6B - Site Review #SI-2000-16, St. John's Episcopal Church, 1419 Pine Street (2)CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 19, 2001
Agenda Item Preparation Date: July 3, 2001
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #SI-2000-16 (LUR2000-SI016) to expand
St. John's Episcopal Church located at 1419 Pine Street. The request includes an expansion
of existing church offices, classrooms and parish hall. The total square foot addition
proposed is approximately 8,000 square feet and 3,800 square feet of underground parking.
The request includes a height of up to 46 feet for the new addition and a parking reduction
request of 73 percent. Setback variations include a proposed sideyard (south) setback for a
stairwell of 20 feet where 25 feet is required, and a proposed frontyard (east) setback for
parking of 6 feet where 25 feet is required.
The applicant is seeking creation of vested property rights in accordance with Section 9-4-12
"Creation of Vested Rights," B.R.C. 1981 for a two phase project. Phase I consists of an
addition of 8,000 square feet of office, meeting and religious education space, and 3,800
square feet of underground parking to be completed within three years. Phase II consists of a
colonnade structure to be completed within six years.
Applicant: St. John's Episcopal Church
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Bob Cole, Director of Project Review
Don Durso, Case Manager
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ddstjohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM # lU~ Page 1
OVERVIEW:
The Planning Board is being asked to consider a request for a Site Review to permit an
expansion of the St. John's Episcopal Church located at 1419 Pine Street. The request
includes a demolition of the brick house located on the east end of the site (already
demolished), as well as removal of the parking area along Pine Street. The applicants
propose to construct an addition to the east of the existing historic church. The new building
will be connected to the existing church and offices. Parking will be located to the east and
under the new addition. The existing parking lot will be turned into a landscaped area for the
church and public, and the two curbcuts along Pine will be eliminated. The new parking lot
will accommodate 20 parking spaces resulting in an 73 percent parking reduction from the
required number of 73 parking spaces.
Staff recommends approval of the proposal.
STATISTICS:
Proposal: Site Review for the expansion of an existing church located at 1419 Pine Street
for office, meeting and religious education space.
Requested variations to the land use regulations:
1. Height of up to 46 feet for the new addition
2. Parking reduction of 73 percent
3. Setback variations include:
A. Sideyazd (south) setback of 20 feet where 25 feet is
required for a stairwell;
B. Frontyard (east) setback of 6 feet where 25 feet is required
for parking;
Project Name: St. John's Episcopal Church
Location: 1419 Pine Street
Size of Tract: 0.96 acres (42,000 square feet)
Zoning: MXR-E (Mixed Density Residential - Established)
Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Density Residential
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\ddstjohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~J Paee 2
KEY ISSUES:
Does the proposal utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project?
2. Is the addition compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area?
3. Is the requested height exception appropriate for this site?
4. Is the requested 73 percent parking reduction justified? Will adequate parking be
provided for use of the site?
BACKGROUND:
Process
Planning Boaxd consideration of this request is required because the applicant has requested a
parking reduction of greater than 20 percent (73 percent reduction requested) and a height over
35 feet. The proposed addition will be approximately 45 feet tall. The existing bell tower
exceed the permitted building height but is considered a grandfathered height of approximately
74 feet tall.
History
The existing St. John's Episcopal Church, which is an individually landmarked structure within
the city of Boulder, was built around 1902-1904, with additions in 1965 (chapel, sacristy and
support space), 1969 (offices), and in 1987 (classrooms). The site undenvent a non-conforming
review in 1981 to expand the Sunday school classrooms & church facilities, and a second non-
conforming review in 1987 to add classrooms. The second review required an additional eight
spaces rented from the YWCA to the north for Sunday parking needs.
Existing Site
The current site is the half block area north of Pine between 14'h and 15'h, and south of the alley
between Pine and Mapleton. The site contains the historic St. John's Episcopal Church, with
related uses, including the parish hall. On the east side of the site there was an existing two story
residence with three apartments. This building has been demolished in anticipation of the
planned expansion. The site contains 26 parking spaces adjacent to Pine. Many of these parking
spaces do not meet the city requirements for parking, either because they do not meet the size
requirements, backing distances, or are within the required Pine Street setback. An additional
gravel parking area is located on the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the alley, which can
park about 4 cars.
North of the church, across the alley, is the YWCA on the west and a residence on the east.
Northeast of the site are residential uses. Across Pine to the south is the First Methodist Church.
A mix of offices and residences are to the west, and Pearl Street Mall begins a block south and
west of the site. A private parking garage is located on the corner of Spruce and 15`",
approximately 500 feet from the site (one block).
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ddstjohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~ Paee 3
In addition to leasing parking spaces at the YWCA, the church also uses 10 classrooms on
Sunday to house its Sunday school classes which are attended by approximately 190 children,
and supported by 20 adults. In addition to the space at the YWCA, the church also utilizes the
rector's office, conference room, and a basement area for the Sunday school classes. Each class
has anywhere from five to 30 children per class.
Project Description
The primary reason for this request is to consolidate the Sunday school facilities into one
building attached to the sanctuary and locate all these uses on-site. Currently, the use of the
YWCA requires that the children cross back and forth across the alley between the two sites.
The existing building area on-site is 16,634 square feet including the house. The proposal is to
demolish the existing house (2,700 square feet, which has already been demolished, housed three
rental units) and rebuild approximately 11,000 square feet of building, which will result in a net
increase of approximately 8,000 square feet, for a total of 21,900 square feet of building area.
Elimination of the current parking area along Pine Street, closure of both curbcuts on Pine, and
relocation of 15 parking spaces underground with access from 15`h Street are aiso proposed. The
existing gravel parking lot located of£the alley will be upgraded and paved, and the existing
curbcut from 15t° Street will also be eliminated. The alley parking will have five spaces and be
accessible from the alley only.
When this application was first reviewed, staff was concerned with the proposal, as it eliminated
three residential units in a residential zone and instead, proposed office square footage on the
site. The first proposal, in staff s opinion, included a unsubstantiated amount of additiona] space
for church uses but did not attempt to retain the residential uses. Since the first submittal, the
addition has been scaled back by approximately 5,000 square feet and a number of phases
eliminated.
The new addition to the church will be approximately 46 feet in height, based upon the low point
of grade, which will be the surface of the new underground parking area. The applicant is
proposing two setback variations. One is locate a skairwe115 feet into the south sideyard setback
of the building. The proposed setback will be 20 feet where 25 feet is required. The second
variance is to locate parking 7 feet from 15"' Street where 25 feet is required.
A parking reduction of 73 percent has been requested. The applicant has completed a detailed
parking analysis showing that the majority of its parking needs are on Sunday only. Weekday
parking needs will be accommodated by the 20 on-site spaces. Additional Sunday parking wili
be available at the YWCA, where the applicant has a]ease for eight spaces. An additiona130
spaces will be leased from the owners of the parking gazage located at the southwest corner of
15`h and Spruce. Landscaping and site improvements will buffer and screen the new parking lot
from view from I S`h Street. A new courtyard south of the existing structure will be developed
where the parking azea along Pine Street exists today.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ddstjohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM # lD ~ Paee 4
ANALYSIS:
1. Does the proposal utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the
project?
Twenty percent of the site is required to be open space. Over 37 percent of the site will
be open space under the proposed plan. A large court yard has been proposed where a
parking lot currently exists. New trees and ]andscaping will be added along Pine Street
and will be an improvement to the existing poorly designed parking lot. Open space and
landscaping on-site will provide buffers to the adjacent land uses by providing screening
of the parking lot and adding landscaping to the site that will serve to buffer the height of
the existing and proposed buildings.
Exterior open space areas are proposed that wili increase accessibility to the site. Two of
the existing curbcuts will be closed, leaving one curbcut and an alley access, instead of
four vehicle accesses. The refurbished parking lot along the alley and 15"' Street will be
screened from view.
2. Is the addition compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area?
The new addition is in keeping with the scale and character of the existing development,
and the building massing blends with the overall site characteristics. The new addition is
in the approximate location and oF the approximate massing of the house that was
recently demolished. The architecture and materials will reflect the style and materials
used elsewhere on the site.
As noted in the background information above, the applicant has eliminated three
residential units from the site, with which staff was concerned. Staff has since reviewed
the commitment that St. John's has made to affordable housing within the community in
the past and in the future. (see staff DRC comments, Attachment D) After much
discussion with the applicants staff had decided that it is willing to accept the loss of
these residential units. Further, St. John's has stated that in the future, if any further
expansion is contemplated on the site, it will be a priority to include residential uses as
part of the plan.
3. Is the requested 6eight exception appropriate for this site?
The new addition will have a height of approximately 46 feet from the low point (surface
of the underground parking level). The building will have a visual height of
approximately 42 feet from Pine Street.
The addition is set back approximately 30 feet from the sidewalk along Pine Street and 50
feet from the flow line of traffic. This addition will be masked by two lazge existing trees
along Pine and the addition of two proposed trees in front of the building.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ddstjohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~ Pase 5
The addition is set back 50 feet from the sidewalk along 15`h Street and 80 feet from the
flow line of traffia The addition will be masked by a number of large existing street trees
along 15`h. The structure to the east of the site is a three story office building,
approximately 35 feet in height. Because of the existing use to the east and the distance
that the addition is set back from 15'h Street, the addition should not adversely affect the
15'h Street or Pine Street streetSCape or the property to the east.
This addition will have to most impact on the property to the north, across the aliey. The
location of the proposed addition is approximately 5344 feet in elevation at the bottom of
the underground parking area. The elevation at the north property line is 5352, eight feet
higher, and the residential unit to the north's elavation is approximately 5353 feet.
Therefore, the addition will have a visual height of approximately 37 feet from that
property. The 46 foot portion of the addition is approximately 40 feet from the north
property line, and 65 feet from the house to the north. The combination of the setback
and the fact that the church addition is sat into the topography as it rises to the north will
result in no more impact than a typica135 foot tall structure.
The addition will have very little if any impact to the properties to thE west, as it is
buffered by the existing church structure, and will not be visible.
4. Is the requested 73 percent parking reduction justified? Wi11 adequate parking be
provided for use of the site?
To support a parking reduction, the applicant must show that the parking neads of the use
will be adequately served:
Weekdays:
The applicant has provided a detailed parking use analysis of the church, which indicates
that the proposed 20 spaces located on-site will accommodate iYs weekday needs (see
applicant's parking analysis, attachments B and E-I, as part of ApplicanYs Written
Statement, Attacluuent E). The church has been operating with the existing 30 spaces
located in the non-conforming parking lots for the past 15 years or more. Of those
spaces, 21 of them are currently leased out far weekday uses, leaving only nine spaces for
church uses during the weekday. The applicant is not proposing to increase its weekday
activities. Based upon the written statement and staff observations the proposed 20 car
pazking lot should adequately meat its needs.
Sundays:
As with most churches located in the city, it is not possible to accommodate its Sunday
parking needs. The applicants have proposed to lease 30 spaces at a near-by parking
structure (15'h and Spruce) and they will maintain use of eight spaces at the YWCA on
Sundays as well. This amount of parking, including the on-site parking, is equivalent to
providing 80 percent of the required parking for this use, based upon providing one space
for each 300 square feet of floor area. Because the church is located in the downtown
s:\plan\pb-itemslmemos\ddstjolws.wpd AGENDA ITEM # Pa e 6
azea adjacent to many commercial uses, ample on-street parking is available during their
peak parking times on Sunday morning.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Three phone calls from neighbors were received by the staff. Two people did not express a
concern over the project. One person, who lives to the north of the church, was opposed to the
proposal. She expressed concern about the lack of parking in the area and the impact that
increasing commercial development in residential zones is having upon the residential
component of the downtown area.
Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property
owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign was posted on the property for at least
10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff finds that this request for Site Review, a parking reduction of 73 percent and
height exception to 45 feet meets all the review criteria:
Parking will be available to this site for Sunday use at the YWCA and the private parking
lots on Spruce. On-site parking has been shown to meet the weekday needs of this use.
2. The height exception to 45 feet is appropriate in that no impacts will occur to adjacent
properties from shadows created by the new building. The proposed mass and bulk o£the
building are compatible with the existing structure and the surrounding uses.
The application is consistent with the site review criteria (Attachment C).
Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Site Review SI-2000-16 and the
request for vested rights, incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Site Review
Criteria Checklist as findings of fact and using the recommended conditions of approval in
Attachment A.
Approved By:
~'-e~i'eter Pollock, Planning~ to~
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ddsyohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM #[DQ Paee 7
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachxnent C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Vicinity Map
5ite Review Checklist
Development Review Committee Comments
ApplicanC's Written Statement and Proposed P1ans,
including Vested Rights Form
AGENDA ITEM # Pa e $
s:\plan~pb-items~snemos\ddstjohns.wpd
ATTACHMENT A
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1419 Pine Street--LUR2000-SI016
The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans and the applicants written statement dated May 7,
2001, on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department.
Prior to a building permit application, the applicant shall submit the following items fore
the review, and subject to the approval, of the Planning Department:
A. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to ensure compiiance
with the intent of this approval:
B. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and
proposed; type and quality of nonliving landscaping materials; any site grading
proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to ensure compliance with this
approval and the city's landscaping requirements.
C. A tree removal plan. Removal of trees on the site, as well as the removal of any
tree in the city right-of-way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester.
2. Prior to building permit application the appiicant shall revise and complete their Lot Line
Elimination application (LE 2000-2).
3. Prior to building permit application the applicant must submit an executed lease with the
garage located at 15`h and Spruce for thirty pazking spaces to be used on Sundays, as set
forth in its written statement.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ddstjohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~O~ Paee 9
ATTACHMENT B
- LOCATION:
1419 Pine Street
- APPUCATION TYPE:
Site Review - Planning Board Level
- ZONINc3:
MXR-E
- APPLICANTS:
Hartronft Fauri Architects
~~ Q
"'' ~ tl"",~ N
Agenda Item #~Page # ~
ATTACHMENT C
SITE REVIEW CRITERIA:
I. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The elements of this plan are consistent
with the puiposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Use of
the site is for a religious institution that provides a community service to the
surrounding area and the city of Boulder. The site plan respects the sunounding
neighborhood and has placed the new building such that adjacent uses will not be
impacted by building height and location.
(B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated
with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residenti~l 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:
(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.
Not applicable to this request for a religious assembly.
II. Site Desien: 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
playgrounds:
1. Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; 20
percent of the site is required to be open spaca. There is 15,404 square
feet oFopen space provided where 8,443 square feet is required. A large
court yard has been proposed where today there exists a parking lot.
Exterior openspace areas have been proposed to be developed to increase
accessibility to the site and screening of the parking lot.
2. Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; Not
applicable to a place of religious assembly.
3. The project provides for the preservation of natural features,
including without limitation healthy long-lived trees, terrain, and
drainage areas; The site plan is consistent with this criteria, through the
preservation of existing street trees, and trees on site where possible.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ddstjohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~ Paee 11
4. The open space-provides a relief to the density, both within the project
and from surrounding development; Open space and landscaping on
site will provide good buffers to adjacent land uses by providing screening
of the parking ]ot and adding landscaping to the site that serve to buffer the
height of the existing and proposed buildings on site.
5. If possible, open space is linked to an area- or City-wide system. No
open space links exist in this part of the downtown area.
B. Landscapina:
1. The project provides for a variety of plant and hard surface materials,
and the selection of materials provides a variety of colors and
contrasts; The provision of the courtyard and exterior landscaping will
provided a variety of materials, height and colar to this site.
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 This site has perimeter ]andscaping that
will be retained. The new landscape plans for the site exceed the
requirements for the amount, size and type of materials proposed.
3. The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-
way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance
architectural features, and to contribute to the development of au
attractive site plan. New trees and landscaping added along Pine will be
an improvement to the existing poarly designed parking lot. The parking
lot along the alley and 15"' Street wili be screened from view.
C. Circulation, including without limitation Yhe transportation system that
serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by
the developer or not:
1. High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets
and the project is provided; Not applicable to this property.
2. Potential cont]icts with vehicles are minimized; Two curbcuts along
Pine have been eliminated, as well as one access from Pine, adjacent to the
alley.
3. Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the
project and between the project and existing and proposed
transportation systems are provided, inciuding without limitation
streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails; This site is within the
downtown grid, which make pedestrian and traffic access to this site very
easy. Internal site access has been improved through the new landscaped
azea. The courtyard serves as a drop-off and gathering place for the site.
4. On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of
transportation, where applicable; n/a
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ddstjohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM # la~ Pa2e 12
5. The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; No
new streets or right-of-way are required for this request.
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 This is an existing downtown site and the existing street
and sidewalk structure support the redevelopment of the site.
7. City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is
facilitated. City construction standards will be met with the
redevelopment of this site. The standard city grided system in this area
provides easy access to all buildings existing and proposed for this site.
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; Access to the parking lots is by way of the
alley and 15"' Street. This will separate vehicular movements from
pedestrians accessing the site from Pine.
2. The design of parking areas makes ef~cieut use of the land and uses
the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of
the project; Because the parking is being partially located below the
addition, the surface are devoted to parking is being reduced.
3. Parlcing areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact
on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and All
lighting will be directed internal to the site.
4. Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess
oS the requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design
Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Additional landscaping has been added to the
perimeters of the parking lot. The edges of the parking lot will be shaded
by the addition of new trees along the perimeter of thelot.
E. Buildine Desian. Livabilitv, and Relationship to the Existine or Proaosed
Surrounding Area:
1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and con~guration are
compatible with the existing character of the area or the character
established by an adopted plan for the area; The new addition is in
keeping with the scale and character of the existing development, and the
building massing blends with the overall site characteristics.
2. The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of
existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved
buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; The new addition
is in the approximate location of an existing house. The proportions of the
proposed addition approximate the existing structure.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ddstjohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM #!O~ Paee 13
3. The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of
views from adjacent properties; The tallest areas of the addition will be
set closer to Pine Street (south side of the property). Therefore, the
addition will result in no impacts to adjacent buildings or uses to the north.
4. If the character of t6e area is identifiable, the project is made
compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping,
signs, and lighting; the site is in the downtown area, and the architecture
will reflect materials used elsewhere on the site.
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. Planned
improvements to this site support improved pedestrian use of the site.
6. For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between
buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through
spacing, laadscaping, and building materiais; Not applicable to this site
plan.
7. A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy
conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Final lighting plans will be
reviewed at the time of building permit application.
8. Cut and fill are minimized on the site, and the design of buildings
conforms to the natural contours of the land. The proposed changes to
grade are minimal.
F. Solar Siting 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 street, lots, open spaces, and buildings so
as to maximize the potentiat for the use of solar energy in accordance with
the following solar siting criteria:
1. Placement of Ouen Space and Streets. Open space areas are located
wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other
buiidings within the development or from buildings on adjacent
properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints
may justify deviations from this criterion. This site is in the historic
downtown area, where buildings have been placed on a north/south
orientation. The taller portions of the new building will be on the
southern portions of the site.
2. Lot Layout and.Buildin~Sitin~. Lots are oriented and buildings are
sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal
buiiding. 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. Proposed plan meets this criteria,
see 1 above.
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\ddstjohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM # lOQ Paee 14
Buildin~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 buildings will not shadow properties to the
north across the alley.
4. Landscapina. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on
adjacent buildings are minimized. Primary landscaping has been added
to the south portions of the site, such that properties to the north will not
be impacted. New landscaping will have minimal shading on adjacent
. buildings.
s:\plan\pb-items~cnemos\ddstjohns.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~DQ Paee 15
ATTACHMENT D
Track #32
DRC Meeting: 8/24/00
CITY OF BOULDER
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS
CASE MANAGER:
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
COORDINATES:
REQUEST TYPE
AND NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
DESCRIPTION:
August 25, 2000
Don Durso
St. John's Episcopal Church
1419 Pine Street
N3W6
Site Review, SI-2000-16
Hartronft-Fauri Architects
Expansion of existing church offices, classrooms, and
parish hall. Total square foot addition proposed is
13,825 square feet, including 5,000 square feet of
undergroand parking.
REQUESTED VARIATIONS
FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
1. Parking reduction of approximately 80%
required.
3. Height approximately 47'.
4. Parking located in a required front-yard
landscaped setback (adjacent to 15th Street).
2. North property line setback-3'4" where 5' is
REVIEW FINDINGS
Application does not meet criteria; a revision Is necessary or a decision will be issued based
upon the provided materlals.
Staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the application meets the review criteria
relating to:
1. Parking reduction
2. Height measurement
3. Vested right form
4. Square footage numbers don't add up
5. 15th Street access impact to Ciry trees
The city review team for this application are available to meet with you to discuss the findings, assist in
resolving outstanding issues, and discuss the next steps for the application. Please contact your case
manager to set an appointment.
Agenda Item A~~ Page ri_1~_
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circulation
Underground Parking Area
1. The grade change between the driveway and the cross slope on 15'h Street must comply
with Table 2-2 of the Design and Construction Standards. Additionally, provisions must
be applied to keep drainage along 15'h Street out of the parking garage. Please prov'rde a
profile showing how the parking garage would connect to the street and keep drainage
from entering the parking garage.
2. The median shown in the center of the driveway cannot conflict with turning movements
of the largest vehicle that will enter the site. Please analyze this driveway with the
appropriate turning template tb identify any conflicts.
3. It is not clear how vehicles can access several of the parking spaces shown in the parking
garage plan without conflicting with walls and curbs. Please analyze this parking layout
with turning templates for the largest vehicle that would use each space to determine
which parking spaces would have to be modified or removed.
The proposed grading and cutting of the area around the existing ash tree in the City
ROW to provide the 15th Street curbcut is not acceptable. Leaving a 6 by i0 area for a
2-1/2 foot diameter tree is not large enough to ensure survival, and additionally, too many
feeder roots would be cut by the work. Other drive accesses and site layouts should be
examined, such as:
A. locating the curbcut further north between the two ash trees, and removing the
smaller tree in between them on the applicanYs property.
reexamining the curbcut off the alley. This alignment would require some type of
landscaping adjacent to the sidewalk on the east, to screen the parking area
sufficiently.
C Use the existing curbcut on the Pine Street side (the further east one) to access
the underground parking from the west side. It might then be possible to move
the proposed addition to the east slightfy to utilize the site better. This access and
layout is the preferred choice of City staff. Don Durso, Steve Durian, Ellie Bussi-
Sottile (City Forester).
Other Access issues:
A traffic impact study is required for any addition that increases the expected trip
generation by 15% compared to existing trip generation. This increase in trips generated
is based on floor space for churches, therefore an increased number of trips can be
expected to produce more trips to the site. Please coordinate with Steve purian for
Traffic Impact Study criteria for this site.
The curb south of the driveway accessing 15'" Street does not provide enough length for a
parallel parking space. The curb line must be at the same offset from the property line as
is existing at the Pine Street intersection.
3. The handicapped parking space shown is not permitted along Pine Street. The
handicapped parking spaces in the underground parking structure do not meet City
requirements of 12'x19', with a 3'x19' striped area adjacent to the passenger door area.
See 9-3.3-11(c) for details.
Agende ltem N~~ Page H`
4. The curb cut along Pine Street shouid be narrower than what is shown on the plan. A
sidewalk ramp (see detail 2.07 in chapter 11 of the Design and Construction Standards) is
sufficient for this type of curb-side loading and unloading.
Steve Durian, (303) 441-4493
Bicycle Parking
An additional bicycle parking area, with a total number of racks equal to 10% of total vehicular parking
spaces should be provided adjacent to the assembly-area side of the site. All bicycle racks shall be in
accordanc~ with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards.
Building Codes, Design and Housing Codes
The multi purpose room on second floor does not have adjacent exit access. The school addition was
built as a type V-N construction. There is no record of main sanctuary. The existing structure and the
new exceed all limitations in Table 5-B for type of construction. Area separation walls may be required.
Steve Brown, Inspection Services, 303-441-3172.
The height of the new addition, as indicated on sheet 4 is not measured consistently with the City's
height definition. See 9-13:
"HeighP' means the vertical distance from the lowest point within twenty-five feet of the tallest side of the
structure to the uppermost point of the roof. The lowest point shall be calculated using the existing
grade. The tallest side shall be that side whose lowest exposed exterior point is lower in elevation than
the lowest exposed exterior point of any other side of the building. But if substantial evidence indicates a
change in grade has occurred since 1958, the 1958 contours (as extrapolated by the city manager)
control.
It is unclear how the gable end qualifies as an appurtenance to screen the mechanical beyond. This
area of the church already exceeds 35' in height, and so the appurtenance section of the code does not
have to be met for approval. Rather, staff is looking at whether the pitch of the roof, and the
architectural features of the addition are designed to be consistent with the existing buildings on the site.
This reference to "appurtenance" should be removed from the plans. The gable end "false fronP' should
not be used to screen mechanical, as it would be ineffective screening from an east or west view of the
building (as is evident from the aerial perspective on sheet 6). Either the pitched roof should just be
extended up and the mechanical housed within, or it should re relocated to one of the flat-roofed areas
of the addition. Don Durso, 441-3273.
W hile not required, staff suggests taking this project to DDAB (Downtown Design Advisory Board) for
feedback on the architectural design of the addition prior to Planning Board review. DDAB meets the
second Wednesday of the month.
Fire Protection
Prior to final inspection, appiicant will insta~l automatic fire sprinkler protection in all new construction.
Sprinkler protected new construction must be separated from existing non-sprinklered construction by
one-hour separation wall. Automatic sprinkler system must be supervised by an approved monitoring
agency.
Land Uses
A lot line elimination and conditional use review (religious assembly in a residential zone) will
also be required prior to building permit, and can be filed and processed concurrently with this
site review. Contact Don Durso for more information.
Agendeltemq_r c, Page# ~~
Legal Documents
Please provide a copy of a current title commitment or attorneys memorandum on the property
along with the response to these DRC comments. Also, please provide authorization of the
person signing on all documents required by this application.
2. It does not appear that a vested rights form was completed in this application.
3. PVease submit a copy of the agreements for parking both on the 15th and Spruce site and with
the YWCA.
Miscellaneous
Any increase in patronage, parking, and traffic will have a direct impact on calls for police
service. Consideration for proper lighting (existing) in open lawn area. Shrubs should be kept
away from ground level window. Proper security, lighting and locks on all doors and windows.
Underground parking should be well illuminated. Benches should be square 2' X 2' as to not
create an area to sleep on benches. Lighting under all overhangs, illuminating windows and
walkways. Larry Wieda, Police Department, 303-441-3327.
2. The applicant should define more clearly the phasing on this project as such things as public
improvements can not be phased. The plans should show what is planned to be built as part of
Phase I, and what elements are Iikely to be deferred until later phases.
Parking Reduction Criteria
The current site is non-conforming because parking available on site does not meet the current parking
requirement based upon sanctuary seating. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing building
area by approximately 13,825 square feet for a totai of 27,791 square feet, plus two dwelling units which
would result in a requirement of 95 parking spaces. Nineteen spaces are represented on the site plan
submitted for review, resulting in a parking reduction of approximately 80%.
Because of the parking reduction and proposed structures in excess of 35 feet, the approvai authority is
the Planning Department. If the parking reduction is not approved making the use a conforming use,
under the provisions of a non-conforming use, the site can only be expanded by 10% or to a maximum
area of 18,322 square feet.
The church has made a statement in the information provided, that the primary activities of the church
will occur on Sunday, when parking demands in the neighborhood area are at their lowest. The parking
statement indicates full-time employees, and meeting usage, but does not address the uses for which
space is indicated on the site plan, such as the nursery, two preschool areas, a kindergarden, 5
classrooms, a multi-purpose area and a youth room. Additional information needs to be provide on the
operational characteristics of the church on other days of the week such as how will the classrooms,
daycare, and meeting elements of the church operate during the remainder of the week. When and
how often do these activities occur? How many children/adults attend classes here? W hy will the impact
not change? Where do the people who wiil use the daycare and other classes park now? What is the
attendance for these classes? If St. John's no Ionger uses space at YWCA, will the YWCA use the
space for other classes at the same time as St. John's, which will increase the impact to the area? If the
YW CA intends to have simiVar classes at the same time that St. John's is conducting classes, the shared
parking spaces between the two cannot be considered as a basis for a parking reduction. How will the
19 spaces provided on site meet the needs of the activities at this site?
The applicant should provide additional evidence supporting the parking reduction proposed. The staff
Agenda Item R~~ Page ri~
has made a recommendation to the Planning Board that "places of religious assembiy" within 300' of the
CAGID parking district be allowed to expand the primary place of assembly, but the expansion of other
space (Christian education) was eliminated by the Planning Board in their consideration of this
amendment. As a result, this request will require the applicant to substantiate very clearly how the
parking reduction criteria, as set forth in 9-3.3-9, is met. (attached is the parking analysis that First
Congregational Church provided to staff for their proposal, which is very similar to St. John's proposal).
Written statement
The square footage numbers in the written statement and the site review fact sheet do not appear to be
consistent. The written statement indicates additions of 3245, 2800, and 4000 for offices, Parrish hall,
and classrooms respectively, which adds to 10,045 square feet. The existing house is being demolished
(2690 square feet), and the lwo new residentiai units total 1600 square feet. However, the written
statement indicates fhat a total of 16,515 is being added including 5000 parking, which would yield a net
total of 13,955 being added to the site, for a total square footage of between 25,648 and 27,921 square
feet, depending upon whether the numbers from the fact sheet or the written statement are begun with.
The fact sheet indicates, under (IIi.) that a total of 30,668 nonresidential square feet and 1637 square
feet of residential is being proposed, for a total of 32,305. Please verify the accuracy of these numbers.
Drainage
Detention - Staff is in agreement that detention ponding is not appropriate in this instance.
However, the applicant is required to address storm water quality mitigation on the site.
Storm water quality mitigation should include minimization of directly connected
impervious areas in accordance with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control DistricYs
Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3. Please address this issue in the next submittal.
2. Parking Garage Drainage - The proposed drainage from inside the parking garage cannot
be discharged to the storm system as shown. Water collected inside the garage must be
directed to the sanitary sewer system, after being discharged to a sand and oil separator.
Stormwater from outside the garage entrance must be intercepted by a trench drain and
can be directed to the storm system. Please revise plan. Bruce Johnson, 303-652-8116
Utilities
Abandoned Water Meters - The Master Utility Plan (MUP) shows three 3/4" meters to be
abandoned. Add a note to the plan requiring that the abandoned services be cut-off at
the water main in accordance with City standards, the meter lids removed, and the pits
removed or filled with rock or sand. Bruce Johnson, 303-441-3206.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Fire Protection
Fire Department recommends that the existing structure be sprinklered during construction of
the addition.
2. Please install Knox box for Fire Department access at the time of final inspection.
Flood Control:
1. The subject property does not lie within any mapped 100-year floodplains. However, the
applicant is required to continue conveying drainage in a manner which does not adversely
affect neighboring properties.
2. Any appiicable Storm Water Plant Investment Fee for this project will be determined at the time
Agenda Item A ~~ Page #,~_
of building permit application. Bruce L, Johnson, 303-441-3206.
Utilities:
Sewer Service - The capacity of the existing 4" sewer service is subject to review at the time of
building permit based on fixture counts supplied by the applicant.
DDStJohn.DRC
Agendaltem # ~~ Page 4 ~
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: April 9, 2007
CASE MANAGER: Don Durso
PROJECT NAME: ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
LOCATION: 1419 PINE ST
COORDINATES: N03W06
REVIEW TYPE: Slte Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2000-SI016
APPLICANT: HARTRONFT FAURI ARCHITECTS
DESCRIPTION: Expansion of existing church offices, classrooms, and parish hall. Total square foot
addition proposed is 8,825 square feet, plus 5,000 square feet of underground parking.
REQUESTED VARIAT IONS FROM THE LANp USE REGULATIONS:
Stairwell projection into sideyard setback (south): 20'10" provided where 25" is required
Parking located in a frontyard setback: 6'2" provided where 25" is required.
Building located in a sideyard setback (alley on the north): 3"11" where 5 feet is required.
Parking reduction of approximately 80%.
Height of addition approximately 45 feet.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Application does not meet criteria; a revision is necessary.
Staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the application meets the review criteria relating to:
Parking reduction and parking study, vested rights form, square footage numbers don't add up per phase, elimination of
residential units, phasing specifics and parking reduction per phase.
Overall, the "concepY' proposed is not supported by staff: eliminating all housing units while maintaining the same square
footage as the first submittal be converting the housing to non-assembly classroom areas. Staff advises the applicant to
look at the overall concept of this site before proceeding further. The applicant is allowed only one more revision prior to
scheduling this item for Planning Board. If the above issues are not resolved to staffs satisfaction, a recommendation of
denial will be part of the staff's memoradum to the Board. The city review team for this application is available to meet with
you to discuss the findings, assist in resolving outstanding issues, and discuss the next steps for the application. Please
contact your case manager to set an appointment.
tl. CITY REQUIREMENTS
AccesslCirculation
1. The sidewalk along Pine Street transitions from 5 feet wide along the western portion of the site to 4 feet wide
along the eastern portion. The sidewalk is required to be reconstructed to 5 feet in width along the entire site, if not
impeded by existing trees.
Fire Protection
1. Project wili require addition of one new fire hydrant, mid-block, north side of Pine Street to bring the building c~oser to
compliance with the requirement that all parts of the building be within 175 feet of a fire hydrant. Adrian Hise, 303-441-
3350.
2. Required fire sprinkier system and required fire alarm system(s) must be supervised by an approved monitoring
agency.
Housing & Human Services
Address: 1419 PINE ST Agenda Item N~'~ Pago ~~
ApplicanYs original proposal included reducing 3 dwelling units to 2 dweiling units. The current proposal indicates plans to
eliminate all 3 dweiling units, and replace them with a number of additional classrooms in one of the later phases of
development. Per applicanfs original proposal, dwelling units have been made available for staff earning modest incomes,
indlviduafs with medical needs (AIDS), or for visiting ciergy or ciergy in training, who have difficulty in affording housing In
Boulder.
A proposed new policy in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan calls for:
"The preservation of existing residential uses. Existing legally established residenJial uses in non
residential zones shall be preserved or replaced in kind; non-residential conversions in residential zoning
districts shall be discouraged except where there is a clear benefit or service to the neighborhood."
Rationale for this policy is that the community supports the preservation of existing housing whenever possible. Any
reduction in the supply of housing worsens the jobs to housing balance, and exacerbates the housing affordablity issue.
As such, applicant is asked to reconsider if development plans necessitate the loss of all ihree existing dweiling unils,
describe any plans to mitigate the housing loss, and address the alternative community benefit to be provided in lieu of the
housing units. The applicant has not stated why the housing units are being eliminated in favor of more classroom area.
Staff does not support the proposed elimination of residential units at this site, while increasing commercial square
footage. Linda Hill-Blakley, Housing & Human Services, 441-3140; Don Durso, 441-3270.
Land Uses
In the last round of reviewer comments, staff questioned the necessity of 5 classrooms, a nursery, two preschool areas, a
kindergarden, multi-purpose room and a youth room, if no additional activities are being proposed on the site. Staff asked
for information regarding these rooms, and what the current uses were at the YWCA next door, to determine if adding 11
such rooms is likely to add to programmed use of the site, or whether they are necessary to provide space for current
programs . These questions have not been answered. The parking study provided does not indicate that 11 rooms are
necessary for Sunday activities. The new submittal indicates that at buildout, there will be a kindergarden, nursery,
preschool, and 9 other rooms called "classrooms". This shows more classrooms than the initial application. Staff again
requests information on the programming of these rooms, and the necessity of them, if no additional uses are proposed on
site. The parking study indicates that Sunday School is divided by age group, yet the study does not indicate how many
different classes are take place, the number of children involved, and the amount of time these rooms are being utilized. It
appears that the Sunday school only takes place from 10:00-11:15am, and providing 12 individual rooms for an hour class
one day a week does not justify eliminating housing units, in staff's opinion. Staff will only support the addition of rooms
necessary to accommodate existing uses on-site or currently being accommodated at the YWCA.
LandSCaping
No requirements at this time. Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272.
Parking
1. The method of structural support for the parking garage is unclear from these drawings. Columns used for support
must be spaced so as not to conflict with vehicle doors.
2. One of the full-size parking spaces at the end of the garage must be designated as "no-parking" so it can operate as a
vehicle turn-around area. The "17" spaces indicated does not match the number of spaces shown. W ith the required
turn-around, only 15 spaces are shown in the garage area. Also, it appears that the alley spaces, which are being
eliminated at a future phase, are being counted as parking spaces. The Development Review Fact Sheet indicates 21
parking spaces on site, which appears to be incorrect. The applicant shouid submit a phasing table which indicates
floor areas for each phase (including existing and proposed, as weil as subtracting any floor area demolished with
each phase), parking provided for each phase, and the requested parking reduction for each phase, to fully assess the
parking reductions requested at each phase.
3. Handicap spaces are required to be striped as according to the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards,
Standard Drawing 2.54. This is shown correctly in the plans but is inconsistent with the written proposal.
4. The 5 spaces located off the alley are unclear as to their future. It appears that these spaces are part of Phase I, but
that they are removed as part of a later phase which would reduce parking, while adding additional square footage to
the site.
5. Parking Study p~~~t0m# ~~ Page# ~~~3
Address: 1419 PINE ST
a) The previous submittal stated that 19 spaces were to be located on-site. According to the current plan set, 12
spaces are shown (not including the required turn-around area) in addition to three handicap spaces. The number
of usable on-site parking spaces needs to 6e identified in the parking study, While a lease agreement with the
private parking garage is not necessary until construction, a letter of intent from the owners of that garage should
be provided, if staff and the Planning Board is to consider the additional 30 parking spaces as justification for a
parking reduction. A building permit will be contingent upon providing these agreements to staff, if this project is
approved.
b) The five parking spaces near the alley must be present in all phases of this proposal in order to be counted toward
the available parking. It appears that in one of the later phases, these parking spaces wili be eliminated, although
this is not addressed in the written statement.
c) The section titled "St. John's Parking/Usage Response" states that 225 people attend the 10:00 AM service in the
Summer of 2000. Later in the document in a memo to Hartronft & Fauri, it is stated that 192 people attended a
service which created a parking demand of 68 cars. Also, the parking study indicates that the Sunday communion
service has 350+ people attending. Staff requires further explanation why three numbers are presented and what
the vehicular impact of 350, 225, and 192 likely is on the parking demand.
d) The chart titles "Boulder Land Use Regulation Requirements Review Summary" indicates that a 20% parking
reduction is requested, where 48 spaces are provided where 67 are required. The written statement indicated 73
spaces are required, and 59 provided. Further, the "Review Summary' indicates that only a 20°/o parking reduction
is requested. Only on-site parking counts towards required parking, unless the requirements of 9-4-9-11(n) are
met. Otherwise, parking provided should be calculated on on-site parking only, not including street parking or
leased parking. Also, the fact sheet indicates that only a 20% parking reduction is requested.
e) The parking study is incomplete. Please correct information such as "Don't have numbers", "Ask Pam White"
"Tom Morgan, music director, could give you this information", etc.
6. The "St. John's Parking/Useage Response" states that the church would retain 9 of the 21 proposed spaces for
church uses during the week. Staff will recommend that, as a condition of approval, that the continued leasing of spaces
to off-site users be subject to review of the City, if, after the expansion is completed, weekday parking issues arise. In
other words, staff wishes the ability to require all on-site spaces to be retained for church uses, should parking needs
increase in the future.
Phasing Plans
1. The applicanYs written statement indicates the square footage proposed in Phase I. No information is provided on
any future phases. As requested above, a chart which clearly indicates what is included in each phase should be
provided.
2. A phase for reroofing is not required, as long as it is replacing the existing roof with the same type of roof. Only a
building permit is required for reroofing. Don Durso, Planning, 441-3273.
Site Plans
The applicant should submit a perspective of the parking garage area as shown from 15'h and Pine Street, looking west.
The perspectives submitted do not show this side of the site, which is where most of the work is being done. Additionally,
a massing model or architectural model should be considered for the Planning Board phase of the review. Don Durso,
Planning, 441-3273.
Fact Sheet:
The fact sheet indicates a variance of 6'2" requested for parking along the west side. This appears to be in error, as
parking is not located on the west side, but the east.
Vested Rights
The vested rights form is not sufficient. Each phase (and what is included in each) must be clearly indicated on the form,
and the time requested for each phase. No phase may be requested to be vested for more than 3 years beyond the
previous phase. It is unlikely that staff will support a phasi~g plan longer than 6 years, as it becomes speculative (and the
written statement appears to indicate that some of the future phases are speculative) and community needs may have
changed by that time.
Address: 1419 PINE ST Agenda Item N~~ Pa92 ~-~
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: May 25, 2001
CASE MANAGER: Don Durso
PROJEC7 NAME: ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
LOCATION: 1419 PINE ST
COORDINATES: N03W06
REVIEW TYPE: Site Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2006-SI016
APPLICANT: HARTRONFT FAURI ARCHITECTS
DESCRIPTION: Expansion of existing church offices, classrooms, and parish hall. Total square
foot additio~ proposed is approximately 8,000 square feet, and 3,800 square feet of
underground parking, in two phases of development.
REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
Stairwell projection into sideyard setback (south): 20'10" provided where 25" is required
Parking located in a frontyard setback (east): 6'2" provided where 25" is required.
Building located in a sideyard setback (alley on the north): 3"11"where 5 feet is required.
Parking reduction of approximately 75%.
Height of addition approximately 45 feet.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
The application meets all criteria; minor documentation corrections must be submitted prior to Planning Board hearing,
including:
Clarification of deferral of landscaping.
Correction to Vested Rights form
Letter of intent to provide leased spaces at parking garage.
See below for details on these requirements.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Housing and Human Services
Housing and Human Services
ApplicanYs original proposal included reducing 3 dwelling units to 2 dwelling units. Subsequent proposals indicated plans
to eliminate a113 dweNing units, and replace them with a number of additionaf classrooms. Per appficant's original
proposal, dwelling units have been made available for staff earning modest incomes, individuals with medical needs
(AIDS), or for visiting clergy or clergy in training, who have difficuity in affording housing In Boulder.
Staff expressed serious concern about the loss of all 3 residential units, given the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
policy to preserve existing residential units, as well as the loss of affordable housing. Appiicant was asked to reconsidar if
development plans necessitated the loss of all three existing dwelling units, to describe any plans to mitigate the housing
loss, and to address the alternative communiry benefit to be provided in lieu of the housing units. Based on the last
submittal, staff did not support the proposed elimination of all residential units at this site while increasing commercial
square footage.
Applicant responded to staff concerns. They stated their reluctance to eliminate the apartments given St.John's church's
iongstanding commitment to housing in the community, in terms of past efforts, as well as current and on-going efforts.
Information provided by the applicant cited a number of community benefits provided by the church which offset the
elimination of the housing units. The church was involved in the creation of the San Juan dei Centro low-income housing
projeCt, and has been very involved with the homeless population for many years. They recently committed $100,000 of
their capital campaign funds to Project Start for "bricks and mortar' for their work with the homeless. Additionally, a church
affiliated foundation (with funding derived from the earnings of a trust corpus) has provided and continues to provide grants
Address: 1419 PINE ST
Agenda Item # ~~ Page # ~3? 5
to housing and human service organizations in the community, including Emergency Family Assistance, Bouider County
Safe House, the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless, and Boulder County AIDS Project. Based on these efforts, staff
considers the community benefit being provided by,the church to be strong, and is now willing to accept the loss of the 3
residential units. Applicant has expressed a desire to include some dweiling units when they proceed with future phases of
their plan, which staff strongly encourages. Linda Hill-Blakley, Housing & Human, 4413140.
Landscaping
The landscaping proposed to screen the parking area lacated adjacent to 15~h street must meet all regulations in 9-3.3,
including a 6' wide landscape bed, and tree and shrubs located within this area. As shown, it does not appear to meet
these requirements. At the time of building permit, this requirement must be met as part of their building permit package.
The written statement states that benches and some trees and landscaping may be deferred until a future time at which
funds are available. The site plan must show all landscaping that will be installed as part of Phase I, and staff will review
this plan to determine whether it meets the site review criteria related to landscaping. The applicant may add additional
landscaping to their site above and beyond that approved as part of this approval at any time they wish in the future without
review.
Legal Documents
The vested rights form must state the time of request for each phase. The written statement indicates that Phase II may
be built sometime in the next 10 years. Due to the 3 year time limit of vested rights, Phase I must be completed within the
first three years, and Phase II within three years after that. Please correct the vested riglit form to indicate these time
limits, Don Durso, 4413273.
Miscellaneous
The previously submitted lot line adjustment will need to be completed prior to applying for building permits on this site.
Please see previous reviewer comments and plat corrections for required changes to that application. Don Durso, 441-
3273; Melissa K. Rickson - CAO.
Parking
While a lease agreement with the private parking garage is not necessary until construction, a letter of intent from the
owners of that garage must be provided prior to the Planning Board hearing, if the Board is to consider the additional 30
parking spaces as justification for a parking reduction. A building permit will be contingent upon providing these
agreements to staff, if this project is approved.
The applicant must provide sufficient parking spaces on-site during the week to adequately address their weekday needs.
Complaints related to not providing adequate parking may result in an enforcement action.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Building and Housing Codes
No additional requirements, piease be aware that it appear that the structure exceeds the building size limit of that allowed
for the type of construction of the existing structure. An area separation wall may be required to limit the building size per
the building code. Steve Brown
Fire Protection
Required fire sprinkler system and required fire alarm system(s) must be supervised by an approved monitoring agency.
Parking
In preparation for Planning Board discussions, the largest number of patrons attending services should be addressed
when considering the parking supply for weekend services. The largest number listed in the parking study is currently not
used in the parking assessment. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493.
Address: 1419 PINE ST Agenda Item #~~__.Page # a~
~~
~•-
Department of Community Design, Planning and Developme~,t
1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791 • Boulder, Co~orado 80306
303-441-3270 ~ FAX 303-441-3241
DEVEL4PM~NT REVI~W
~ APPLICATION F~RIVI
L APPLICATION DEADLINE IS 12;00 NOON THE PIRST AND 7HIRD MONDAY OF EACH MON7H
This application form contains several sections. Please provide generai data be~ow. 7he types ot reviews for which i~
form is used and a fee schedule are listed on page 2. A list of the application requiremants for each review type is fo~
on page 3. On page 4, the names of aA owners (and lessees, etc.) Of the subject property must be listed and signatuF:
provided. Also, there are separate attachments to this applicalion form for each review type (on page 3). Sub itt ~
~paccurate or incomalete information will resuit in reiECtion of the aoalication
GENERALDATA
(To be completed by the applicant)
• NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: St. ,Tohn's Episcopal Church
• Existing Zoning: MxR.:~ • Lot Area (in square feet or acres): 42 ~ _
_ ;.
Street Address or General Locaiion of Property:1419 P in e s c.
~.,.;
. Legal Description: Lot ~-12 Block 14 ~ Subdivision (or astach descNption)
• EXIStlflg Use Of PfOpefty: Church & accessory uses
• Description of proposal, (include proposed use and summarize number antl size oF ~nitslbuildings~lols, as aNpl,ftable~';
Proposed use is expansion of existing church accessory uses
such as chuYCh offices, Sunday School classrooms, Parish Hall, etc. The
-=--~n o j e~ t~ _ ~
building addition to accommodate a small park on the church. .
• 7ype of ReVieW Request(s): (see page 2 tor list)
• NAME OF APPLICANT: xartronft Fauri
•Address:8o1 Main Street, Suite 300
campus. git'~,a` Review
Archite
Telephon~6~3-9304
•Clly: Louisville State: co ZIPCOdC: 80027 FaXb~3-9319
•NAMEOFCONTACTPERSON(ifotFierthanappticant): J• Erik xartronft, AIA or w.B, Hi1L/
sAdd1'es3: Same as nto~e Teleph~ne:
s City: State; Zip Code: FRY,; .
• AATE APPl.ICATION FILED:
~ ~lication received by:
~.ase Manager:
Subcommunity;
Fes: _ I
STAFF USE ONLY
DatelTime:
_ Track #:
#:
FINAL REVIEV
Review ~ _ ^ staff
File Name: ^.. ' ~ Planning erc
~ COOfd.: ^ City Counci
Check #: _._
Agenda Bem N~, uy,; „,~ 7~~
ATTACHMENT E
, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION FAC7 SHEET v/ _~L u`"~
(Revised 5/07/O1j
~ Aecurate end eomplele information ~bout a project for ihe City's initial review is iMeor21 lo a timely ~nd Ihorouch reviev:
orocess. In order for your 2pplic2tion to be considered compfele, all appiic~bte informalion must be provided on this shee
1Nhile sorne oi this inform~iion m2y be incluoed on the project site plans or discussed in 1he wrillen statement, plezse als
~nter it here.
,, Existinca Condition
Property address(es) or iocalion 1419 P ine S
TofalloUparcel size 42
Legclpescr'rption(orsif~chcopy)Lots 7 throuQh 12, Block 147, Boulder located in the.
SW•.1/4 of Sect'ion 30, township 1 nortn, rang~ 7u" we~t of tl»
Pie2se oescribe the existing use of fhe property: 6t h PM; City and Caunt y o f ~
Boulder, State of Col'orado.
Church and accessory uses
Existing Zon(noMX -~if rezoning or annex2fion epalic2lion, proposed zoning: )
6oulder Valley Comprehensive Pl~n (BVCP) Lznd Use Desionotion MXR
Are any existino I a1 r~rbnildin s non-at^ndrion~~ c n oic2f nn or"an Xstting5e no consormino~ Yes (If yas, descrit~
non~ co ~~~or~nP X~exstg~ -`~ y~~.~gng~ g ~~acnlc
b
Does lhis 2pplic~tion amend a previous de~elopment revie~v 2p~rov~l?Y e s
If yes, specify projecl n~me, teview type, ~nd review number (if knov+n)
St. John's Episcopal Church previous non-conforming review'
approval r~tvc-ai-
II. Residential Uses (complete this sec4ion if your project eontains existin.g or proposed resiqential land use~,~;
Exisiing Proposed
Toi21 = of dveelling uniis 3 p
To121 n of lots 1 1 '
Toisl ~ of buildinos 1 .L
Ftoor area (in sq. it.) 0
of each buitding Z, 6 7 4 s. f.
Totalbuildinocoveraoe 1,724sfl' 0
("footprinf' in sq. ft.j
I.42xinum building heioht ~~ -a ~' 't~f;PiA
(NOte: Height musl be ctlcubled based on Ihe City cotle Cefinition ot heiQhl founq in Seca~on 4-1•3(a): provide Cocumeniationj
~ Existing Propo sed
Unit type/bedrooms (specify 4 BR 4 6R
the numberofeachiype-of 3 BR 3 BR- ~..
unit) _,_ 2 BR' 2 BR
, ~_ t BR , 1 BR
ELU ELU (eNciency living
unit)
oiher other
. ~ (specitY) lSPe~N) - - .
For developmeM in HR-X or HZ-E zoning, specify the total, iloor area of each dwelling unit, (calculale floor area based ort
5ection 9-3.2-9 i ):
. Existing Proposed
~ ~ Project density:
Average lot area/unit Z, 333 N/A
~ (or tlwelling units/acre) 7, 000 N/A
Average lot size ~_ _ ... _,_ _ _
Totai useable open.space •.-~~_ N;~,~+'~ _ ` '
Useable open space/unit ~ ~~~~
Is open space reduction requested? n° If yes, specity %` --
For a proposed group residence use (e.g. frafernity), specify n occupanls
For development in RB-1E, RB-2E, RB-3E, RB-1X, RB-2X, RB-3X, and MU-X:
Is a density increase requested? Proposed F.A.R.
III. Nonresidential Uses (complete this section if your project contains existing or proposed nonresl¢entiei la~:;
uses)
Existing Proposed
Total ~ of lols 5 1
7ota1 ~ buildinos 1 1
Floor aiea (in sq. ft.) 13 , 9 6 0 7,934 sf (new less removed)
of each building _ w/ 3,766 sf pazking
Toial iloor area 1 g q tip _?1,894 sf (incl, Existing)
To1al building coverage
"
" 12 ~ 8~~~ 18,614 sf (incl. Existing)
in-sq, ft.)
(
foofprin!
~~4zximumbuildingheigh4 ~ 71.75' ~4".-;4" (new const)
(NOte: Hei9M'musl be calculated based on the Ciry code qefintlion~l.ne19M tound in Seclion 9•1•3(a); provide documentation)
Total usesble open space 12,351 sf
Is open space reduction requested? RO If yes, specify %
For development in RB-X, RB=E, or MU-X:
. Is a density increase requesled? Proposed F.A.R.
_~ For a hotel or motel use, specify n df proposetl guest rooms
For a restaurant or the2ler use, speeify number of proposed seats
IV. Parkina and Setbacks
To1al ~ off-street parking spaces provided ~ 0
Enter number ot each type of parking sp2ce:
~ 5 stand2rd size 1 small car 3" handicap accessible I ~ bicycle
Total ~ parking spaces required by City code_7 4_
For nornreSidential uses, specify the ralio of total non=residential building square footage to pzrking spaces
per 300 sG. ft.): 1/ 3 0 0 s f
Perking Variations
~s a parking reduction requested7 ~_ Qf yes, specify'/o ? 3 ')
Is a parking deferral requested? ., ~ (H yes, specify number of deferred spaces_~
Are any variations requesled related to lhe size or location of the required pkg. spaces? N~,
(!f yes, describe '
Selbacks ~
Are any setback va~iations requested? YeS ~ s i t e r ev i ew
If yes, specify wliether as part oi~a s e review or variance application:
Ii yes, descri equ t v~riatiog(s~ notino the ~ropo5~d seibackfs)
pa~lci~{g ~Se~f~ac va i nce east= si e, ~.y~_Z~r ro c
requirement(s) . -
required); ron~ yarcl setba'~k for exterior stair (20'-10"
V. Other Land Use Issues 25' -0" required)~
(e.g. one sp~.,-:
and th8 setb~•_
~ed, 25 ' -~"
propos ed
For use review applications, briefly describe lhe proposed use of the property and specify which,land use category(ies) in ih
Schedule of Permilfed Land Uses (Section 8-3.1-1) the proposed use falls:
~~: ~•Doe`s the proposal include any conditional uses (e.g. bed and breakiast
, Please note whether your property is afiecled by the iollowing:
Welland area
Alrport Influ.ence Zone .
Hisioric disirict
or landmark desrgnation * X
CAGID parking disirict
UHGID parking dislrict
Boulder Vzlley Regional Center
(Crossroads urban eenewal area)
no
10o year flood zones:
(loodplzin
high haz2rd zone
conveyance zone
For new construdion, is your propos2l in compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance,~e ,_,?
* Existing 1405/1921 Charch arid 1966 Chapel Addition
(Lots 7-9) are included in Ci:ty of Boulder Landmark
Designat~ion (Ord. 4Z89-Z977).
~'~ Demolition Permit for existing.residential structure at
1445 Pine Street (over 50 years old) has been reviewed and
approved by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board.
DIO\F C7SHT.DI
ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
SITE R[VIEW FOR PROPOSED RENOVATION AND ADDITION
WRITTEN STAT[MENT DESCRI6ING PROPOSAL
07 MAY 2001
ExHlalT "B" - REVISeD JuNE 18 2001
A. Statement of Current Ownership
As indicated on the Development for Review Application Form, the Owner of the property is
St. lohn's Episcopal Church. The property consists of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, Block 147,
Original Town of Boulder. The property is being replatted for the elimination of lot lines
between Lots 7& 12, and is to be known as lot 7A, Block 147, A Subdivision in the City and
County of Boulder, State of Colorado.
B. Project Objectives
The objectives of the project are basically to provide additional space on-site to accommodate
the functions which are currently not all accommodated in the existing facilities, as well as
relocation of the existing parking from the front yard of fhe Church to space creafed under the
new addition.
Backeround
St. John's Episcopal Church was originally constructed around 1902 to 1904. Major additions
to the church were constructed in 1965 (Chapel, Sacristy and support space); 1969 (Offices
and Parish Hall); and 1987 (Three Classrooms at Lower Level). The existing Sanctuary seating
area is approximately 2700 SF with an additiona! 730 SF in the balcony.
In 1987, a special use review (#NC-87-17) was approved to allow construction of the three-
classroom addition. Total on-site parking provided at the time of approval was 30 spaces, plus
8 spaces which were provided on the YWCA site, by lease agreement, just northwest of the
church. The existing parking lot, in the front yard of the church, is not in conformance with
City of Boulder parking standards (see attached layout for number of conforming spaces -
Exhibit F) and actually would only accommodate 1 S spaces including 6 of which are in the
front yard setback.
Proposal Summarv
The Church's needs for on-site classroom space, a larger Parish Hall and reorganization of
clergy and staff offices have prompted a major fundraising effort and the current proposed
renovation and expansion. To meet the requirements of the Church for the next 5-10 years, it
is proposed that in Phase I, the Church offices be renovated and expanded by approximately
500 SF and the Parish Hall be expanded by approximately 21 SO SF (including lobby and
accessible restrooms). Classrooms which are currently housed at the YWCA would be
consolidated on-site in a 4220 SF addition to allow for specialized programs not adequately
accommodated off-site. This is also important from a security standpoint as children now have
to travel off of the Church grounds to attend Sunday school and supervision is a concern.
It is important to note that all of the functions which are proposed to be expanded are
accessory to the main church facility and all of these functions currently are accommodated on
the Church site or at the YWCA, adjacent to the Church. Therefore, the proposed addition will
not increase the intensity of use on-site, nor will it increase the number of people who will use
the site on a regular basis.
Three dwelling units which are currently on-site are to be demolished. The Phase I building
addition is approximately 11,863 SF including approximately 3,766 SF of parking/service area
(or a net gain of 8,097 SF with the demolition of an existing (2,674 SF) residential structure at
1445 Pine and the partial demolition of existing Parish Halt basement (163 SF)).
The addition of a colonnade structure over the walkway connecting the foyer of the addition
with the existing Church is proposed as Phase II and it's completion is dependent on the
Church's ability to fund its construction.
The parking requirement for religious assembly may be calculated by three different methods
per Section 9-3.4-5, as follows:
1. Religious assembly use created prior to 9/02/93 shall meet parking requirement of one
space per 300 s.f. of floor area. By this method, 73 spaces are required with the new
addition.
2. After 9/02/93, off-street parking is provided at a ratio of one parking space per four seats
in the assembly area. The fixed pews in the Choir, Sanctuary and Balcony have 290
seats. Therefore, 73 spaces are required.
3. Or, after 9/02/93, off-street parking is provided at a ratio of one parking space for each
50 s.f. of floor area used for assembly if there are no fixed seats. Since there are fixed
seats, this method does not apply.
Regarding parking, we have approached this proposal with the concept of providing an equal
or greater number of conforming parking spaces than can be accommodated in the existing
parking area which is to be removed. The lot would be replaced with a landscaped courtyard
which is seen as a neighborhood amenity or pocket park, open to all residents and visitors to
this area. New parking would be provided under the new addition and off the alley. Thus, we
would maintain 20 on-site spaces, will add 2 parallel spaces on the street, plus a loading/drop-
off zone. Sunday morning parking needs are supplemental by the leasing of 8 spaces at the
neighboring YWCA. We also have been negotiating with ). Midyette and Don Rieder regarding
a long-term agreement for the Sunday parking usage of 30 parking spaces in the new parking
structure at 15'h and Spruce. A copy of the final agreement will be forwarded to the City. This
proposal would provide 20 total on-site off-street spaces equal to the required space p3) with a
72.6% parking reduction.
The religious assembly requires 6,332 Sf of usable open space. This is based on 15% of the
42,215 SF lot area. We have proposed 12,351 SF of usable open space including 10,267 SF in
open landscaped areas and 8,334 SF in pedestrian areas (of which 25% or 2,084 SF inay be
counted toward the required usable open space).
The site landscaping requires 13 trees and 65 shrubs be provided. We propose an ample
amount of landscaping including 18 trees and 172 shrubs to be provided. Regarding the
streetscape, we propose the required amount of 16 trees for the south and west sides of the
property.
The building architecture is designed to compliment the existing Historic Stone Church. A
complete description of the architecture is provided on the building elevations (sheet 4& 4.1)
and perspectives (sheets 5, 5.1, 6& 6.1).
C. Development Schedule
It is the Owner's intent to continue with the current fundraising efforts through the Simmer of
2001 with the intention of starting construction in the fall of 2001 with completion
approximately 12 months later. The outcome of the fundraising effort will affect the ultimate
building and budget for the Phase I construction project. Therefore, the Owner may elect to
defer certain improvements and add them to the project, or complete these improvements once
additional fundraising is complete. Items which may be deferred until future phases include:
1. Landscaping elements (trees, benches, etc.) in excess of minimum required
2. Stone site walls in courtyard area
3. New colonnade connecting new and existing buildings (Phase Iq
Phase II may be completed within the next ten years.
D. N/A
E. Attached Boulder Land-use requirements review summary (2 Pages) (Revised 05/07/O7)
Dt~dala\~doa\PROI-NET\2000proj\0051 \application\xhi60618.doc
Boulde -d Use-Regulation (Title 9) Requirementc Review Summary
REQUIRED
9-3.2-1 (c~ SCHEDULE OF BULK NEQUIREMEMS - ESTABLISHED DISTRICT MXR-E
t Minimum lot area (sq ft) 6,000
2 Minimum lot area par dwelling unit ~sq.ftl 6,000
4 Minimum number ot offstreet parking spaces per rasidential unit 7 bedroom raquires ona space
Minimum fmnt yard landscaped setback for all principal 6uildings
6 and uses 25
Minimum side yard landscaped sethack irom a streeY for aIl
B buildings and uses 12.5 (25' for religious~
Minimum total side yard setback an the~sama lot for both side
~ 7 yards - 75
Minimum rear yard setback for all principal buildings {or ali
12 principal buildings 25
75 Maximum height for all principal uses ~ft.l 35
18 Maximum numbar of stories 3
Lot Area
Building, Parking & Driveway
Open Area
Open Space Requirement for Buildings over forty-five Faet but
9-3.2-~ (d~ Less Than fiHy-fiva FeaS . 20% of 42,215 =~8,443 sf
Setback Encroachmants No structure or building shall be
constructed or laminated in the required setback axcept tor ~7 ~ a
balcony, patio, or deck lass than thirty inehes in height ~4~ a
maximum of thirty inehas of roof overhang; or ~5~ the outer four .
feat of completely open, ~ncovered centilevered balconies that ~
have a minimvm o4 eight teet vertical clearance below, which -
may project into any raquired yard axcept an interior side yard of
931-74 iess than ten feat in wiEth.
Park'no reductien: The city managar may grant a parking
reduction of commercial developments, and mixed use
deveiopments not ta excead twenty percent of the required
parking. The off-street parkin9 ~equirements for projects which
would require five or more parking spacas under the raquirements
93.3-9(al of Section 93-2-7 may be modified pursuant to Mis section.
Small Car Stallr A proportion oi the total spaces in each parking
area may be designed and shall be signed for small car use
93.3-7 7 ~b) according to the foliowing table:
Park'na Soaces fer tha Disabled: A pmportion of spares in any
parking facility provided to sarv businass, industrial, or publie
uses shall be raservad as parking tor tha disabled according to tha
93.3-11 ~c~ following table:
A pmportion of spaces in any parking heility pmvided to sarve
attached tesidential units shall be reserved as parking for ffie
disablad according to the following:
Reau'red Park'na Spaces' At least ffiree bicycle parking spaces oi
ten parcent of tha required offstreet parking spaeas are required
9-3.3-7 7(c~ in all districts except MXR-E
- Min overall site landscaping 7 trea, antl 5 bushas for evary 1.500
93.3-2 ~h~ sf
9-3.3-3 Id Streatsca0e repuiremants detached sidawalk
05/0]/O1
Totsl spaces required 50d00-Allawable Small Car Stalls =
50%
Total Parking in 51 to 75 - Required Minimum Number of
Accessible Spacas = 3
Number of Units 7- Hequired Minimum Number ot Accassible
$paeas = 0
No parking spaces are required
13 treas and fi5 bushes required
.~a t at z
ACTUAL
42.215
N/A
N/A
25
1.98' existing ~d west side, 444F new @ east side
46'+/-
3.H4' axisting
36'3" wiM top of 9abie end wall @ 44'-4"
3
42,215 sf
22,227 sf = 53%
18,607 sf = 44%
78,607 st (44%1
Existing encroacFment on west side; 6cisting encroachment on
north sida; Hequested encroachment on south sida for ezterior
stair 4'-6" in haight.
72.6 % reduction requested; 73 spacas ~equired; 20 spaces
pmvidad onsita.
1
3 spacas providad
0
10 provided
6 existing & 70 new; 77 trees & 155 bushas provided
172
zoning0425.x1s
Bouldei ~ Use Regulation (Title 9) Requirements Review Summary
Planting strip 8' or more buried utilNas, iarge tre~
typa, min tree planting interval 30'40'
Planting strip 8' or more ovarhead utilities, small
hee type, min tree planting interval 15' - 20'
933.4 Parking IoS landscaping
Any religious assembly use created on or priorto Septem6er 2,
7993, shall meet a parking fequirament of one spaea per 300
square feet ot floor area, and a twenty-five foot setback from all
93.45 property lines for all principal buildings.
93.45fb1
f-street parking is provided at a ratio of one spaee per four
ats in fia assembly area, or if there are no fxed seats, then one
rking space for each 50 squara {~t ef floor area used for
:embly purposes. The floor aree for assembly purposes shall
the area of the largast room in the structure which couid ba
sd for assembly, plus the area of adjoining rooms that eould ba
:ommodate setting which coutd be used as part of the
>embly in the main assembly area. The ciN manager may
mi a parking reduction m permit additional floor area within the
:embly are of a religious assemb~y which is located within 300
ot tFe central area general improvement distriei it the applicant
n demonstrate that it has made arren9emen4 to use public
rking within close proximiry ot tha usa and that the
~difications proposed are primarily for the weekend and evening
tivitias when there is less demand for use of public parking
Useable open space is pmvided consistant with ffie percentage of
open space raquired in tha zoning district for single~family
93.4-5~d~ Require parking is no< locatad in fie front yard setback.
The lot meess the minimum loi requiramants of Section &3.2-1,
9-3.451e~ 'Schaduie o£ Bulk Requirements," B.fl.C. 1981.
Geneal Notes
South side, 3001f, 940 traes required
West side, 740Ifi, 7 small treas raquired
Not required if vndar 5 parking spaces
21,894 sf (13,960 sf axisting + 8,097 sf new rret -7 63 sf
= 73 spaces
290 fized seats ~26 @ Choir, 160 @ SanMUary + 104 @
Baiconyl = 73 spaces
6,332 sf
7 existing - 2 new
3zofz
4 existing - 3 new
6 spaces aff 75th St. & 5 spaces off alley
73 spaces requirad
73 spaces raquited
12,357 sf
Variance requestad for parking in 15th Street setback.
OK
e~rsiq parkinq areas to be removed ~19~ in front yard setbaek and ~2~ in side yard setback
curb cuts removed on Pine Sheet. 1 curb cut at 75th Street relocated and enlatqed Due to streat trea locetions with respect m parkinq IaVout ~net 2 aEditoinal parallel street parkinp sapcas and 1
OS/07/01 zoning0425.x1s
_ __
EXHIBtT ?~ __
F `in~ On-Site Parking
' ~ED 5~ John's Episcopal Churd~ vCRETE ~ ~ I - ' `''^~ :~ r a ~ :, ~ ~ _
:~TE~ ~ ~.5~53u. ~~~LOIN~'~Mf
Per Current City of Boulder __
,_., Standards: ~zS,BZ. mr ~ I s.s ~oP<
18 spaces maximum: COV. CDNCRETE
Indudes 6 spaces in Top ~----- 4 I ~ f i ~ ;!~ `F= ,
AN,TI front yard setback ~s _ ar
~-~p i I t STGR
~~ p ~~TI
;I m I '
- ~ ~4 - ;1 S5.!'
., . ~
A ,Vj~14.C • '~ CS~ `350.6~~ q ' - '~ ~Ot/
~
~ i . .
~~ ~'` ~~}~4+~- `:q<.: . ~ ~e~ .,w~ 51.0' ~ ~ ` J T/ti~iy$
~ 1 I ~ ~e'/ 2 ., . ~ k 35] ` Fp _
`~ ' 1
~ ~ . ~ . .SC oF. _ ' _ _ ~ . ~ SJ.
. ~\\~ ~ 7 8 ~ ~. i --- 1 ._... . _ s . . t~--~~ 2 ~ -
_'v ~I J ~ r~ N:1 ~ II , ,~/~. .- t f ~^C/^~ RV
535` ~~ ~ l. ~
c I e -- - - ~ hRA~fE
.~,,.9~- Npi ~S
~ ' ' `.3y . c3~ 534;.83' ~ 53qJ~.
- ' ~ ~ E ~V~ rN
. ,, i ~ i I ~t ~ . / ~~F~' i
~ I i~, j<8.>z. / ~ L.f.? i 1 O ASPH4LT PARKING "
`~-'~ ~ i I ~ ~ ! ° ~ I ~ ~=o~ ~ ~F ~~- ,.
3{7
1 i ~ -..~.~~ I ~ i ~ 53a€.56' SS8`
~ I ~ '~ ~ j:~~/Du I ~ / 4$' ~ ~.• ~ . • '~• l 116~ O
~I ~ i ' ~ " ~' : ~aAC a .aC~ ~ ~ ~ ~~I.S%.~~. ~ ~~ a6Ja a'n.. ~
~ ~ I ' ~ / ~ ~ / :•~~' ~ I ~ 53a.~ . ~~ I :\~ ~ rtl,Y
[ r'
t I ~ y ~ ,~
~--s,sz~ ~ ~ ^' ~ ~~ :~~ ~ ~ --
`n . ~~ I
.~5351~`~ ~ ~ ~ '\ ~ I.. ~l~ '
- _5~0 ~ , . - ~
-- -~e1 ~'~ ~. ~ J« il_ i
~ i i
----~ .. ~ _~ Z \~ ,_m~~~.~ , ~ ASPHAL~ r^ARKING .:~.:~ ~
W
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I \ `~ f i _0
I Z . ' y~-", "~S~ 3~6.31' 336.OB' /~ T. `~ , .,,_~1
~ -4., . ` \ S3a6<"9, i ~_(
/ ~~5.95' ~ / \ \ lV
5349 ~ •. I ~ ~ `Ja~. ,~~~. I
_ ~ S~ ' . , ' /~
i~~~
=T~ ~ti-a~K' S75°00' 0"W 300'(P 3 1. '(qM . - ,~oucnE-~'y,; ~~r-
; ~ _ ~~.. ~
,I , ~ 'LS~ ,
7 E ~ ~ " ~ -~
\ ~uHS ar I~~ ~uud wi t s' ~~zr. aRe a~u+ ~~ ~
~ w _ w w w w 4~, w w w w w. ~~. w ~ ~ w
~ . .. _ . - Riy .
"'v 3'k3.
~U~ 534
~ EXtST7NG ON-StTE PARKWG
i » >
~ ~ ]
/ ~ 5 ~
Attachment "A"
ST JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH - ADDITION / RENOVATION
Summary of Building Square Footages & Parking Requirements
7-May-01
Existina Floor Areas (UBC) Flaor Area
1904 Church building 6,788 s.f.
1965 Chapel addition 2,835 s.f.
1969 & 1987 Office/Parish Hall/Classrm 4.337 s.f.
Subtotal 13,960 s.f.
House 2,674 s.f.
Total Existing Floor Area 16,634 s.f.
Less Floor Areas demolished
Portion of basement @ 1987 addition (163 s.f.)
House (2,674 s.f.)
Subtotal 13,797 s.f.
Addition Floor Areas
Proposed Addition 5.097 s.f.
Subtotal 27,894 s.f.
Proposed Covered Parkine Structure 3.766 s.f
Total Building Area (incl. Parking) 25,660 s.f.
Current Off•Site Floor Area Utilized
YWCA Classroom space 2,530 s.f. ~
YWCA Restrooms/ Circulation 500 s.f.
Subtotal 3,030 s.f.
Parking provided on-site 20 spaces
Parking Required -21,894 s.f./300 s.f. per space 73 spaces
Parking Reduction Requested - 54/73= 72.6°/a
05a7sqlbum.xls
Attachment "B"
7-May-Ol
Memo to: Don Durso - Boulder City Planning Dept.
From: Ron Kubec - St. John's Episcopal Church
Subject: Areal Comparison of Existing and Proposed Space for the Sunday School and Youth
Programs.
It is difficult to present an "apples to apples" comparison as much of the current space is shared.
However, we have made a good faith effort io provide a true comparison. Note that we have
included all space, including corridors, assembly space and rest rooms in both compilations. The
data for the YWCA usage is presented as two areas. The first is the actuat interior room
measurements. The second number is a ZO% gross-up to represent corridor, rest room, etc.
space.
This comparison supports our position that, with Phase ], we are only providing for our current
youth programs on our own site and alleviating the need to double up activities in such spaces as
the Rector's office.
For your information, there ate 190 children in Sunday School supported by 20 adults with a'/z
time director. There 50 youths in our youth program supported by a full time direcior.
We currently use 6 spaces totaling 10 rooms at the YWCA. (Note: ] space -"Children's Alley" is
5 rooms and is used as a Nursery). We also use'/2 ofthe Rector's office, the conference room,
]/4 ofthe old building, and a basement area to support these activities. For Sunday School there
are anyv/here from 5 to 30 chitdren per class.
AREAL COMPARISON
Existing Sq.. Ft. Proposed Sq.. Ft:
YWCA 2530 -0-
20% Gross-Up 506 -0-
1/4th 1445 Pine 669 -0-
Youth Room (Basement) 612 510
'h Rector's office ] 40 -0-
Conference Room 442 -0-
Naw Classroom Area -0. 4179
New Support Office. -0- 336
TOTAL 4899 5025
Attachment "C"
7-May-O1
Memo to: Don Durso - Boulder City PJanning Dept.
From: Ron Kubec - St. John's Episcopa] Church
To: Mr. Don Durso - Boulder City Planning Department
Subject: Response to Site-Review comments by Housing and Human Services Dept.
Due to fisca- constraints St. John's can not buitd al1 that we originally desired. The apartments
were eliminated in Phase ] so that we could meet our primary objective of being able to conduct
Sunday School and other Chrisiian education activities on our own premises. ~'he possibility
exists of putting the apartments in Phase 2, if and when it is built. It is suggested that a
determination as to what is best for al] parties be made at that time.
The decision to eliminate the apanments was not an easy one as St. John's is very dedicated to
supporting those with AIDS and low income housing in general. We hope that you will
reconsider your position in light of all the contributions lhat have been and are being made by the
St. John's community to Boulder's low income housing issue.
For instance, we have committed $] 00,000 of our capital campaign funds to Project Start for
"bricks and mortar" for their work with the homeless. This commitment is a key reason for our
inability to build both phases at this time.
While we had to eliminate the AIDS apt. we have continued our support ofBCAP in other ways.
We are sure you would receive a positive response from them with regard to our continuing
efforts.
Historically, St. John's has always supported low-income housing. Evidence'ofthis is San 7uan
del Centro which was created by the church and has led the creation of the St. 7ohn's Foundation
which is dedicated to low income housing issues. We are attaching a brief history ofthe
Foundation for your perusal. While wa have no control over the actions ofthe Foundation as it is
a completely separate entity, we believe it's presence is indicative of the Church's long term
commitment to $oulder's housing issues.
ln summary, we believe that our past, present, and future efforts on behalf of ]ow income housing
far outweigh the removal of ]] 00 sq. ft. of apartment space.
Attachment "D"
7-May-Ol
ST. JOHN'S FOUNDATION
In 1971, St. John's Church built the San Juan del Centso low-income
housing project, the first such project in Boulder. The money tc
build came from the U. S. Department of Housirig and Urban
Development (HUD), in the form of a long-term mortg~ge loan. It
provided (and provides) homes to the poor of this community. It
was decided that the church had been landlord for long enough, that
the project's life of at least twenty years was assured by HUD
rules, and that additional capital was needed for m ajor repairs.
in December, 1984, the project was sold to a partnership which
specialized in syndicating ownership but retaining r esponsibility
for managing the property.
A foundation, recognized as a tax-exempt entity by the Internal
Revenue Service and acceptable to HUD as a means of channeling
sales proceeds, was organized by St. John's Church rep resentatives.
The controlling articles of incorporation and bylaw s mandate the
composition of the Board of Directors of the Foundation: Five
members from St. John's parish and two members from the public at
large, all elected by St. John's Church vestry. The incumbent
members are:
Rolland Hoverstock, President
Robert Elmore, Secretary and Treasurer
Charles Squier
Ruth Cprrell
Phoebe Norton
Jan Snooks
Gail Tate.
The focus of giving (of the earnings of the trust corpus) is to
addrese the housing needs of disadvantaged Soulder County
residents. The directors were pleased to approve grants to these
organizations in the year 2000:
Family Learriing Center
Emergency Family Assistance
The Boulder Shelter for the Homeless
Boulder County AIDS Project
San Juan People's Clinic
START: Homeless Day Resource Center
Boulder County Safe House -,
Aging Services Foundation.
Attachment "E"
ST. jOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Membership Growth and Sunday Attendance Data
7-May-O 1
St. John's Episcopal Church is proposin' to ezpand its administrative and fellowship space
in order to accommodate the growth that has occurred over the last ten years. The .
expansion also allows us to conduct Sunday school in our own facility instead of the
YWCA where it is currently held. The proposal also "builds out" the church's avai]able
space and therefore represents a very lon;-term plan. The original idea was a"100 yr.
Plan" in keeping with the 100th anniversary of the Sanctuary (1902).
While the growth over the last ten years has been significant, the future growth is projected
at 3 to 5%/yr for the next three years and then at 0 to 3% thereafter. The primary limitin~
factor is the recenY esfablishment of a new Episcopal church in Lafayette. 20% of our
current members live in the eastern azea. Another issue is the relatively lower growth
expected in the immediate Boulder area. We expect that most of the projected growth will
come from the north Boulder area.
Some recent growth information is provided below.
~""' '~ NUMBER OF PARISHIONERS
'' 1998 1027
1999 ]]62
2000 ]248
SUNDAY SERVICE ATTENDANCE
(Typica} Sunday).
SERVICE SUMMER FALL
1998 1999 2000 1998. 1999 2000
7:30 72 89 86 95 75 75
8:30 --- --- 34 --- 40 35
10:00 166 I51 225 249 216 220
TOTAL 238 240 351 344 340 326
Attachment "F"
7-May-Ol
ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Parking Counts from Friday, 10/20/00 through Thursday, 10/26/00
Memo to: Don Durso - Boulder City Planning Dept.
From: Ron Kubec - St. John's Episcopal Church
Our attempt at determining lot usage by automatically counting cars in and out failed. The data is
seriously flawed as it indicates very few cars in the lot on Sunday and a lot of cars there at
midnight on a week night. We therefore did a manual count for a one week period. This data is
pesented below.
The maximum number of cars observed on the site was 28. Twenty One (21) of the spaces are
committed (19 rented, 2 for YWCA). This supports our plans for 19 spaces with 9 being
reserved for church usage. Tl~is is also in-line with the fact that we have only 5 full time
employees requiring a permanent space.
PARICING DATA
(Number of cars parked on-site)
TIME FRI. SAT. SUN. MON. TUE. WF.D. THR.
~ ~ 10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26
8AM IO 7 28 12 13 10 8
lOAM 18 11 35 16 27 27 13
NOON 22 10 28 19 22 24 23
2PM 22 13 12 20 24 28 22
4PM 20 21 6 16 24 22 20
1 a ~
Attachment "G"
7-May-01
ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Parking Survey
Point of Origin for Sunday Attendees at 10 AM Service
Central Boulder
Uni Hill
Chatauqua
Whittier
Mapleton
South Boulder
Devil's Thumb
Table Mesa
Martin Acres
North Boulder
Mountains
East County
Cities
Lafayette
Longmont
Louisville
Superior
Westminster
Lyons
Broomfield
Erie
Subdivisions
Palo Park
Gunbarrel/ Niwot
Arapahoe Ridge
Wonderland Hill
Keywaden
Paragon Estates
Park East
Crestview
Pinebrook Hil~s
Others
Total
5/21/00 10 AM Service attendance - 176
61 parking survey responses representing 117 people
Transportation mode - 54 cars (2.04 people/car) 94%
6 walked 5.1 %
i bus 0.8%
6/11 /00 10 AM Service attendance - 192
75 parking survey responses representing 134 people
Transportation mode - 68 cars (1.87 people/car) 94.8%
5 walked
7 bus
No. of Cars
5/21/00 G/11/00
12 23
13 6
7 13
2 --
4 --
3 3
1 2
7 Z
~ --
2 1
-- 1
-- 3
-- ~
1 1
2 4
2 1
-- 4
1 1
2
~ --
~ --
--
2 4
65 74
Parkine
58°/a Street
21%Church lot
16% City lot
2 % Pvt, Lot
Parkina
54% Street
26% Church lot
16% City lot
3 % Pvt. Lot
ana~n_c.,i:
Attachment "H"
07 MAY O1
ST JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Typical Weekly Usage of Facilities
Monday -
12:15 - 1:15 Adult Children of Alcoholics, Parish Hall. About 6-8 people.
1:30 - 2:30 AA, Conference Room, Conference Room. About 6-8 people.
6:00 pm Evensong, Chapel. From 6-15 people.
Tuesday -
9:00 - 1 1 :00
9:00- 10:30
9:30
2:00
7:00 - 8:30
6:30 - 8:30
Wednesday -
10:00
10:30
1:00
5:00 - 6:00
Thursday -
6:00 - 8:00
7:00 - 9:00
7:30 - 10:00
Friday -
10:00
12 :00
12:30 - 3:00
Centering Prayer, Conference Room. About 8-10 people.
Counters for Sunday contributions, Parish Hall. 3 people.
Staff Meeting, Rebecca's Office. 6-7 people (very crowded).
Coda Meeting, Conference Room. 6-8 people.
Senior EYC (Youth Group), Scott's office (White House). 6-8 people.
Centering Prayer, Conference Room. About 8-10 people.
Communion Service, Chapel. About 15 people.
Bible Study, Conference Room. About 15 people.
Clergy Meeting, Rol's office. 4 people.
Choristers Rehearsal, Choir Room. About 25-30 kids.
Middle School EYC, Parish Hall and Kitchen. About 20 kids.
EFM (Education for Ministry), Conference Room. About 8 people.
ARS Nova Rehearsal, Church, Chapel and Choir Room.
Mom's Group, Conference Room, Babysitting in Atrium. About 10-12
people.
Communion Service, Chapel. About 3-10 people.
EFM, Canference Room. About 8 people.
Saturday -
Weddings, meetings as scheduled.
Sunday -
7:30 Communion Service, Chapel. About 75 + people.
8:30 Communion Service, Chapel. About 40 + people.
9:15 Choir Rehearsal, Choir Room. About 20 people.
10:00 Communion Service, Chapel. About 225 + people.
10:00 - 11:15 Nursery in Children's Alley. About 8-10 kids.
10:00 - 11 :15 Sunday School. Classes in atrium and YWCA. About 195 children.
1 7:15 - 12:00 Youth Confirmation Class, Rol's Office. 20-25 people.
11 :15 - 12:00 Adult Confirmation Class, Conference Room. About 15 people.
11 :15 - 12:00 Children's Communion C{ass, YWCA. About 10-20 children.
11 :1 S- 12:00 Coffee Hour, Parish Hall. From 25-100 people.
11 :30 - 12:00 Choir Rehearsal, Church. About 20 people.
D:\databdocs\FROJ-NET\20a0proj\0051 \applicaiion\MtachH,doc
Attachment "I"
7-May-01
ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Actual Weekday Usage of Parking Lot from 9/OS/00 - 9/19/00
Day of
Week- pATE GROUP CARS TIMS
Tues . 9/5 ARS NOVA 20 7-10 PM
wed. 9/6 Holy Eucharist & Bible Study 10 10 AM
START Meeting - 6~~ ] 2 Noon
~ Clergy Meeting 2 . 1 PM
. ~ . Choir Practice 12 4:30 PM
Thurs. 9/7 ~ ARSNOVA ~ 20 7-IOPM
Fri . 9/8 Mom's Grp. ~. 5 IO AM
~ Holy Eucharist 2 , 12 Nuon
Education for Ministry ~ 6 1 P1v1 •
S~~~l 9/9 HemlockSociety - 15 70AM
Capital Camp. Training ~ 30 8;30-1 ]:30 AM
Sun. 9/]0 SundayServices 300+ 7:30-]1:30
Mon . 9/11 . EVensong 6 6 PM
Altar Guild Meetin~ 20 7;30 PM
Tue . 9/12 Centering Prayer ~ 6- 9-I 1 AM .
. Centering Prayer 6 ' 6-8 PM
wed . 9/13 Holy Euc6azist & Bible Study 10 ] 0 AM
Clergy Mee[ing ~ ~ 5 1 PM
ChoirPractice 12 4:30PM
~ Special Eucharist 30+ 7 piy
mhurs . 9/14 Budget & Review Meeting 5 _ 4 PM
AFiSNOVA 20 7-IOPM
Fri.,i 9/15 Mom'sGrp. 5 ]0AM
Holy Eucharist 2 12 Noon
- Education for Ministry 6 ~ 12:30-3 PM
Wedding Reheazsal 6 5 PM
sat. 9/16 Wedding ~ 30+ 4 PM ~
Boulder County Aids Project 25 6-10 PM
Sun. 9/17 Services Offsite
Baptism ~ 5 ~ 12 Noon
Mon. 9/18 Holy Eucharistic 7 ~. 6 PM
Acolqte Training ~ 5 7-9 PM
. Inteority 12 7 PM
'1'ues. 9/19 CenteringPrayer 5 '9-11 AM ~
StaffMee[in~ ~ 9 9:30AM
Youth Ministries 4 ll AM
Vestry Meetin~ ]0 - 6-8 PM ~
~I Episcopal Youth Club 3 7-8:30 PM-
Attachment "J"
~-M~y-oi
i D"~': . ~l
~'~~"'~ 17o~vntown anri Univer~sity Hill
~f ~ae~~+d~r
2~inagement llivision
and Parking ~ervices
^ownlrn+al Po1;In3yenlE~it (:umrtliASioO
May 4, 2001
Mr. pan 17uisc~
Bcyuldcr planning De~:u[ment
Ciry of Bouldcr
P.O. Box 791
8ouider, Ct~ &0306
]~ear Ltay~:
• Univcr;~ity Hiff Cenar~l lropso~ement Disinet • Pnrking Servlces
A representaGive from St. John's Episcopal Charch ~sked th~t I conununicat~ thP cunent city
parking policiea effeccing parkin~ on Sundays. As you kn.~w, St..Tohn's is in fhe procea;: of an
expunsi<~n of their Pacilities.
Parking, both on streat and in our dow~.itt~Wn lots ttnd sti~tctures, is free on Suuday. Wliile it is
diFficult w project furure palicies, it is safe to auy that in al1 HkelihPOd ic wiJl rem~in ~n, This is
based on nduced demand since mowt businesses are closed Suncidys, partiaularly Sunciay
mrnnings within tl~e d~wntown are~. The Closest cicy structur0 is 1~'h arid Peazl, twe blucks From
$t. 7ohn';~ Site. lt ha~ bS6 parking spaces and very tow utiliz:~uon on Sunday moraings. Parking
is also availa6ie un street, bath at the m~tars und wiehin che rasidantia! ItiPp area sin~a the NT'P
regul2tions a~•e not in effect Sundays. P1ea5a let me know if yau have dn~ questions.
Sineerely,
OF BOULDLlt
Director ~„_,,/
Downto~vn and University Hill blanagement Departmant Paz~kin~; Scrviaes
1 S00 Pcwrl, Su i~a 31Y2 I'linnec (3U:j) A 13-730U
BuiJAer, CnWrnd08010? Nnx; (3(17)A~I1.7301
Vested Riahts Option Form and/or Waiver
Site Review
Type of Review
St. John's Episcopal Church
Property Owner's Name
1419 Pine St.. Boulder CO 80302
Address of Property
(Lots 7 - 12, Block 147)
St. John's Episcopal Church
ApplicanYs Name
Kevin F. Richey, Senior Warden
OPTION #1
I, St John's E~iscopal Church , intend to pursue the creation of a vested properry right as provided
for in Section 9-4 12, B.R.C. 1981. In orderto accomplish that, 1 am requesting that my application ba referred
to the Planning Board for a pubiic hearing pursuant to Section 9-4-3(b)(1), B.R.C. 1981. I understand that if my
development is approved by the Board, I shall ceuse a notice advising the general public of the Planning
Board's approval and the creation of a vested property right to be published in a newspaper of general
circulation no later than fourteen days following final approval and shell provide the Planning Director with the
newspaper's official notice of pubfication no later than ten days following the date of publication, in order to
perfect my vested right. Said right will be vested for three years from the date of final approval and will cover
the following elements of the approval:
[rype of use; number of units; building footprint; building square footage; etc.~
Per Site Review submittal package d ted 5/07/01. Phase I addition of office. meeting and religious
education spaces totalling 7.934 s.f. with 3.766 s.f. of covered parking. Phase II to consist of covered
I understand and acknowledge that certain delays in my projecYs approval time may result in order to
meet the hearing and notice requirements of state law for the creation of a vested property right.
Property Owner St. John's Episcopal Church
gy. ;:~! µ` ~ ~~~w~ ~ -~ - u I Witness:,!~~,~ ~~~~-'`~ .~~~ ~
~ Date Date
rtr****,r*r*,r,rx,r**rtnr**tr****twW w*wr*+t,r***s***x*****+*+rw **~+r***,t**,tt**,txr*,t+rtntttr:r**s***~rtr*+tw,rs*,tx*,t**
OPTION #2
I, , understand that I may pursue the creation of e vested
property right as provided for in Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981, and Section 24-68-103, C.R.S. 1973, and I choose
to voluntarily waive this right. I have been advised by the City to consuit an attorney prior to signing this waiver.
Further, I understand that this waiver does not abridge any common law vested rights which I may acquire nor
does it diminish any right which may exist under the City's land use regulations, except for Section 9-4-12,
B.R.C. 1981.
Property Owner
~~`~--~~°~ i~_ o~
By: `~--~~ ~ "°
Date -~--
Date
~
~
~
F-- o
Z°
N
/ ~
~
~nuai
ARCHITECTS
5t )ohn's Episcopa) Church
~~~~
1419 Pris street, eculder, co~oralo
PRO~CT I OOS1
~A7e auMra
*
~
~I^
W
\M
"/
~I^
W
~i
N
N
~
~
~
0
0
N
\
N
N
~
~
0
~
~
~
0
~
g
0
~
~
N
*
C_ ~_.~~ ~~~ ~ . ~~~~ ~ ~r~._^ ~.~~~~ ~~~_~.-^ ~..~ . ~ ~r?^~~~~~_~__~~-~
. . .., . : .; .
,,
~.. .:. ~ . . , , .
~' . . . , t;. . .. . .. . . . .. . `
. .. ..... . . . .
. .,
. . . . : ...~..
~ ~•,.. .: : .. . •. ,_.. ..:.' ~. . ~. ~~ , .. . . . . . ..
. ..: . . . . :..
. .~ ~:'• . ..,
... . . ,. ' . . . . . .. . _ . . , ~
. .; ~ . . . • : ~.,..•
1 ~ • ,. .., . ~ . . ~.. . . . .+. •
. , `r , M1 ~ , : . , . .:~ ~
,' . . . . . e . . . . • ', ~
1' . . . . , , . . ^~I-I ~y~ . .. . ~
. . . . . . . , •~~nVW`'~ L7+: , . . ~.. .. . . . ',
~,;,;. '~ . . .. . . ~d A °:~
;. ';...r...•.... .
, ... .:.:.
\. . .. , . . . . . ", . .I. R~~;•:~';,.:. - . ..
.. . :. ' ~. ` •..: : ` '
~, .. . . . • • • ; ' ~
. . . . . . I, . . . . . • Y . . . • . . ~ . . ~ ,
~.~~'. . .. ... .~~h:~~ .. x . ... .+t.~ ",,
....... . . _ ___
___ _
.:. _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ ____
,. . . ~ . . . • ~ . . ~ .. :~r~~~r~r~'.~Y~.~~a~~~~~~~r~~ ~ '-~ • . . . ~ 1
~S! +f.~.~~T. ~~TJ~ ~n ~ T.~.~ T ~~
. .. .. . . ... .. ..: .
.,
,. . . . . .. . . -.
. ... . .
.. ,.: .. . .. ..
\, ~ . .~~i . . . . .. . . ''':~. - ': . .. . . :1 ' . . , . . .i
,~ .
\ , 'i : f'1:,;'a ` . `•r
. . ~y _-.:_.;.„-:,. . ,: • . ~, . ~ . ~'i
:: '}•.~:.~ '<~~'.=::.::.:.>..,,~:,~.:..,
. .. ~I...• ~ . 4..J~~.'~ .. . .. .
. . . . .nY~ ~ n.T'YM.::n..'Yw.i . • ~
~; "..,.. ';~.. . .d;' '.a~rr `:1. ....- . .
. oo :,::: < =~' " ~
~, ~~,\~~ ~, ~:a`:.:
~ ~ ~. . . . :; •.~;1,x° ;S~ ;. . v ,
. ~~' a .r-1 , ~,~
r :., .
. ~.' .:. `h; ;~r,:.;,s•:a;y,:
. ... . . • • ~ ~ .
1
. . . . .. M •M .
. . . v . ."1 . . .. ~ M1 ,
. . ~'~e .. , . ~~/
~ .,:^s^'^c
.~'~ :;~
. , ~~.~
. ~Y.r~ •
~Y ~N
C...~~:.:.
. ., ,
,~'.~ ;\. ..t' ~p n:tYl•ny ~~
~ ' ,.. ... . . .: .
. :. ..: ~. • . .
, . . . ~t• . . ,;5 F :~'iY;,n,':2•r;'. ,.w.,; . `•~:• ., . .. y
'`'1:q;r:., .,is..,,~1~•~•
{ ;.':
. .4. .... . . . . ~
. l~• .. . '~!;'E~" , ,,.,. ~,:.
1: ~ ... .. . . . . ... . :. . `y " •' . . . ''i' ~„k:.:e;>..: :. . . . .. . . ''/
' Sq,S.':•• f.:. v.:~..~.;.4: ``~'•~ ~
.. .
;. .. ~..
, . I'. . ..~..~.M.. ''.~.~,~~.~~~ if+~~.n •~~ ..4. • l
. . .. .. : ~ ., :.
, ••~ . .y~ • +. p .yl. r~.~ ~. p1~ °~~.~'~\S. ~
:.
.' R , . . .. . . ~ ii.v::y.,. ~ c . . . .. . . . \.: .
• . t'.``k: ~•a. ~ ~ '/
'i:. w:~~';:'.', ~'a:~'~'r
~~~. `.~ ~~~. :~::~.: . ..~~:,~ ::~.~::. :::.:.;: ,r..
.. ... ........,. .. . .. ~:: ,. . .. t,,,.s ~~~p~; ,.,,. .. .. , ;
\ ~ ~,t.• . A 1. >>\..Y~'•; ~;•a•~ ~ •`. ~ /
. •%' . . . , . . . ... . !~•:':.A:y t"':S,?"nr~,m•. ~ ~+',.,'~ . . . • ~ /
Y. ~:~ . . . . . Y. ` .:.>.. ~ iA ~~~ . 1.. .'•/
} ',;.
.,,~. , ;. ~...: :
'i....''F
%
it~:l^• i ..
.,~. ~ , ~.
. '~ .
.1.,~ ;: ~~... :r 1, `
` •~ v .4'.l~) .~LV .i,+iN ~J~
'~~' . . . . .,;. .. .. . '~+e?:;'i' X.'' 's'.•~ .~.~ {.`.
C : . :;:;..1~~; • ...k;~;...
'i ''h:`k:';~:~ ,•M~~'., ,z,i 'i
• «.-i+~.^:+i •:.ti'.~~ •~Ira~t :+4- y :;t..r . . .a .~.. .%
~'~'' . '. ' ~ •~.r~.~:-~ ~~,.~':.: .7Yt~. .slYy:~ ~'~~:....:~'~ 1 y , .
`C j.' ..~__-.~~~~r.'".u'~~.~~:r~~~,~••~.~ ~-~~~..~ v"~:iu' ~'tia6`ile:° t...,~..~%•~'r~>'~~~.., '~'.ti.'~':~...\;'Y: " '•+;1~ _- ~ `.' i•~•'' ,' %
~!'7,in±. .r ,,,,.`b . . . pl.,'.!? '~:f~.. ' .'fi{.~y. .'SN~ags:'y1"~\'.I+'~ ` ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ` '• : , ~ _ ~ ~/
~4::_~%ii~:~,''S. ,'i::~.f: v~•, ;c::::..'~.', : .ra•~'~.;'i;;:,:~•.:;:+"C^."~ IZ~OOPM
:.~~.~; ~,ti::~:;°~ :,...:,;~,:=~~k ~a..,y~;.~.,~.~A~:,.~~;.,~.,;>.:<;,r. / ~,,~_
~,.oT ~ir~ o~ .;;..,!],,. :;~.; .:.'~ ::>,.t:Z\.;} '~. ~~ ~: ~~:::, J{ ,..; t-.,..
,~^ IA' ~y~~p/~~I ~, ~':f~fQ~.~ I`9^n :~<,^r~,~l..>S.n'Y?{.~'n~.1~r a~.1';F~.n.n.~ ~fi'SfWtYi:~ \ TT. ^RT'^~~^t. . A~'1.~*,,}~u.~'.'~~,\.J.y/;~~
I'WWW4~Y~ ~-I~N1-1nl~l ~ ~.• n . . ~ \ (~::i'rt ~.C` ~1~:;'^'y. '!~'...._~ ~...K~ 1 F n ~+~
I-I' I~ ~~/~ ~\~/~ ~'~ Y>~^ [•'V<~.3~~,'•:S~A:~~:~y~'~: t}~!", ~.~::1:~~~.~.~'T".l~a;~^J.F~si.~~:l1 ~;H.v~..`:."l~~u:~:ni.eywt '.I
~V /~~ 71~/L~~VI~VT . ~^~~ ':4~ ~Yn..~N'~ ~rS.W~yJA1~~h\~. 4Y5,~„Y.."'',f,Y~~...~~. wy~t{'lY~ysu•tY.µ•:r~.l ~.\1^?S~,Y.'~J~t~~,"~`~.~.~.i
~ Z:.~~ • ~.Ll•.. • ~. `~_fY.~i~~s. ~_ a.~ve•!\i u~ .I~~^.....n..i<"n .t • ._. uJR.I i~~~• If ..nn.y. ~ .V~.< M1• 1.'YI
PM
_ ~i~ ,,, ----.~
._ ii ~I~21 __..._ _
~'1 ~~'~~ 1 T
~~i~~~~~ii~~~~ ~~ ~ ~'. ~~
WI~MY ii;j~,'~~ u'a" `~ ~~ -. ~ ~ ~ ..
~
I I
~ I
I
~
---" ~
J ~
~~ ,~' ,,
v `.
~ °
V / \ 1 \
I I I I I I~I I I I~i '
A
i
~ SOLAR SHADOVV ANALYS~S
1"=30'
.~,.--
7,~i ~'
, ~/~/
yt' ~'~~
'~. Y~~ ...,~~~ ~~
_~/..r // . ~
_•[i ,_i:
~~
zi
_~
~
I1 ~~
~ vECe~+e~ si lacm - sp~
_ ,~ MARGW~~EPT. 21(9cm - 9prtJ
.L41E s~ (qae - 9q^1
~ DEGEMB~ 41(9an - 3pm)
~i:~~~:;i~.
HARTRONFT
FAU~
ARC~r
Ecrs
w~+s.,w+~,na,4,
801.MAIN $TREET
S U I T E 3 0 0
~aa,u~, co eoov
V01~ 303.673.9304
FA%: 103.673.931 9
O ~
•o•1
~ + w
~ ~ O
3 .
.~
>
Q=j ;~ OC
~Wy~
y ~
=~
O` ~
s
4 ~' ~
~ ~
~aerwprt ~qt
N~ EMMA ME TM61 IAIOIAqIIM
duPBmMi d~mcd w Mhnfea
appe~imo heren shd not 6e '
used Wdfio~t w~len Eaarnl of
Na~m~ - Fawi Mthi~ZC6~ P.c.
O '
8 O
~o~ ~
~• r}vi
0~3~
~ ~
~ ~y ,
~
~
~ ~I~I~~ II I I I~~~
This is a Patch T type separator sheet.
III I II IIIIII IIII I IIIIII I III III I III IIIII III ( III
Form Type = "B &oC Agenda"
~
~
~
r
N
L
~
m
a
~
~
Q
~
F-
~
N
~
~
N
.N
t
f-
=v
~;
~
Ca
Nv
Q~
U"
°~ o
m V
d
a
~
E
0
~
Portrait Feed
New Form Follows...
Printed on 9/26/2002 8:51:33 AM
Copyright ~KofeX Imege Protlucts 1994-1999
i
N 3~~
m
~ 0 ~ ~
\ N ~
~y ~ N d
a gv
q
~ ~~E
~
~ o~~
0
~ ~~~
= 3~a
J Za~
CIT•Y OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 19, 2001
(Agenda Item Prepazation Date: July 6, 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of Land Use Review #LUR2001-00007 for a Site Review
Amendment to change the plans for an approved Phase 2 two-story building at 1744 30th
Street, just east of the existing CompUSA store at 1740 30th Street. The proposed Phase 2
plans show a new three-story, 33,900 square foot, 45 foot tall retail and oFfice building.
Applicant/Owner: Della Cava / Tebo Development Co.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Peter Pollock, Director of Community Design, Planning and Development
Bob Cole, Director of Project Review Division
Elizabeth Hanson, Presenter
OVERVIEW:
The Planning Board is being asked to consider an amendment to a Site Review approved by
the Planning Department in 1998. The original Site Review included approved plans for a
retail store on 30th Street (now CompUSA) and a second two-story building to the east in
Phase 2. This Site Review amendment would change the Phase 2 plans from a two-story to a
three-story building. Planning Board action is required to consider the requested 45 foot
building height.
STATISTICS:
Proposal: A Site Review Amendment to change the plans for the approved two-story
Phase 2 building at 1744 30th Street, just east of the existing CompUSA
store at 1740 30th Street. The proposed Phase 2 plans show a new three-
story, 33,900 square foot, 45 foot tall retail and office building. Changes to
the approved site and landscape plan aze also proposed.
s:\plan\pb-items~cnemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 1
Requested variations to the land use regulations: a five foot side yard
setback from the north property line where 12 feet is required; variations
to the city's landscape standards.
Project Name: 1744 30th Street Retail/Office Building
Location: 1744 30th Street
Size of Tract: 45,310 square feet (1.04 acres)
Zoning: RB-E, Regional Business - Established
Comprehensive Plan: General Business
KEY ISSUES:
Is the proposed 45 foot height acceptable? Does the building present an attractive
streetscape and incorporate design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale? Is the
building design compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area?
2. Does the project provide significant amounts of plant materiai sized in excess of the
city's landscaping requirements? Does the plan show site design techniques which
enhance the quality of the proj ect?
BACKGROUND:
Site Context
The project site is located in the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC), across 30"' Street from
the Crossroads Mall site (see vicinity map in Attachment C and 3-D computer context simulation
in Attachment E). The site is bordered by the Crossroads East shopping center on the north, the
Sussex One office building to the northeast, the Sunrise Center shopping center on the south, and
the City of Boulder Public Safety Building on the east. An CompUSA computer retail store is
located on the west portion of the property.
1998 Site Review
In 1997 and 1998, the city reviewed Site Review plans for the redevelopment of the former
Olympic Bowl building on 30'h Street, just south of the Crossroads East shopping center. The
approved plans (see Attachment D) show a 26,100 square foot CompUSA retail store at the
location of bowling alley (along 30`h Street), and a Phase 2 two-story retail/office 20,000 square
foot building at the east edge of the property. A parking area, with east-west and north-south
pedestrian connections, was approved between the two buildings. These pedestrian connections
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 2
were a key part of the approved plan, as they helped to implement elements of the Crossroads
East Subarea Plan. Covered and.lit pedestrian kiosks were constructed in the parking area.
Another key part of the plan was the cross-access drive constructed by the applicant at the
southeast corner of the property. This drive allows vehicles and pedestrians to move between
30`h and 33th Streets, with using major streets like Arapahoe or Walnut.
Crossroads East Subarea Plan
This project is located within the Crossroads East / Sunrise Center Area. The Crossroads East/
Sunrise Center Area Plan, adopted by BURA, Planning Board and City Council in 1997, sets
forth the overall image and urban design desired for the area, as well as required pedestrian,
bicycle and vehicular connections and facilities. The Plan calls for the following improvements
in the vicinity of the CompUSA property:
Create an east-west transportation connection from 30'h to 33`d Streets, including sidewalks,
adjacent landscaping, street trees, special crossing treatments.
Create a north-south pedestrian spine from Arapahoe Avenue to Walnut Street, enhanced
with landscaping, shade trees, special paving, crosswalks, signage, lighting, and furnishings.
Upgrade or replace the former Olympic Bowl building, add a new building to the east, and
reconfigure and landscape parking in the middle.
In general, the Crossroads East / Sunrise Center Area Plan encourages:
• The addition of more useable open space (mini-parks and plazas) throughout the area,
capitalizing on views to the west;
• Creating more pedestrian-oriented buildings, by using pedestrian-scale volumes and
materials, and providing clear windows;
• Enhancing pedestrian paths and area with landscaping, lighting, furnishings, special paving;
• Maintaining community retail and office, adding entertainment, civic and residential (mixed)
uses.
Project Description
The applicant, Della Cava / Tebo Development Company, requests Site Review Amendment
approval to amend the Phase 2 plans for the proposed building at 1744 30`^ Street, just east of the
CompUSA building. The applicant's proposed plans are found in Attachment H. The proposed
changes from the 1998 approved plans:
Increase the building size from 20,000 to 33,900 square feet
Increase the building height from two stories to three stories and 45 feet in height
(45 feet requires Site Review approval, where 35 feet is the by-right height limit; the
proposed height exceeds the 40 feet in height which can be considered as conditional
height in the RB-E zoning district)
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Page 3
New architectural plans, including 2nd and 3`a level decks (no architectural pians for the
Phase 2 building were approved in the 1998 Site Review)
Changes to the approyedparking ]ayout (meets current parking requirements)
Changes to the approved landscape plan
ANALYSIS:
Staffs analysis of how this proposal meets the Site Review criteria is presented in two formats.
A checklist and notes relating to the applicable criteria are attached as Attachments B. A
discussion of the criteria which are most relevant to this project is found below.
1. Is the proposed 45 foot height acceptable? Does the building present an attractive
streetscape and incorporate design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale? Is
the building design compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area?
Building Heieht
The proposed Phase 2 building would be 42 feet above finished grade, and 45 feet as
measured based on the city code definition of height. The proposed building height
would be taller than the neighboring 26 feet tall CompUSA building and 16 feet tall
Crossroads East building. The nearby Sussex One building is considerably taller, at five
stories tall. Staff finds that the proposed building height is acceptable at the requested
location, although the building would be consistently taller than most of the existing
surrounding buildings. It is likely that buildings above 35 feet in height will be a part of
the redevelopment of this general area, including redevelopment o£the Crossroads Mall
site.
Building Desien
The Phase 2 building incorporates design elements more typical of a pedestrian scale than
a vehicular-oriented shopping area, The proposed elevations (see Attachment H) show
considerable amounts of glass at the first floor level, awnings, and a use of materials to
add visual interest. The applicanYs plans include a drawing showing similar design
features used in both the CompUSA building and the proposed Phase 2 building. Staff
finds the building design generally compatible with the area.
2. Does the project provide signi~cant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the
city's landscaping requirements? Does the plan show site design techniques which
enhance the quality of the project?
Landscape Plan
The Site Review Amendment plans show changes to approved site design, including
building siting, parking, pedestrian paths, and landscaping. The applicant requests
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 4
approval of variations to the city's current landscaping requirements, which have changed
since the 1998 Site Review. Site review criteria require that the landscaping provide for a
variety of colors and contrasts and provide a significant amount of plant material sized in
excess of the landscaping requirements. This requirement would not be met under the
proposed plan. The proposed variation would reduce the size of the interior lot landscape
beds from a minimum width of eight feet to less than five feet in most of the beds. This
reduction in the size of the beds would limit the total amount and size of plant materials
throughout the parking area and compromise the long-term size and health of the
proposed trees. Some of the proposed variations are requested to keep drive aisle
configurations consistent in both Phase 1 and 2. For example, enlarging the proposed
landscape bed along the south property line from three feet to the required eight feet
would result in loss of a row of parking.
The applicant has indicated that the quantity of landscape material has been increased to
compensate for these dimensional deficiencies. While the landscape plan has improved
during the three sets of pians reviewed and may minimally meet the site review criteria,
staff has encouraged the applicant to explore more creative landscaping solutions to
improve the quality of the two-phased project. Several suggestions for changes to the
landscape plan are listed below:
One example would be to use a series of landscape islands rather than the south
property line narrow bed. While this solution might remove one or two parking
spaces, the landscaping would be more likely to thrive and have a visual impact.
Another improvement may be to use a variety of plant materials throughout the
beds that will provide contrast and increase the perceived density of the
vegetation. The tree species proposed could be changed to species with canopies
that are fuller in appearance and wider than those currently proposed. However,
the small size of the beds will limit the types of plant materials available that can
thrive under these conditions.
The trees could be spaced at shorter intervals (15-20 feet) apart to provide a fuller
tree canopy.
The tree stock used for the initial planting could include larger caliper trees than
required. (For example, deciduous trees at 3-4 inch caliper and ornamental trees
at 2-3 inch caliper.)
Site Desien
There are aspects of the site design which further the goals of the Crossroads East /
Sunrise Center Area Plan and meet the Site Review criteria. East-west and north-south
pedestrian connections are proposed through the parking area and cross-access is
provided to the adjacent property to the east. These goals would be further attained by
site plan improvements which would better connect the building to its surrounding
context. The applicant has made efforts to avoid a"building surrounded by parking"
appearance through the use of paths, lighting, and a small pedestrian island. Staff has
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 5
suggested that expanding the siae and treatment of this island at the southwest corner of
the building might be a way to create a more useable pedestrian-oriented space. Such an
area might better connect the building to the pedestrian paths and offer a place for
employees or shoppers to sit or eat lunch.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Owners of adjacent businesses and properties at the Sussex One Building, the King Soopers at
Sunrise Center, and the Crossroads East shopping center contacted the case manager with
comments and questions about this Site Review Amendment application. Some concems were
expressed about the availability of ample parking spaces for the area. The owners of Crossroads
East had concerns about shading impacts (and resulting ice build-up) from the new building,
drainage impacts, and the building height:
Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property
owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10
days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff finds that the proposal minimally complies with the applicable Site Review
criteria. The applicant's request to add an additional floor and 13,900 square feet in building
area should be accompanied with a site plan that reflects a higher quality site design than the
previous approval. City staff has reviewed and commented on three versions of plans and
offered suggestions to the applicant to improve the landscaping and pedestrian circulation to
create more meaningful amenities on the site. A more creative landscape plan could result in
more attractive and useable landscape features. A larger outdoor gathering space or sitting area
adjacent to the building could provide relief to the pazking area and building mass. These plan
modifications could be made in a final plan submittal (final landscape plan and final parking
plan) following a Site Review approval, with conditions.
Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Land Use Review #LUR2001-00007
incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings
of fact, using the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment A.
Approved By:
~
ter ollock, re
~ Planning Department
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 6
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Recommended Conditions of Approval
Attachment B: Site Review Criteria Checklist
Attachment C: Vicinity Map
Attachment D: 1998 Site Review Plan
Attachment E: 3-D Computer Context Simulation
Attachment F: Development Review Results and Comments
Attachment G: ApplicanYs Written Statements
Attachment H: ApplicanYs Proposed Plans
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 7
ATTACHMENT A
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1744 30`h STREET - LUR2001-00007
The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans dated July 19, 2001 and on file in the City of
Boulder Planning Department.
2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document
Review Application for the following items, and subject to the approval, of the Planning
Department:
a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with
fhe intent of this approval (and compatibility with the surrounding area}.
b. A detailed final landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants
existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any
site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance
with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. The final landscape
plan shall reflect changes described on page five of tha staff inemorandum dated
July 6, 2001, including but not limited to landscape islands (rather than a narrow
bed) along the south property line, a wider variety of plant materials, trees spaced
at 15 to 20 foot intervals, and three to four inch caliper trees). Removal of trees
must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in
City right-o£ way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester.
c. A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units,
showing compliance with Section 9-3.3-17, B.R.C. 1981.
d. A sign program to insure compliance with the intent of this approval, the
requirements of Chapter 10-11, B.R.C. 1981, and the Boulder Valley Regional
Center Sign Guidelines.
e. A detailed parking plan showing the arrangement, locations, dimensions, and type
of parking stalls (including any areas of the site for bicycle parking or reserved For
deferred parking) to insure compliance with this approval and the City's Parking
Design Standards.
£ A digitized computer drawing of the development and the computer data used to
generate the drawing. The data must be compatible with the Boulder Urban
Renewal Authority's (BURA) existing Autocad information on the Boulder Valley
Regional.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Page 8
3. Prior to application for a building permit, the Applicant shall:
a. Submit a financial security to guuantee the initial operation of the RTD EcoPass
program for the benefit of all employees within the development. The guarantee
shall be in an amount not less than $12,600 to cover program operations for no
less than three years. The Applicant shall pay any amount above tl~e amount
provided in the guaran4ees required to ensure operation of the RTD EcoPass
program for the benefit of all employees within the development for three years.
b. Obtain re-approval of the expired Engineering Construction Drawings approved
on July 6, 1998 (plans expire one year after approva] date). Upsizing of the
previously approved six inch water line to an eight inch line will be required on
the revised plans.
4. Prior to requesting a final inspection on any building permit, the Applicant shall:
a. Construct and complete, subject to acceptance by the city, all public
improvements serving the site in conformance with the approved engineering
plans and with the City of Boulder Design Criteria and Construction Standards.
Install, at no cost to the city, the southwesternmost fire hydrant in conformance
with approved engineering plans and with the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 9
ATTACHMENT B
SITE REVIEW CRITERIA CHECKLIST
(I) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency
finds that:
(1) Boulder Vallev Comorehensive Plan:
(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Staff finds that the plans are consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Specifically; sfaff considered the BVCP policies
lisfed below.
Policy 2.04, Compact Land Use Pattern: The City and the County will, by
implementing the Comprehensive Plan, ensure that development will take place
in an orderly fashion which will take advantage of existing urban services and
shall avoid, insofar as possible, patterns of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered
development within the Boulder Valley. The City prefers redevelopment and
infill as compared to development in an expanded Service Area, in order to
prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community.
Policy 220, Role of the Central Area: The Central Area shall continue as the
regional service center of the Boulder Valley for office, retail, financial,
governmental, medical, cultural, and university activities. As such, it shall
remain the primary activity center and focai point of the Boulder Valley. The
Central Area includes distinct, interrelated activity centers such as the
Downtown Business District, the University, and the Crossroads-area regional
commercial district. A variety of land uses surrounds and connects these
activity centers.
"Policy 2.30 Design That Respects Existing Character: Residential,
commercial, and industrial development and redevelopment shall be
encouraged to follow sound and innovative land use planning. The goals are to
provide a livable built envi~onment and, through the judicious use of
landscaping, materials and human scale, to respect the character of the
surrounding area.
(B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the
density of existing residential development within a three hundred foot area surrounding the
site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then
the maximum densiry permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of:
(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 and Density
Standards,° B.R.C. 1981.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 10
Not Applica6le; no new residential units proposed; existing density is consistent with the
BVCP.
(2) Site Desiqn: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place
through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural
environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which
enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the
approving agency will consider the following factors:
(A) Open space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and
playgrounds:
(I) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional;
(ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit;
(iii) The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including, without
~imitation, healthy long-lived trees, terrain, significant plant communities,
threatened and endangered species and habitat, ground and surtace water,
wetlands, riparian areas, and drainage areas;
(iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from
surrounding development;
(v) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features
and natural areas; and
(vi) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
BecauSe the proposed building is 45 feet in height, 15% of the total land area
must be provided useable open space. The applicant has provided calculations
documenting that the open space meets exceeds this requirement. Open space
areas are provided in the form of landscaped areas and walkways. The open
space area at the southwest corner of the proposed building provides some
amenities (bench, bicycle parking), but could be enlarged to be more functional.
(B) Landscapinq
(I) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard
surface materials, and the selection of materiais provides for a variety of colors
and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where
appropriate;
(ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important
native species, plant communities of special concern, threatened and
endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment
into the project;
(iii) The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the
fandscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2, "Landscaping and Screening
Requirements" and 9-3.3-3, "Landscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and
(iv) The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-way are
landscaped to provide attractive streets capes, to enhance architectural
features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan.
See analysis section ofstaff inemorandum. Proposed landscape design could
be onhanced to increase amount of plant material and provide more viable
landscaped areas. The landscaping proposed contributes to the development of
an attractlve site plan and enhances fhe appearance of the property.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2,2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 11
C. Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that
serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer
or not:
(I) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the
project is provided;
(ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized;
(iii) Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and
between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are
provided, including, without limitation, streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and
trails;
(iv) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design
techniques, land use patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and
encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single-occupant
vehicle;
(v) W here practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single-occupant
vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand
management techniques;
(vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of
transportation, where applicable;
(vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized;
(viii The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without
limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety,
separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust; and
(ix) City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated.
East-west and north-south pedestrian connections are proposed through the
parking area and help to implement the Crossroads East / Sunrise Center Area
Plan. Cross-access is provided to the adjacent property to ihe east. Covered
bicycle parking is provided.
(D) Parkinq;
(I) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide
safery, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular
movements;
(ii) The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the
minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project;
(iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the
project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and
(iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the
requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C.
1981.
The existing off-street parking meets the minimum standards. The visual impact
of the parking area is reduced by existing pedestrian covered kiosks, eight foot
wide pedestrian paths, and landscaping.
(E) Buildinq Desiqn. Livabilitv. and Relationship to the Existinp or Proposed Surroundinq
Area:
(I) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible
with the existing character of the area or the character established by an
adopted plan for the area;
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 12
(ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings
and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans
for the immediate area;
(iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from
adjacent properties;
(iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatib~e by the
appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting;
(v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site
design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety
and convenience of pedestrians;
(vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public
facilities;
(vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety
of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family
units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units;
(viii For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings,
and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing,
landscaping, and building materials;
(ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation,
safety, and aesthetics;
(x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids,
minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
(xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to the
naturai contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope
instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potentia~ threat
to property caused by geological hazards.
See analysis section of staff memorandum for discussion of building height and
design compatibility.
(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:
(I) Placement of Open Soace and Streets: Open space areas are located
wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the
development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other
natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion.
(ii) Lot Lavout and Buiidinq Sitina: 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.
(iii) Buildina 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.
(iv) Landscaoinq: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent
buildings are minimized.
The applicant has provided a shadow analysis which indicates shading impacts
on the Crossroads East shopping center property. The proposed building siting
and additional building height requested will increase the shading impacts.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Pase 13
ATTACHMENT C
of Bould~r Vicinitv Ma
WiaLNUT ST
- f ~
~-° ~' ~ u
~,, r°ia„~,
w:. ~~~ ~`:~ ~ ,:r ;a=;~ ~"~ ~~. t .~ 4~a
~ ~tr~:~, °~~_
Sl1BJECT PROPERTY
~ r/~F~'~~~ I'dF~F SOTN STREET
~ ~ v
l~
~
~ ~
r~°~.
Lacation: 9740-1744 Walnut.Street ~ ~,p~
Review Type: Site Review p~ ~
Proj Name: 1744 Walnut St RetaiUOFfice Building ~~aP~~~k C'ilyotBoulderGlS.
rviYe.oa~r p..~nwwnn•,
Review Number. LUR2081-00007 N „""~""~"~~."".~""`
T m~w..IneY .~w ~~rw~:
Applicant: Tom Tolleson 1:3600 =~-y„~~ ~~•r~~.
q
ATTACHMENT D
_ ~~i~~ ~
~~3~ ~ -
t~~ = r
~~~}~
~.
~ ~~ ~
~~~, m
~
~ -n ~
~ ~
'~ d A
§ A
m
(J~. ' >
~ P
n~z ~
:~n ~ Di
~m ~
d r
~~q 3 y,
;n K I
~ g• _ `~ e°g + i i'/ 6
~ ~j€ ( < i~ ~ t iP b
~ ~it ; ; ~~ F G,
~~~ ~ ~ „~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~ `
~ F
-_
~
N
O
~ A• 6 L_. ~ m O
~ 'V
a j v ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~{' m m •
~'3 ~ ~tQ `~ i 1
~~ ~ ~i~ ~ m ~
~
~
nnu
8 ~
•
Sueet'f l~i
`~' CITY OF BOULDER
{3~~ PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG:
d - .
~
~
Nn
~Q
TN
ZA
(~ O
D
ZN
~m
~ AN
-1
`~': f
N`i
~
J
i
j
1
-`~
~ 7 - ~. p ` ~ . .. . ~ ~ ~ === 7b~ ^Y01~ ~~~M/
~
i
k ~ 3 / I ~~: : e~~~~ar~~~.~ ~.
=~'_
~ ) $ ~ ~ I700 30TH ST. BouWeq q0. + - .
g De!(¢ Cara/7'ebo Derelopmsnt CO.
m A~_Page ~ ~ ~
~ ~III 1 II I ~I~
q a6ad'~# wa~~ epueBq
IOOZ ~Inf - 33~5 SI~J
saarnaas ~uau~do~anaQ ~ Suiwe~d
iap~nog~{o ~~~ ,~q dz~
~
/~`
i/ ~
~
sp~o~ssoa~ ~o ~s~g ea~
Mai~ uoi~~In~S Q£
~ .LU~IAiH~dZ,Ld
ATTACHMENT F
_ CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: June 18, 2001
CASE MANAGER: Liz Hanson
PROJECT NAME: 1744 30TH STREET RETAILIOFFICE BUILDING
LOCATION: 1740 30TH ST
COORDlNATES: N03W03 ,
REVIEW TYPE: Site Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00007
APPLICANT: TOM TOLLESON
DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW: Amendment to an approved Site Review to change the plans for the
Phase 2 building. The proposal is for a new 33,900 square foot, three-story, 45 foot tall
retail and office building to the east of the existing CompUSA store. The proposal
inciudes a requesf for an open space reduction.
REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
A five foot setback from the north interior lot line where 12 feet is required.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Staff finds that the application minimally meets the site review criteria. As stated in the "purpose" portion of the site review
section, the purpose of site review is to "allow flexibility and encourage innovation in land use development....and to
improve the character and quality of new development." While the staff acknowledges that the applicant has revised the
landscape and parking plan since the last revised plan, further improvements are recommended to demonstrate greater
compliance with the site design criteria. For example, the current plan does not show that the "project provides significant
amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements..." Staff recommends that the applicant
carefully consider the comments below and show additional improvements in the final plan submittal.
This project has been tentatively scheduled for the July 19`h Planning Board meeting. In order for this schedule to be met,
the proposed final plan must completed and submitted to the case manager by June 25~h. Fifteen copies of final plans
(folded to 9"x 12") and any final written statements must be submitted to the case manager no later than Tuesday, July 3`a
for inclusion in the Planning Board packet.
The city review team for this application is available to meet with you to discuss the findings, assist in resolving outstanding
issues, and d'rscuss the next steps for the application.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
AccesslCirculation
1. The revised traffic impact study, sealed and signed by a Colorado Professional Engineer, is required as a condition of
this approval. This requirement from previous comments was not addressed in this submittal. Steve Durian, Public
Works,303-441-4493
2. As per previous comments, an RTD Eco-Pass program will be required as a condition of approval. This program is
required to provide passes for all employees for three consecutive years beginning at the time of occupancy of this
site. This program may be initiated either by the developer or by the issuance of a financial guarantee.
Landscaping
1. To improve the area's image and its comfort for pedestrians, the Crossroads EasU Sunrise Center Area Plan calls
for: enhancing pedestrian paths with special paving, fandscaping, arcfiitectural elements, lighting; lining all streets
with generous landscaping and street trees; providing plazas and linear parks among buildings; and locating
useable open space to take advantage of views to the west. The Plan specifically calis for landscaping and other
amenities along the east-west walkway through the CompUSA site. 7his walkway is part ot a major, new
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular corridor through the Area, which connects 33rd Street and the Crossroads Mall
property. In the last revision, the applicant widened the waikway and added street trees along the south wall of the
building, and added a bench to the adjacent parking island. These improvements should be augmented, at a
Address: 1740 30TH ST
pgendallem # ~' G Page a ~
minimum, with additional plantings along the south wall (perhaps in raised planters). Staff believes the Area Plan
calls for a richer treatment of this corridor, including the building entry plaza, than presently proposed. Fay
Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-4278. -
2.
IV. NEXT STEPS
BURA invites the applicant to present the project to the BURA Board prior to the Planning Board hearing. This is a
voluntary, rather ihan mandatory step, and would entail review and comment only. Please contact Brad Power, BURA
Director, 303-441-3219, if you would like to schedule a presentation.
ndare55: nao sorri sT Agenda Item q~ C Page #~~
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: May 3, 2001
CASE MANAGER: Liz Hanson
PROJECT NAME: 1744 30TH STREET RETAtLIOFFtCE BUILDING
LOCATION: 1740 30TH ST
COORDINATES: N03W03
REVIEW TYPE: Site Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00007
APPLICANT: TOM TOLLESON
DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW: Amendment to an approved Site Review to change the pians for the
Phase 2 building. The proposal is for a new 33,900 square foot, three-story, 45 foot tail
retail and office building to the east of the existing CompUSA store. The proposal
includes a request for an open space reduction.
REQUESTEp VARIAT IONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
A five foot setback from the north 7nterior lot line where 12 feet is required.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Staff finds that the appiicant has not demonstrated that the application meets the site review criteria relating to circulation
and landscaping, as discussed below. A revised site plan is required to demonstrate compliance with these criteria, city
parking and landscape requirements, and Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) Design Guidelines and Area Plan.
The applicant may choose to file a revised application to address the staff findings and comments below. Planning Board
is the decision makfng authority for this application. If the appiicant chooses to not revise the proposed plans, staff would
recommend deniai of the application. Staff will recommend approval of the project if the comments below are adequately
addressed.
The city review team for this application is available to meet with you to discuss the findings, assist in resolving outstanding
issues, and discuss the next steps for the application. Please contact your case manager to set an appointment.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
AccesslCirculation
SITE PLAN
1. The Crossroads East/ Sunrise Center Area Plan identifies the east-west connection from 30th to 33rtl streets as a key
spine through the area, and calls for adjacent landscaping/street trees. The walkway along the south faqade should
be at least 8 feet wide and should be landscaped with street trees and other plant materials, to strengthen this
connection and match the walkway character to the west. Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-4278.
2. The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies listed in the Traffic Impact Analysis are inadequate to
serve this site. RTD Eco-passes wili be required for all employees of this site for a minimum of three consecutive
years from the date of initial occupancy. Evidence of an Eco-pass contraat fulfilling this condition or an escrow of
$9,000 will be required before issuance of a building permit for work on this site. Additionally, the eight foot wide
east/west connection outlined above will be required to serve to facilitate bike and pedestrian access to this site.
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The toilowing comments are not expected to impact the conclusions of this report, however they need to be corrected in
order to have an accurate assessment of this site's generated traffic and how this traffic impacts the critical transportation
corridors surrounding the site.
AgendaltemS ~G Page~..1~._
1. Should any bf the comments contained in these comments impact the square footage of any use on this site,
the trip generation information will need to be updated accordingly. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 '
2. Under the section "Trip Distribution anii AssignmenY' it is stated that "24 percent of the generated traffic will
travel on Arapahoe Road to and from the east...", however Figure 3 shows this percentage directed to and
from the west. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
3. It is unclear from Figure 3 where the trips distributed from the east on Arapahoe access the site. From Figure
4 it appears that these trips all access the site from the 33rd Street access. Please clarify this distribution on
Figure 3. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
4. Under the section titled "Projected Tra~c Volumes" it is stated, "(t)he Year 2010 was chosen as a design year
since it was expected that buildout of the adjacent deve{opment would occur by tfiis time:' It appears that this
statement refers to Crossroads Mall though it is unclear. Although the future of Crossroads Mall is uncertain,
this study may have impacts on the scope of future traffic analyses for the Mall, therefore it is important to
briefly discuss any assumptions for traffic generated from the mall in this section of the report. Steve Durian,
Public Works, 303-441-4493
5. The cycle lengths for all signals analyzed in this study have AM and noon cycle tengths of 100 seconds and
PM cycle lengths of 120 seconds. Please make these corrections in the analyses. Steve Durian, Public
Works, 303-441-4493
6. The intersections analyzed in the TIA have the minimum green times shown to accommodate a pedestrian
crossing time of 4.0 ftlsec. In the case of Arapahoe/33rd Street, Access/30~" Street, and WaInuU30'h Street,
the green times used in the analysis were below these minimum green times. The following are acceptable
minimum green times for these intersections:
• Arapahoe/33rtl Street (for peds crossing Arapahoe): 23 seconds
• Access130'h Street (for peds crossing 30~h Street): 18 seconds
• Walnut/30~h Street (for peds crossing 20~h Street): 20 seconds
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
The following are corrections to the signal phasing used in the signalized analyses:
• Arapahoe/33`d Street: Eastbound left has a protected phase in addition to permitted phasing
• Arapahoe/30~h Street: Westbound left has protected phasing in addition to permitted phasing
• Accessl3oth Street: W estbound !eg combines IefUthrough/right movements in a single lane,
northbound and southbound left have protected and permitted left turn phasing
• WaInuU30th Street: Eastbound and westbound lefts have permitted phasing, northbound and
southbound left turns and westbound right turns have protected and permitted phasing
• Pear/30th Street: Left turn phases in all directions are protected and permitted
Please make these corrections or provide explanation as to why these phasings were selected. Steve Durian,
Public Works, 303-441-4493
Fire Protection
Applicant has addressed Fire Department concerns. No additional comments.
Landscaping
Landscape beds must be a minimum of 150 sq. ft. in size and have no dimension less than 8 ft. wide. None of the
landscape beds (perimeter and interior lot) in the plan for the new building and parking lot meet ihis requirement.
Please change the parking lot design to provide more substantial landscaping.
2. Plant materials must be planted in sufficient quantity to completely cover within five years of initial planting. The
plantings in both the existing and proposed landscape areas are not dense enough to meet this requirement.
Please show denser landscaping in the proposed beds and supplementary landscaping in the existing beds.
Bev Johnson,303-441-3272.
Address: 1740 30TH ST ~II~ 110111 ~ ~~ F'8G3 N.rz~~
Legal Documents
Please provide a copy of the DeliaCava/Tebo Development Company LLC documents. A connection needs to be made
giving Mr. Tebo authorization to appoint Mr. Della Cava since both appear to be managers. One manager can't appoint
himself or in this case, the other manager, without having the authority to do so. Missy Rickson, Office of the City
Attorney, 303-441-3020.
Miscellaneous
As a condition of approval, city approval of a uniform sign program for the Site Review (including CompUSA and the new
building) will be required. The program must comply with the City sign code and the sign guidelines in the BVRC Design
Guidelines. It appears that some of the signs shown on the architectura~ elevations (total height, awning signs) may not
comply. Please contact Robert Myers at 303-441-3138 for more information.
Parking
Please provide at least some of the bike parking under the shelter of the building, per the Crossroads EasUSunrise Center
Area Plan and BVRC Design Guideline 3.4.C. Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-4278
Site Design
The Crossroads EasU Sunrise Center Area Plan calls for enriching the Area's image and design quality by providing plazas
and linear parks among buildings, locating useable open space to take advantage of vlews to the west, enhancing
pedestrian paths with paving, landscaping, architectural elements, IigMing, and providing generous landscaping and street
trees lining all streets (p.13). In this revision, the useable open space ("park") proposed for the parking lot has been
replaced by seven parking spaces. Staff meant to suggest in the comments moving the open space adjacent to the
building, not eliminating it. Staff suggests creating a small plaza at the main (southeast) entrance to the building; it should
incorporate the bike parking island. This will entail removing three parking spaces just east of the bike parking island and
moving the adjacent handicap space north one space. This wiil result in a net gain of three parking spaces, plus the plaza.
The plaza should be designed to invite use anci interest and should include landscaping and furnishings, and perhaps
decorative paving, art work, and/or a shade structure. Please see BVRC Design Guidelines 3.6.8. and E.
To further strengthen the pedestrian feel of the site, provide benches and planters and consider special paving for the
walkway along the west and the south fa~ades of the building (Crossroads East/ Sunrise Center Area Plan p.28 and
Design Guidelines 3.3.C. and D. and 3.8.A.) Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-4278
III. INFQRMATIONAL COMMENTS
Neighborhood Comments
No additional neighborhood comments have been received. A copy of the revised plans was sent to the owners of the
Crossroads East shopping center.
IV. NEXT STEPS
BURA invites the applicant to present the project to the BURA Board prior to the Planning Board hearing. This is a
vo~untary, rather than mandatory step, and would entail review and comment only. Please contact Brad Power, BURA
Director, 303-441-3219, if you would like to schedule a presentation.
This project has been tentatively scheduled for the July 19'h Planning Board meeting. In order for this schedule to be met,
revised plans would need to be filed by the June 4'h deadline and final plans completed by June 25'h. Please notify staff if
the applicant does not plan to file revisions by June 4~h, so that the application can be rescheduled for a Planning Board
meeting in September or October (there will be no Planning Board meetings in August).
Address: 1740 30TH ST Agenda ~em # L I'aye #.~(-
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: Ma~ch 2, 2001
CASE MANAGER: Liz Hanson
PROJECT NAME: 1744 30TH STREET RETAIUOFFICE BUILDING
LOCATION: 1740 30TH ST
COORDINATES: N03W03
REVIEW TYPE: Site Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00007
APPLICANT: TOM TOLLESON
DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW: Amendment to an approved Site Review to change the plans for the
Phase 2 building. The proposal is for a new 33,900 square foot, three-story, 45 foot tall
retail and office building to the east of the existing CompUSA store. The proposal
includes a request for an open space reduction.
REQUESTED VARIAT IONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
A five foot setback from the north interior lot line where 12 feet is required.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the application meets the site review criteria relating to building
design, circulation, and landscaping, as discussed below. More information is requested to demonstrate that the proposed
larger second building is compatible with surrounding buildings and that the site plan would provide ample parking and
landscaped areas to serve both the existing and proposed building.
The applicant may choose to file a revised application to address the staff findings and Comments below. Planning Board
is the decision making authority for this application.
The city review team for this application is available to meet with you to discuss the findings, assist in resolving outstanding
issues, and discuss the next steps for the application. Please contact your case manager to set an appointment.
II. CVTY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circutation
1. The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) for the initial site review inciuded significantly less floor space and different uses.
A revised TIA is required for this review. The following will require updating as part of this study:
• The existing traffic will not require re-counting, however the analysis time periods need to be updated, and therefore
the existing traffic volumes need to be increased according to the traffic expansion rates used in the initial TIA.
• The Trip Generation by the site wiil need to be updated to reflect the new proposed uses.
• The intersection analyses will need to be revisited with the new traffic volumes.
• Update Traffic Demand Management strategies as needed including new Bound bus service along 30~h Street and
participation in the deveioper initiated employee RTD Eco-Pass program.
It is recommended that the traffic consultant discuss these and other traffic issues with Steve Durian at 303-441-4493
before submittai of the revised TIA.
2. Please show the Iocation of the connecting east-west pedestrian path east of the property, both on the site plan and
the context pian.
3. The north-south pedestrian connection through the parking lot is a major feature in the Crossroads EasU Sunrise
Center Area Plan. Please consider raising the level of the crosswalks, as described in BVRC Design Guideline 3.3.E.,
in order to increase safety and visibility and encourage usage of this pedestrian spine. Fay Ignatowski, 303-441-4278.
Agende Item R_.SS~.Page q ~
Building Design
Staff has concerns about the appearance of the wall elevations at the areas of the stair towers and elevators. In contrast
to the remainder of the building, these wall areas appear rather stark. Please address.
Please submit drawings which show the elevations of the proposed building and the CompUSA and other adjacent
buildings to demonstrate compatibility of the proposed building height. Please also address compatibility of building design
and materials. In particular, the applicanPs written statement and plans must address the height modification application
requirements of Section 9-4-11(g).
1. Please verify the height of the ceiling in the basement level. Melissa Rickson - City Attorney's Office
Fire Protection
1. Proposed project will require addition of at least one additional fire hydrant on-site, to meet city standard of 350-foot
spacing, and maximum of 175 foot distance to all parts of building.
2. Building to be fully protected by automatic fire sprinklers, and monitored by approved central receiving station. Adrian
Hise, 303-441-3350.
Land Uses
1. If the parking requirement for CompUSA is a number established by the approved site review, how is a lease
negotiation going to attempt to lower that requirement?
2. Please more fully address the height modification criteria to justify the height to 45 feet. Melissa Rickson - City
Attorney's Office
Do the overhead doors on the east elevation indicate a potential auto-related use (e.g. vehicle installation) for the site?
Please describe, as such a use may require a use review.
Dpes the applicant intend to lease the ground floor of the new building to a retail store(s) and the upper two levels as office
space7 Is there a possibility that the ground floor will also be leased for office space?
Since the previously approved site review had a more generous parking ratio, please address how the applicant believes
the parking needs of this amended site review would be met.
Landscaping
The landscaping standards as outlined in Sections 93.3-2, 9-3.3-3, and 9-3.3-4 must be met for the entire
property since the redevelopment exceeds 25% of the value of the existing structure. Many of the landscape
isiands in particular do not appear to meet the minimum size dimension of 8 ft. In order for staff to more
accurately review the proposed landscaping, please provide a preliminary landscape plan of the entire property
which includes the following:
Plan drawing at a scale of 1"= 10; 1" = 20; or 1"= 30; to (nclude:
Standard title block including scale, date and north arrow
Zoning and use of adjacent properties
Existing and proposed locations of all:
- 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 Iocation of overhead lines.
Existing location, size, and type of all trees 1 1/2" caliper or greater
Planting specilications
Layout and location of all landscaped areas inciuding:
- planting strips along all streets
- parking lot screening
- interior parking lot landscaping
- perimeter site landscaping or screening
Address: 1740 30TH ST
Agendallem ~~__~-G,e „al~-
- all other landscaped a~eas
Botanical and common names and sizes of all plant material proposed preliminarily.
Locations of all proposed plant material, shown at the size they wi~l 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 al~ 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.
Summary charf with calculations to include:
total lot size ( in square feet).
total parking lot size, including ali 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 totai provided.
total number of street trees required and the total provided.
total quantity of plant material required and the total provided.
Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272.
Per BVRC Design Guideline 3.7.A, and Boulder Revised Code 9-4-11(i)(2)(B)(iii), the landscaping should exceed City
landscaping standards. Fay Ignatowski, 303-441-4278.
Legai Documents
The submitted title work is outdated. Please submit a current title commitment or attomey's memorandum, current to
within 30 days of this application. Also, please provide authorization of the person signing all documents for this project.
Melissa Rickson - City Attorney's Office
Parking
The Crossroads EasUSunrise Center Area Plan and BVRC Design Guideline 3.4.A. call for 2 bicycle parking spaces for
every 10 car spaces. Please attempt to locate at least some ot the bike parking in a sheltered location (Guideline 3.4.C.)
The City of Boulder Revised Code, 1981 requires that a number of bicycfe parking spaces be provided equai to or
exceeding 10% of the total required automobile parking spaces. This site has a required parking ratio of 1:400 for this
27,400 square foot building. Therefore, the required bicycle parking is seven spaces. The landscape plan, sheet L-1,
shows only three spaces for bicycle parking.
Plan Documents
The application does not meet the requirements for a height modification of Section 9-4-11(g), including an explanation of
how the height was calculated according to the city code definition of height, the heights of existing and proposed buildings
within 100 feet, and documentation of amount of transparent materials (glass) on the ground level. If a model or a
perspective drawing is available, these documents would be helpful.
Please add the correct scale to the site plan.
Site Design
While the landscaping and furnishings proposed for the southeast corner of the site are a generaily supportable visual
solution to this Ieft-over piece of land, it is unlikely to be truly useable, given that the corner is isolated and surrounded by
parking lots. Additional useable outdoor space should be provided and should be associated with the building form, per
BVRC Design Guideline 3.1.F. The areas at the main entrance and along the west facade would be logical places for
create pedestrian space. Please refer to Parts 6 and 8 of Section 3 in the Guidelines for more information on useable
open space and pedestrian furnishings.
Please demonstrate the extent to which the grade of the east and south edges of the property will meet the grade of the
abutting properties, per BVRC Design Guideline 3.1.M. Fay Ignatowski, 303-441-4278.
On February 26~h, staff received the applicanYs open space calculations indicating that the required open space would be
met (19.6°/a). Including the upper level decks as required open space would required a variation from the land use
regulations. Please provide information about how these decks would be accessible and useable by the public:
Address: 1740 30TH ST '
Agenda Item Y c Paga ri~~_
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Access/Circulation
All drive accesses to be designed to accommodate fire equipment, per SU-30 template. Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350.
Building and Housing Codes
No requirements Steve Brown
Neighborhood Comments
Planning staff has received inquiries from the owners or representatives from several nearby properties or businesses
including King Soopers, Crossroads East, and Sussex One. Comments will be discussed with the applicant as they are
received.
Utilities
The applicant is advised that at the time of building permit application the following requirements will apply:
1. 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.
2. Water and sanitary sewer Plant Investment Fees and service line sizing will be re-evaluated.
3. If the existing water and/or sewer service is 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 the corporation stop, per city standards. The sewer service must be excavated and capped
at the property line per city standards.
4. The applicant will be required to grant to the city any easements required to meet the needs of this
development. Grant of Easement Legal Instruments must be submitted to ihe City for review, approval, and
recordation, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
5. Approved fire line plans must accompany the fire sprinkler service line connection permit application.
Address: 1740 30TH ST ~ AQ811d8I~0111 N~ G Page H'~
ATTACHMENT G
Written Response to City of Boulder
Site Review Comments
Retail Office Building
1744 30th Street
~
II City Requ3rements
Access / Circulation
1. The walkway along the South Facade of the building has been
increased to 8' wide and street trees in grates have been added.
2. Eco-passes for all empioyees of this site will be provided for
three consecutive years from the date of initial occupancy.
A revised Traffic Impact Analysis will be provided with this submittal.
Fire Protection
No Comments
Landscaping
The Landscape plan has been revised to show the addition of street
trees along the enlarged walkway at the South facade of the building.
The Landscaping has been densified and trees ha~e been added to the
upper level deck area. The cobble rock mulch has been replaced with
a living ground cover in bark mulch.
Legal Documents
A copy of the DellaCava/Tebo Development Company LI,C document
is being provided with this submittal
pgenda Item # ~ C Page # ~~
Miscellaneous -
A sign program complying with City sign code and the sign
guidelines in the BVRC Design Guidelines will be provided. All
references to signs have been removed from the Elevations.
Parki.ng
Three of the seven total bike parking spaces haee been moved to the
covered area at the Northwest Oflice Entry.
Site Design
The plaza area at the Southwest corner of the builcling has been
enhanced by moving three bicycle parking spaces to the Northwest
corner of the building. This increase in available area has been
utilized by the addition of a landscape planting bed and a sandstone
bench.
Please do not hesitate to call with any questions regax'ding this
submittal.
Sincerely,
Tom Tolleson, Architect
Agenda ltem H ~ ~ Page # '~ ~
np+r • r ui u~: oaa
,.
Site Review Criteria
Retail Office Suilding
1744 30th Street
I. Boulder Valley Camprehensive Plan
(B) There is no residential land use within 300' of the site.
II. Site Design
(A.) Open Space
1. Usable Open space on the site is arranged as a functional
system of pedestrian walks, complete with portals, which connects
the adjacent properties along both a North / South and East / West
axis. The rernaining open space serves as landscape buffers to
screen parking areas around the peiimeter and provides interior
landscaping to soften the impact of the main parking field. The open
space along 30th street provides a shaded pedestrian arcade with
benches, sculpture and landscaping to provide functional waiting or
resting facilities for pedestrians.
2. There are no residential units proposed for the project
therefore no pdvate open space is provided.
3. The current site is an urban unpaved parlflng lot
completely devofd of any natural features or mature vegetation.
4. The provided open space is dispersed around the site to
provide a relief to the density within the project and provides relief to
density from surrounding development with the peruneter
landscaping_
5. There are no sensittve environmental features or natural
areas around the site.
6. The pedestrian walkways are linked to the city wide
sidewalk system along 30th street.
I~get~da Uem ~ ~ ~ Page N ~
npr i~ ul ua:5wa
(H) L~andscaping
1. The landscaping plan utilizes 11 different trees and 13
different shrubs to provide a variety of colors and contrast. The hazd
surface areas utilize both scored and colored concrete and natural
broom finish concrete to provide a variety of finishes. '1liere is no
local native vegetation to presetve.
2. There is no unportant native plan# species or threatened or
endangered plant species on the site that need to be protected.
3. Landscape and site irrigation plans have been provided
with this submittal. 4043 square feet of landscaping has been
provided in the new section of the plan. Section 9-3-3-2 requires a
minimum of 1~" caliper tree + 5 five gallon shrubs for every 1500
square feet of landscaping. This would be a requirement of 3 trees
and 15 shrubs. 25 2" caliper trees and 102 five gallon shrubs have
been provided on the plan. Section 9-3-3-3 requires one street tree
for every 15-20 feet of street frontage. This would be a requirement of
five street trees. Seven trees ha~e been provided.
4. The usable open space along the public right of way at
30th street is landscape to provide an attractive Streetscape with
street trees, shaded pedestrian arcade, benches and sculpture.
(C) Circulation
1. High automobile speeds are discouraged by offsets
('chicanes') in the primary circulation drive.
2. Potential conflicts between between pedestrians and
vehicles are mintmj~ed by a system of cleazly identifiable colored and
scored pedestrian crosswalks and protect3ve bollards.
3. Safe and convenient connections which are accessible to
the public within the project have been provided in the form of
pedestrian walks, complete with portals, which connects the adjacent
properties along both a North / South and East / Wesfi axis. The
pgenda Item #~Page # ~ `~-
npr ii ui Uy:54a
driveway system also connects vehicular traffic to the adjacent
properties along both a North/South and East/West aads.
4. The pedestrian walkway system promotes alternatives to
single occupant vehicles by providing an inviting system of partially
protected walkways which are easy to access and use.
5. The primaxy users of the project will be customers for the
retail uses. It is inherently difficult to attract customers while
imposing travel demand management techniques.
6. One condition of the approvai of the original site review for
CompUSA was the improvement of the existing RTD bus stop just
South of the Main entrance to the project off' of 30th Street by the
Sunrise Center. These unprovements included a new pad for the
bench, a new bench and sign. This bus stop is directly linked to the
pedestrian walkway system on the site and promotes the other mode
of transportation i.e. RTD.
7. The amount of land devoted to the street system is the
absolute minimum to access the parking and make the connections
to the adjacent properties.
8. The connecting driveway system is designed to
accoinmodate vehicular and bicycle traffic. Bicycle racks are
provided at both CompUSA and the Retail / Office building.
Pedestrian trafFic is designed to be accommodated by the pedestrian
walks, complete with portals, which connect the adjacent properties
along both a North/South and East/West axis. There are no living
areas which need to be separated and protected from noise and
exhaust.
9. All circulation installations are to be constructed within
strict accordance of City Standards and accommodate the SU-30
template for emergency vehicles.
I~qenda Item R~Page n. 3b
Apr 1'1 O1 09:S4a
D. Parking
1. The project separates pedestrian and vehicular movements
with a system of clearly identifiable colored and scored pedestrian
crosswalks and protective bollards.
2. The Parking areas are designed with the absolute
minimum number of spaces the developer needs in order to susta.in a
lease with the prin~ary tenant (CompUSA) and to lease the new
structure.
3. Parking areas are surround with perimeter landscaping to
reduce the visual impact on the project and the adjacent properties.
The lighting plan is in accordance with an approved photogrametric
plan to assure that the impact of the lighting is minirnized.
4. City of Boulder parking landscaping requires for one tree
for every 20 square feet of landscaping to provide shade for the
parking areas. This would be a requirement of 20 trees. 25 trees
have been provided on the landscape plan.
E. Buildiag Design
1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and
config~ration has been reviewed by the planning staff and City
Architect (Charlie Zucker) during three separate meetings. In their
opinion at these meetings they felt that the building height, mass,
scale, orientation and configuration were compatible with the existing
character of the area.
2. The height of the building is approximately 20% higher
than the Cross Roads East Center to the North. 20°!a is in general
proportion to the height of existing buildings_
3. The orientation of the building minimizes shadows on the
property to the North by placing the long axis of the building North &
South and the short axis East & West. Immediately to the East of the
building is the parking lot for the Public Safety Building. This is The
~
Agenda Item ri Paye # °'~ /
Hpr 1'7 O1 09:54a
only area that the proposed building would block views of the
Flatirons and mountains to the West.
4. The proposed building will utilize the exact same
materials, colors, landscaping and lighting as the existing CompUSA
building Lo znake the building compatibie with the existing CompUSA
building.
5. The existing CompUSA building provides a Streetscape
approved by the City of Boulder Planning Department in 1998. This
Streetscape utilizes a pedestrian azcade, benches walkways,
landscaping and sculpture to provide for the safety and convenience
of pedestrians.
6. The connecting pedestrian walkway system with
associated portals, benches, arcades, landscaping and sculpture
provides a public amenity and facility.
7. This is not a residential project so there is no need to
provide a variety of housing types.
8. This is not a residential project so there is no need to
reduce noise transmission between units.
9. An approved iighting plan with an associated
photogrammetric plan has been provided (See sheets E-1 & PE-1).
10. There is no natural system or environment on the site to
incorporate into the design.
11. The site is basically flat ( a 1 1/ 2% slope West to East)
therefore no cut and fill is necessary and very little grading is needed
for the project. No obvious geological hazard exists on the site.
Agenda llem N~ C Page #~~~
~~r~ a~ us u~:J'ra
F. Solar 5iting and Construction
1. The open space situated to the North of the proposed
building works to some degree to minimize shading on the adjacent
lot to the North. However, due to the location of the existing cross
properly vehicular connection on the South side of the property it is
impractical to increase open space on the North side of the buffding to
reduce shading further.
2. The building is sited close to the North property line to
increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading.
3. The building is a non-residential structure with a flat roof
capable of supporting solar collectors provided at least one half of the
anticipated hot water needs of the builcling. The roof cunently has
urumpeded solar access.
4. The landscaping along the North property line, once
mature, will cause only minimal shading of the parking area of the
adjacent property to the North.
G. Poles above the Permitted Height.
Proposed light poles are 25' high, 10' below the pernutted height.
Sincerely,
Tom Tolleson, Architect
Agenda Item ~~ ~-' Paga # 33
Written Response to City of Boulder
Site Review Comments
Retail Office Building
1744 30th Street
II City Requirements
Access / Circulatioa
1. An update to the existing Traffic Impact Assessment has been
provided with this resubmittal.
2. The site plans have been updated, showing the existing
sidewalk and handicap ramp at the connection on the East side of the
property.
3. The north-south pedestrian connection through the main
parking area along with the associated pedestrian portals is existing
and constructed as per City of Boulder requirements in 1998. To
rebuild this installation in order to raise it a few inches does not seem
reasonable.
Building Design
The stair tower and elevator elevations have been revised, please see
drawings.
Please see Elevation Compatibility Drawings included showing
compatibility of proposed height. The materials and colors of the new
building are intended to match the existing CompUSA building
exactly to create a"Center" feel foz the project.
Agenda Item #~ Page # y21.._
Itemized response to Section 9-4-11 (g)
(1) The lowest e~sting elevation 25' from the proposed building is
5263'-0" (See Grading and Drainage Plan). 45' above that elevation
is 5308'-0" (See Building Elevations). 5308'-0" is the proposed
height of the parapet around the buffding roof. Please note that most
of the building is 42' above the finished grade.
(2j RBE Zoning, (not appiicablej.
1/ 8" = 1'-0" has been submitted.
However a model of the project at
(3) RBE Zoning, (not applicable).
(4) See Attached solar shadow calculation sheets.
(5) The only building within 100 fleet of the proposed building is the
Crossroads East Building to the North. The building is
approximately 34 feet high from existing grade.
(6) See attached Elevation Compatibiliry Drawings and Building
Elevations and Site Plans to see how the project accommodates
pedestrians. 'These drawings show continuous pedestrian access
across the site both from North to South and East to West. The
North / South walkway includes and exiting "Covered Pedestrian
Portal" to help define the pedestrian path. The pedestrian walkways
along the South and West Elevations are provided with building
facades that are 75% transparent at ground level. These walkways
are covered by metal canopies and awnings at the transparent
locations. Graphics and Signage are designed to be located on or
below these canopies.
(7) See sheet A-2 Overall Site Plan for open space locations. The plan
provides for an open space percentage of 18.75% (3.75% above the
required minimurri of (15%). The open space seives the public
interest by providing continuous unobstructed pedestrian access
across the property in both North/South and East/West directions.
The perimeter open space is landscaped and provides a visual buffer
of the parking areas from the surrounding properties.
Agentla Item # ~~ Page k ,~S
Basement ceilings shall be approximately 9'.
Fire Protection
1. An additional fire hydrant has been added to the Northwest corner
of the building, see site plans.
2. The building shall be fully
approved central receiving station.
sprinklered and monitored by an
Land Uses
1. The original parking requirement for the CompUSA project was
set by the lease with CompUSA not the approved Site Review. The
City of Boulder planning departnient was actually opposed to the
amount of parking required by the CompUSA throughout the Site
Review Process. The final amount was a compromise between the
City and the Developers and CompUSA. Therefore a lease
renegotiation with CompUSA could lower the requirement and bring
the parking ratio closer to that which the City originally desired.
2. A 45' high building is simply what is necessary to accommodate
a three story building with leasable ceiling heights, structure,
mechanical spaces and a pazapeted flat roof system. 1'hree stories are
necessary to accommodate the square footage that the developer feels
is marketa.ble in this location.
3. The overhead doors are provided for service access to the
ground level floor of the building. No tenants aze currently leased for
the building therefore it is impossible to say at this time what possible
future uses may be considered.
4. It is the applicant's desire to lease the s~ound level floor of the
building to a retail tenant and the upper levels to office use. However
no tenants are currently leased for the buffding therefore it is
impossible to say at this time what possible future uses may be
considered.
Agenda Item #~Page # ~3~
5. The parl~ng ratio has been increased to something closer to the
generous ratio of the approved site review. Please see revised site
pians.
Landscaping
Revised landscaping plans have been submitted indicating both
Existing Landscaping at the CompUSA side of the project and the
Proposed New Landscaping at the Retail / Office Builcling. The
landscape island is 8ft. in dimension.
A Summary Chart has also been provided.
Legal Documents
Updated title work has been provided with this resubmittal.
A letter authorizing all persons signing documents for this project has
been provided with this resubmittal.
Parking
Total number of bicycle parlflng has been increased to seven spaces,
see revised site plan.
Plan Documents
See page 2 of this response for an itemized response to
section 9-4-11(g)
A model has been provided with this resubmittal.
Site Plan scale has been revised to 1" = 10'-0"
Agenda Item q~ c Page q~_
Site Design
The Planning Departments comments ha~e e~ressed concerns
regarding the usablilty of the open space provided at, the South East
Corner of the Building and concerns under the "Land Use" section of
these comments regarding the reduction of parking. Therefore the
unusable open space has been changed to very usable parking.
Please note that the open space is reduced from 19.6% to 18.75°/a
still in surplus above the required 15%.
Also note that the open space for bicycle parking and pedestrians on
the South West corner (Main Entrance) of the building has been
increased.
The Grading and Draanage plan indicates new grades meeting
existing grades of abutting properties at all property lines.
Upper Level Decks shall be accessed directty from the North West
Stair Tower which provides common access to multiple upper level
tenants during business hours. Therefore any pedestrian can walk
into the stair tower during business hours, up to the deck and then
directly on to the deck without crossing through leasable space.
Please note that if the decks were deleted from the open space
calculation the remaining open space would be 21,017 SF or 17.23%
of the total lot, still in excess of the required 15% minimum.
Please do not hesitate to call with any questions regarding this
submittal.
Sincerely,
Tom Tolleson, Architect
Agenda Item N~ C Page #~j~
, ,~: : -~~ Vici~~ty Map
' I .~ ~~ -,~. ~° --~~-T-~-,~;~~-~`~- `~ _-~ =
G =.'„'` L
_ ° ° = ;'i ~~ ~~J ~_, .g ~ ~ _ ~"
t.ll I ) ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ . ~
~ ' A TI ; I~~u I,~ I i I( i. .
I. ^ r( ~I I a~~ ~ ~ II ~ v ,p V ' I I
r tt ~ I'~ ' `~I I ~'PPP±~~C_ O ~ I
. ~~ J I_ I I ~4 ' ~ /,~ -il
~.r__'_'__ ~~ i ~V~i~ _ ' !
- ---- p r'~ i I_ I~ I I?•a!'~''7 ~ o '~ V,
~ ji I ~, I ~ll L. o, ~^~ ~~ ~.''~ ~'''~~~ ~~~ i
eves~ I ~ i
e ,F,
~ '~» ii~ ~ . -
~ i
I ~. ~.i I~~II I ~ ~
I, !
,~ i n ^~~ III ~I I ~~i
~" ~ ~ II~ ~_ ~I~ II ~ _ ~
~ (' ~ ; ~ h~ ~~.J--"--~-= t
I I I p~ 'I J
i s:~o,,.,•.
~ b, II ~I ~ _ ~1~/I ~ ~I ~ f -
~ i ~j
,~ ,: ._ ~~~` ~\~ ILF- `1i
~
^ ° ~!II
J + k~ ~
~
~ ~~ , +-
hr(
.. ~ ~,:,
`y
..
m
1
~ i ~ F-
i
~'~="-~ ,.
_
;'y~ _
'
~
. . ~ ~ ~ I
~:
~ A
"' ~ /, ~ .
"°
_ ~ ~.
-
.~~-r _<
- -
-- -
• -- - __= --=>u~>.
~~ ' ~~
~
' .
II .
~
~
_~
-
,
\ rv
i
i T Iu
.
~
I
, _ ~ ~
, ~~~ 1
.-_
~ I
, i; ~ ~ ~
~
..~~~
•~ I ~
~
~ J~
o_l ! ~i ~~
; ,,
~~' ( I
I
; , ;
`
e'~r
fi ~_~ I
, f. .-- _- l~
-1 I
, ~
_,. ~ ~ ~! ~I I
-\ i ~~_~i_: _~ .
~ ' , ~, `
'~~~~ -
~ ~_-
i" ~ _~,~~~_~
_- _ ''
:~ -----_ _t__~.,;_-, _
--_ -_,, .., -:~~`=,;.
- 'I~... ;.
~ I
~~ _~ ~_~
I, ; I I ~ I
bl ~ -. -
~ ; I °
` ~ a
; II
a
~~ --_~ ~ ~
~ i
° I~ ~ ~,
PUBLIC
saFErti
~
~ ~~
~ '_-.~:,
._~
~
~
a
CROSSROADS EAST I(I ~ ^ c~
m r~ ~
+ "------~ j i L, ~
COMPUSA jj ° ""'~'
~.~~~t ~.., I~ ~I~
r~~~1+1~~Ja 1 .~ 1 ~Y ~
_SUNRISE CNTR.
~ I 5
~S ~\
.Ji „ ~
I ~ ~^-`=~ n I I i... I^ I.Ir.~~~'~
U
' ~ I~ L
; ~ C'~I zT
. ~ Y~:,,.~ _ ~~ I~ I V=~~_~:
°~ °_ ,_i~~ ~~~o... .
~.o.
~
------ ARAPAHUE AVE.
~ rr- ~ ,
'~ .
~ = w"~ ~T q- _~ F '
r ~;pa ~ ~ ~ .._ m
~ ~-
ul ~. . ~ _
JL..~~^~'a~~ ,
1 __ .~1~ ~~~
__ i
! ~~ \ ~~
' •.,i
~I KING , I / -
i SOOPERS i ,, ~~ %
~ \ /
~ ~~ '.~~ ~,~
,~ ;.
' ,!~ ;~_
i~
i (; ~ ; ~
'.~~ ,....1~~... ,_. .,
~ ' ~ ~
~~ I
I ~ ~
~
~
~
i _
~~
'.
n
- ~
,s,.. .
I~
~' ~~~y~ ~-:
1.~
~!
i
i i
I ...,
I
II
'I~ r
~
~ ~ ~ S:6e.-..
I
II
; / t
,
-~ ~,
~ `, .x
~~ ~~
.~----_a
RM~MOE RO ~ ~ ~F
Agendaltem #~e,~Page # •3`~
Written Statement
Retail ~ffice Building
1744 30th Street
The site is currently owned by the Della Cava/ Tebo Development
Company of P.O. Box T, Boulder, CO. 80306.
This application is a modification of an approved site review for the
Comp USA project dated 2-19-98.
That approval allowed for a 20,000 SF Office Building occupying the
same footprint as the proposed building and a 26,100 SF Comp USA
Building.
The overall site is divided by a ground lease line dividing the overall
122,140 SF site into a 76,830 SF portion on which the Comp USA
project was constructed in 1998 and a 45,310 SF portion which was
leased as parking to a neighboring building owner. Therefore the
20,000 SF Office building and its related site improvements was
never constructed. The lease e~ires in the fall of 2001 and the
Owner would now like to complete the project with construction
commencing in early fall of 2001.
Due to changes in the market for tenants since 1998 the Qwner
would now like to reduce the targeted office rental space to 17,280 SF
and add 10,128 SF of ground level retail targeted for retail occupancy
for a total of 27,400 SF of leasable area. The building wiLl also
include 6492 SF of basement storage area.
This increase in square footage necessitates a third story to the
building thereby triggering the heed for a height variance. The third
story cannot be accommodated under 35 feet. Therefore we are
asking for a ten foot variance to construct the bui.2ding under 45 feet
in height.
Agende ltem ~~ C Page Y~
The design of the building steps the upper levels back from the
ground level footprint creating outdoor decks on the second and third
levels to soften the visual impact of the upper levels.
The solar shadow created by the additional height falls completely
within the parking and drive areas of the neighboring site, see Overall
site plan.
The possibility of including residential units in the project was
discussed during the preapplication meetiizg. The Owner and
Architect strongly feel that due to the urban isolation of the site, being
blocks and blocks from any other residentiat uses, the site is
undesirable and unappealing as a residential use. The site is
surrounded on all sides by parking lots serving night time and 24
hour retail and police activities leaving no sense of community or
neighborhood. The Owner also strongly feels it would be extremely
difficult to lease residential units in such a setting.
Due to a current lease with the Comp USA tenant occupying the
existing building on the overall site, the parking requirements are
structured for the entire site. The proposal allows for 150 total
parking spaces for 53,508 SF of leasable space creating a ratio of
spaces to square feet of roughly 1: 350. This ratio is above the City of
Boulder Requirement of 1: 400 but well below the Comp USA lease
requirement. The proposed ratio is based on what the Owner feels he
can achieve in renegotiating the lease with Comp USA. Any further
reduction in parking will damage the feasibility of the project.
Open space is calculated for the 45,310 SF undeveloped portion of
the site which this proposed building will occupy. 15% required
open space is 6796 square feet.
In the interim since the project was began in 1998 the Ciry of Boulder
proposed and implemented a paved connection between this property
and the adjacent Public Service property to the East. This connection
allows for cross vehicular access between 30th street & 33rd street.
This connection also creates 640 square feet of paved surface that
would have otherwise been Open Space. This area represents
approxirnately 10% of the required open space by the City.
Agenda Item N~ C Page #~
It is therefore reasonable to request a reduction in required open
space to 5890 square feet which is 13% of the total square footage.
This is the amount of open space indicated in this proposal. The
proposed open space includes a mini park at the Southeast that will
include benches and a table for use by users of the properry for
breaks and lunches.
The remainder of the open space provides for a perimeter buffer to
relieve density along with landscaped islands in the parking area to
soften the impact of the paved areas. The proposed landscaping
closely follows the plan originally approved in 1998. See Landscape
Plan.
Pedestrian and vehicular circulation on the site are virtually identicai
to the original approved plan with the exception of the paved
connection to Public Safety with the City added in the interim. Site
lighting will also be the same as originally proposed.
The design and materials of the building will reflect the materials and
colors of the Comp USA building to give the project a"Center" feel.
However the Retail/Office structure will incorporate considerable
more windows and openness due to the clifferent nature of the use of
the building. A color model of the proposed building is available to
demonstrate how the building shall appear.
Please do not hesitate to call with any questions regarding this
submittal.
Sincerely, / ;
~J ;,
Tom Tolleson, Architect
Agenda Ilam ~~ Page p ~¢~
' ~ - ~ . ~ ' , , ~ ~ Updated 10113/00 ~
PROJECT FACT SHEET
For Land Use Review Applications
Accurate and complete information about a project is integral to a timely and thorough city
review. Please type or print complete answers to the items listed under the boxes
that relate to your projeet. While some of this information may be inciuded on the
project site plans or discussed in the written statement, please also enter it here. If you
choose to recreate this document, please oniy inciude the items that relate to your project.
An electronic version of this document is available on the Web at
www ci boulder.co.us/buildinaservices.
ALL PROJECTS
Key Information
Subject property address/location: I-I Q' 4 ~C~ "rl-~ ~jT~ E ET
Owner name and address ~ L L L Q G a V~i /~TL E3 n C> L-' ~~ L c~ P w-I. L ti,~'-
~ ~. ~oX'i', r~~~~p~t~. cd. g,~3~7
Legal Description (or attach): 5 L~= Q~C~`!a ~,F-L t~
Age of existing structures: ~ ~
Size of site in square feet and acres. Gross: L{' S, 3 I C~
Net (after public dedications): ~-
Current Zoning Designation: ~ ~ ~
For rezoning and annexation applications, ~~
Proposed Zoning Designation:
Boulder Valley Comprehensive ~ ~ ~~
Plan Land Use Designation:
Previous Approvals (spec'rfy G ~ b~l'j~ C~ S{i 2• I ~t '`~V ~j
project name, review type):
Solar Access Area Designation (circle one): Area I Area II Area III
Does the project include the demolition of any structures? ~~
If yes, what year was the structure built?
Please list any requested variations to the land use regulations (specific variance information is
requested later in the project fact sheet):
NL-'lG~l-iT ~/~R-lAtic.@ . ~~~,~.~ SPAG6 ~L-'IJvt~jlc~N
Agenda Item N~~ Naga t, ~_
Please indicate with a checkmark'rf your property is affected by any of the following:
N/etland area
Airport Influence Zone
Historic landmark designation/dis#rict
Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC)
100 Year Flood Zone
North Boulder Subcommunity Plan
CAGID parking district
UHGID parking district
Other local improvement district
Land Uge
Please describe the proposed use(s) of the property, including activities conducted on site, number of
seats, number of guest rooms, number of residents, number of emp(oyees, hours of operatio~ and any
other unique operating characteristics. Also, please specify which land use category(ies) in the Schedule
of Permitted Land Uses (Section 9-3.1-1) that most closely describes the proposed use:
~k
L
TlrlAfi c.~ it.t_. C3'~ t~~UF,LoFel~u t Nro ,d 27~ 4av
H u ~~ u s e r3~ ~ c-v> w c, ~'o tz tz. ~: tp i L c~ P
O~#"I L (>" U 5 ~'. ' ,
Utilities
Are existing buildings hooked-up to city water? "CES
Are existing buildings hooked-up to city sewer? `C ~-° S
Are there city water mains adjacent the property? `C C S
Are there ciry sewer mains adjacent the property? `t CS
Please name any utility districts that currently serve the property
t , . . . ~ ,
Agenda Item N cc, ~ .Page # ~