along
PeaA and Wa/nut.
X The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Bouider Valley
Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential
development within a 300 foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: The
RB1-X zone does not have a maximum established density. The proposal is to develop at the rate of 23
units per acre.
(i) the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
(ii) the maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements
of Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981.
II. Site Desic7n: It utilizes site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this
subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors:
A. Open space, including without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and piaygrounds:
X 1. Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; mosf of the at grade
openspace is accessi6/e and has limited funcflonality. This is a downiown commercia!
site and /arge openspace areas are not expecfed.
X 2. Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; roof top decks and porches
will be provided to meet fhis requirement.
X 3. The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including without limitation healthy
long-lived trees, terrain, and drainage areas; No nafura/ features are present in this area.
X 4. The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding
development; Limited rellef is provided along the alley and 9t6 Street sidewa/k. This is a
downtown area and openspace is not practical to use as a relief for density.
X 5. If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. Site is not adjacent to
openspace. Public sidewa/ks along 9~h Street provide access to the Boulder Creek treif
sysiem.
B. Landscaoinq
X 1. The project provides for a variety of piant and hard surface materials, and the selection of
materials provides a variety of colors and contrasts; For a downtown site, the mixfure of
materials and surtace materials is good.
no 2. The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping
requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2 and 9-3.3-3, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements," and
"Landscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and Size of material has not been defined on
current plans. Additional information will be required.
X 3. The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights- of-way are landscaped to
provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architecturai features, and to contribute to the
Address: 902 PEARL ST
Agenda Itam #~Page # ~~
development of an att~active site plan. There are no landscaped setbacks or yards required in
the RB1-X zone. The public sidewalks have been enhance, however the corner of 9`" and
Pear! should be further emphasized with a recessed entry or display window at the corner.
C.
Circulation, including without limitation the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private
and whether constructed by the developer or not:
no 1. High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project is
provided; The basic plan is consisfent with this goa/, but the corner elements of the plan
could be adjusted to provide additiona/ pedestrian space at the co~ner of the property to
improve pedestrian movements.
X 2. Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized;
X 3. Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the
project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including without limitation
streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails;
no 4. On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where
applicable; There is no transii service along 9`h Street at this time.
X 5. The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; Exisfing sireet system is not
changing.
X 6. The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including without limitation automobiles,
bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise
and exhaust; and
X 7. City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated.
D. Parkin :
1. The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety,
convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements;
underground parking access from the alley has been proposed. Conflicts with pedestrians
should be minimal.
2. The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of
land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project Under ground parking has been
proposed to reduce impacis on 6uildable Iand area above grade.
3. Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent
properties, and adjacent streets; and Final plan details are required.
4. Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in
Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Under ground parking /of
does nat require landscape improvements.
Buildinq Desiqn. Livabilitv and Relationship to the Existinq or Proposed Surroundinq Area:
X
X
no
X
E.
no
no 2.
X 3.
Address: 902 PEARL ST
The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing
character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; The third
floor elements of the plan are nof consisient with the one and two story buildings found
along the south side of Pearl. In addition, the three sfory elements shou/d be brou~ht into
conformance wfth the provisions of a by right project. The buildings along west 9~ Street
are predominantly two story buildings and this site service as a transition from west Pearl
(west of 9fb Street) which is buildings of less than 35' in height and predominantly /ess
than two stories in height.
The height of buildings is in general proporfion to the height of exisfing buildings and the proposed
or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; Bulldings
a/ong south Pearl are predominately one and two sfory buildings. Tha bullding needs to
transition to the two story height along both pear! and 9~~ Street. The basic bX righ!
solutlon permitting thiee stories within 45' of 50' along Pear/ and 70' along 9~ Street
should generally be met.
The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent
properties; In the downtown area, building heighfs and design constraints do not support
the preservation of view corridors from adjoining uses.
Agenda Item A_.1~._Page # `~.,_
X 4. If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of
~ color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; additional information is needed on ihis
criteria. - .
X 5. Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements
appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians. The
current architecture is contemporary in style, but creates an appropriate transition to the
historic architecture found in the area with the exception of the building height issues
raised above.
X 6. To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; Public
utilities and services are avaifable in the area.
X 7. For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types,
such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes,
number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; this site can on/y provide attached housing units,
but if five or more units aie proposed, one of the five units is required to be permanently
affordable.
X 8. For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-
site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; The
residential units proposed for this site are at /east 15' from ihe ad%oining building (West
End Tavern) to the east of this site. Compliance with the current two/three story limits of
the RB1-X zone would place the units approximately 50' west of the adjoining property.
no 9. A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics;
Additional information is required.
X 10. The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or
mitigates impacts to natural systems; No natural areas are present on this site.
X 11. Cut and fill are minimized on the site, and the design of buildings conforms to the natural contours
of the land. This site has 3-4 of feet of fall from the northwest corner to southeast corner of
the site. Cut and fill is not an issue on this site.
F. Solar Sitinq and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar
energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces,
and buiidings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the
following solar siting criteria:
X 1. Placement of Open Space and Streets. Open space areas are located wherever practical to
protect buiidings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on
adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify deviations
from this criterion. Openspace has been proposed along the south side of the building,
along 9th Street and decks at or above the second floor.
X 2. Lot Lavout and Buildinq Sitinp. Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which
maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a
structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited
close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading..
The development constraints of this site suggesf east west orientation of units, which is
resu/ts in an inconsistency with this crlteria. Porches and decks have been orienfated to
take advantage of the maximum amount of light and view.
X 3. Buildinq Form. The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy.
Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Chapter 9-8,
"Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The downtown area is in solar area 3, no protecfion
requirements are applicable to this site.
X 4. Landscapinq. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized.
Majority of new fandscaping has been placed along the west and south property line.
Shading of adjacent uses should be minimal.
Agendaltemri~_Pagea ~~
Address: 902 PEARL ST
a u.~ ~ A'1"1'AC:HML+'N'1' B 9-3.2-4
and devoted to recreational areas and
facilitiea, provided in a location or loca-
tiona convenient to all mobile home
spaces. Recreational areas may include
space for community buildings and com-
munity use facilities, including, without
limitation, indoor recreation areas,
awimming pools, and hobby and repair
ahops.
greater than the permitted height but
leas thaa fifty-five feet in height, unless
approved under Section 9-4-11, "Site
Review," B.R.C. 1981.
Ordinance No. 5930 (1997).
9-3.2-4 Coaditional Height.
9-3.2-3 Building Height.
(a) PermStted Heieht: The height permitted
without review within the city is set
forth in Section 9-32-i, "Schedule of
Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, ex-
cept as provided below in paragraph (2).
Buildings greater than the permitted
height may be approved under Section
9-4-11, "Site Review," B.R..C. 1981.
(1) The height of a building is deter-
mined as described in the definition of
height in Subsection 9-1-3(a), B.R.C.
1981. The 1958 contours, as shown on
maps on file at the planning depart-
ment, shall control to determine the
elevation.
(2) On slopes greater than twenty de-
grees (36.4 percent slope), the building
height may not exceed twenty-five feet.
(See Appendix "D".) However, under no
circumstances shall a structure exceed
fifty-five feet as measured under Char-
ter Section 84 escept as provided for
poles in Section 9-4-11, "Site Review,"
B.R.C.1981.
(b) Non-Conformitv to Fiftv-Five-Foot Lim-
it: No addition to that portion of the
building exceeding the current fifty-five-
foot height limitation is allowed for
structures erected at a height conform-
ing to the height limitationa applicable
at the time of their erection which are
now non-con£ormiag as to height. Ap-
purtenances which meet the require-
ments af Section 9-32-5, "Appurtenanc-
es," B.R.C. 1981, may esceed the
fifty-five-foot height limit.
(a) Hieh Densitv Residential District Ad-
ministrative Review Criteria: In the
HR-E, HZ-E, HR-D, and HR-X zones,
principal building height may be in-
creased to forty feet if:
(1) The building contains no more than
three habitable floors;
(2) The finished floor elevation of the
highest habitable floor above grade does
not eaceed twenty-one feet in height
calculated by the method set forth in
Subsection 9-1-3(a), B.R.C. 1981; and
(3) The slope of the roof is at least 1:2.
(b) CB, R$-E. RB-D, I. IG, IM, and IS Dis-
trict Review Criteria: In the CB-E,
CB-D, RB-E, RB-D, IG-E, IG-D, IM-E,
IM-D, IS-E, and IS-D zoning districts,
principal building height may be in-
creased by up to five feet in excess of
the maximum height set forth in Section
9-3.2-1, "Schedule of Bulk Require-
ments," B.R.C. 1981, if:
(1) The property is not adjacent to any
reaidential district. For the purpoaea of
this paragra~h, adjacent propertiea are
properties whicb directly abut the prop-
erty or are located directly acroea a
right-of-way that is less than eighty feet
wide; and
(2) The property is not adjacent to aay
property deaignated for low, medium or
high density residential uses in the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Adjacent properties are properties which
directly abut the praperty or are located
directly acroas a right-of-way that ie
leas than eighty feet wide.
(c) Non-Conformitv to Permitted Heieht:
There ahall be no increase in the high- (c) RBl-X and RBl-E Review Criteria: In
est point or the floor area of buildings the RBl-X and RBl-E zoning districte,
ocwber 2000 ~
City of Boulder Agenda ftam ~~_Fage a~
J'~~L~J
principal buildiag height for a building
located on a corner lot that faces two
public streets may be increased by up to
ten feet in height and up to three atories
if
(1} The building contains no more than
three stories above the finiahed grade;
and
(2) The horizontal dimensions of the
third story are no greater than fifty feet
along the front yard street frontage by
seventy feet along the side yard street
frontage.
(3) The vertical planes of the third
story are located directly above the
veriical planes of the stories below.
Ordinance Nos. 5930 (1997); 5971 (1998);
7079 (2000). ~
(3) No appurtenance may have useable
floor area eacept for mechanical equip_
ment installatioas; have more than
twenty-five percent coverage of the roof
area of the building; or be more than
aiateen feet in height. For the purposes
of this paragraph,"coverage" means the
total area enclosed by the screening and
"roof area" means outside top covering
of a building which is parallel to the
ground.
(4) , All mechanical equipment is
screened from view, zegardless of the
height of the building, unless in the
opinion of the city manager such screen-
ing conflicts with the function of the
mechanical equipment. The city manag-
er will determine if the screening of the
equipment is adequate in form, materi-
als, and color based on the following
criteria:
9-3.2-5 Appurtenances.
(a) Apourtenances: Appurtenances may be
added under the following circumstanc-
es:
(1) The addition of an appurtenance to
a building is permitted if it does not
cause the building height to exceed the
height allowed in this section, consider-
ing, for this purpose only, the upper-
most point of the appurtenance to be the
uppermost poiat of the roof.
(2) The city maaager may approve addi-
tions of appurtenances to buildings
causing a building height to exceed the
maximum permitted height if the follow-
ing standards are met:
(A) There is a functional need for
the appnrtenance.
(B) The functional need cannot be
met with an appurtenance at a lesser
height; and
(C) Visible materials and colors are
compatible with the building to which
the appurtenance is attached.
(A) Screening is consistent with the
building design, colors, and materials;
(B) Appurtenances are placed on
the portion of the roof which is least
visible from adjacent streets and proper-
ties;
(C) The height of the screen is the
minimum appropriate to adequately
screen the mechanical equipment; and
(D) Screening does not increase the
apparent height of the walls of the
building. The use of parapet walls to
screen mechauical equipment is discour-
aged. The height of parapet walls should
be the minimum necessary to screen
mechanical equipment.
(5) An applicant may appeal the deci-
sion of the manager under this section
to the planning board under the proce-
dures set forth in Section 9-4-3, "Devel-
opment Review Action," B.R.C. 1981.
(b) Landmarked Aaaurtenances: Notwith-
standing any other provision of tlus
section, appurtenances of buildittgs
landmarked under Chapter 10-13, "Hie-
toric Preservation," B.R.C. 1981, may be
repaired or restored to the'u previoua
height, upon approval of the Landmarka
OcWber2000
City of Bouider
Agenda Item q~Page p.~;~,.
~tai~~.a~+~ a ..r
~1 l~ ~
_ Zoning Q~stricts N
\ :~.
of Boulder Rg1-E & RB1 X __- ----
i s , ,.
.,
~ ~ ~~ ~fi~,
c tv r,-~- , ~,~=,; ~ , ,,
, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ ,
~~ ~~'~~ ~ ~ '~-~ ' ~ . uE~ ~ ` "
~ i `,~, _~----~-~ _~ ~~ -'-' ' ,.
, ,
_ ~~ ~~' ~ ~ - _ ~ N ~`
1 ~ ~ ~ ~%'~ ''~~~U~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ N .
M~ ~ ' 1 ~~,\~V~ `~'\\,~~ \~\\\ " ~~ ` -` `'~~~~~~ /'
~ ~ ~` ~'~~ ~~~ ~~~'~r~ ~~-( -~{ ~~~'`
_
\ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ \ ~ J~~ A 'yy-- ~ ~~~ \~ ~ ~'~~ \r
~ ~ ~
~ ~ \
- ~ ~ ~;~° f ' ~i \ ~ ~ , ~'~ ~ y~ ~ ~-'~ ~`~ \~. ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~` il ~~~~ i_ 1 ~., ~ ~ yT~ y ~. ' ~' ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .
~I '~=.~~-,~', , , . ` ~-°\ f , ~' ~RB~ E ~~v r~('~~ ~~IRg1-X ~ 1~
~',1~~~~ ~ ~ ,f ~ ~ j ~ °e~~'`~ U ~~~ . ~ .A~ \
~ ` •
y~ ~~~ ~ ~( `f ~
~ ~,VEE\~~`, ~,,\,~~ ~;~ ~~ 1 ~^ "" ~ ~ ~\'~~ \~\.~ / .'~ , ;~~ \\l\\.
~
~ 1 ~~ ~
~ .~~ ~ ~~~ ~, ~i~~'~ ~~ ~ ~~ ' ~ 1 ~ -~ ^'~
~ ~~ ' ~ ~C \l~-~ ~ ~ ~~ ~\~'~
~ ' ~ ~~
~. ~`~ - ~r`''~
~ ~ T ~ "~_
~ ~~"~~1 ~5~ ~ !1/ ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~, `I t'~
~/~, r`V A ~\ \ ~~~ j V~- ~ ~'r~~ ~ ~ '' '~ i-1 ~~";,
/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~V ~ ~ ', ~ ~ 1 ~ y;-.
~ , ~~ ~~ ,' ~' ,; Y~1 ~'~ '.i.`T~1
„
'~ ~% = ~, ,~ ~ ~ ~r`, N ~ , .~ `}-~- ,~,
,~~~ ,~ ~ a~,y ~ ~ ~.~ , ~I 1~
~,, ~ ~ .~~; ~ ~ -
~y ~ `'~-_
~ ~ ~l
. " ~ \ , '--', - ~
~, , ~ , ,
~5~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ t ~ 1 ! - , , ~ ' ~
'v ~~ \\ ~ ~, ~~~
;~a~y ~ ~ ~~+-''" ,-~ ~ \~~~~~v -1° ~ ~, k- ;
~~'''"" ~ ' `\ ~~ ~ `~ ~-,~~~~' ~ ~~ ~ ` ~~,J
,~ ~J/ . t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F\\\ ~ `~ \`~\~~ ~ ~~~~ ,ViL ~ '..~
1 ~ '~ ~/ ~ ,~ ~ 5
l _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ , \ ~ `~ ~ . - ~
~~~; 1~ ~~ Rg1-X i~;A~~
____~ ~ ~ ~`v -,`~ ,y, r~ ~•. ~~~
~~ ~ ~
--~ ~ , ~\`~aYN\ - ~-~`~~~Jmm ~ ~ y`~_'r_
, ~ ~ ~ ~J~ ~-~`~ `~~~uu~ ~ ~~_~ I
;io~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~~,` ~~ ~ ,
~~ 5 ~ ~ ~~ ~
~\,\,~~\ ~''~ ~` '> ~, ~ ~ ~;;'' ` fi
, ~~ ~~,~~~ ~
_ ~~~ ,
~' ``~~' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~\.
,, ~ ~ ~~~ ~~
; ,,~ ~~~
~~ (~~ '~~ ~~C~~tL[L- _~ ~~--
r-~-~ U-~ Pa9e
~
~ ~t ~ ~L~i~-~ ~,~ p~nda4lem~_ f~
ATTACHMENT D
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE TO ELIMINATE THE CONDITIONAL
HEIGHT PROVISIONS FOR THE RB1-E AND RB1-X ZONING
DISTRICTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 9-3.2-4, B.R.C.,1981, AND
SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 9-3.4-4, B.R.C. 1981, is amended by repealing subsection (c), to read:
9-3.2-4Conditional Height.
(a) High Density Residential District Administrative Review Criteria: In the HR-E, HZ-E, HR-
D, and HR-X zones, principal building height may be increased to forty feet if:
(1) The building contains no more than three habitable floors;
(2) The finished floor elevation of the highest habitable floor above grade does not
exceed twenty-one feet in height calculated by the method set forth in Subsection 9-
1-3(a), B.R.C. 1981; and
(3) The slope of the roof is at least I:2.
(b) CB, RB-E, RB-D,1, IG, IM, and IS District Review Criteria: In the CB-E, CB-D, RB-E,
RB-D, IG-E, IG-D, IM-E, IM-D, IS-E, and IS-D zoning districts, principal building height
may be increased by up to five feet in excess of the maximum height set forth in Section 9-
3.2-1, "Schedule of Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, if:
(I) The property is not adjacent to any residential district. For the purposes of this
paragraph, adjacent properties are properties which directly abut the property or are
located directly across a right-of-way that is less than eighty feet wide; and
(2) The property is not adjacent to any property designated for low, medium or high
density residential uses in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Adjacent
properties are properties which directly abut the property or are located directly
across a right-of-way that is less than eighty feet wide.
>
/1 \ TL,. L..:IA:._,_ ,.,.«~..:«,. ._„ .......«.. al...« f4,.,e....a,.«:.... _L.._.,, aL.. C.~:,.L~,1 ._....A,.. ..._,]
vuaa.....b ~..,,~.,...,., ..v ......~ .....,... ~...~~ ........~., ».....~ ...~ ......,..~» b. ~y »,.»
K:\Plcu\o<ond-heighLycu
Agenda Ilem R~Page q _1.~_-.
Section 2. The city council finds that it is necessary to implement the provisions of this
ordinance immediately. Therefore, this ordinance shall be applied to all applications that have not
been approved by the City as of July 11, 2001
Section . This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the
residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section . The council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and
orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public
inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE
ONLY this day of , 20_
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:\Plw\o-cond-heigM.ycu
Agenda Item p.1~Paqe #..~._
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 20i
Mayor
AtCest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:\Plcu\a-cond-height.ycu
Agenda Item ~.1.t.t-_-•Page # ~~