6C - Consideration of Land Use Review ~LUR2001-00007~ for a Site Review Amendment to change the planCIT-Y OF BOULDER ...e
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 19, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date July 6, 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration o£Land Use Review #LiJR2001-00007 for a Srte Review
Amendment to change the plans for an approved Phase 2 two-story buildmg at 1744 30th
Street, ~ust east of the exishng 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 buildmg.
Apphcant/Owner. Della Cava / Tebo Development Co.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Peter Pollock, Director of Commumty Design, Plamm~g and Development
Bob Cole, Director of Pro~ect Review Division
Elizabeth Hanson, Presenter
OVERVIEW:
The Plannmg Board is bemg asked to consider an amendment to a Site Review approved by
the Piannmg Department m 1998 The ongmal Site Review mcluded approved plans for a
retail store on 30th Street (now CompUSA) and a second two-story buildmg to the east m
Phase 2 This Srte Review amendment would change the Phase 2 plans from a two-story to a
three-story buildmg Plamm~g Board achon is required to consider the requested 45 foot
buildmg 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 buildmg Changes to
the approved site and landscape plan are also proposed
s\plan\pb-~tems~nemos\ehcompusa2 2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Page 1
:~
~
. _ ~~.~~~u~
Requested variations to the land use regulations a five foot side yard
setback from the north property line where 12 feet is required, vanations
to the city's landscape standards
Pro~ect Name. 1744 30th Street Retail/Office Building
Locahon: 1744 30th Street
Size of Tract 45,310 square feet (1.04 acres)
Zonmg RB-E, Regional Business - Established
Comprehensive Plan General Business
KEY ISSUES:
Is the proposed 45 foot height acceptable? Does the buildmg present an attractive
streetscape and mcorporate design elements appropriate to a pedestnan scale? Is the
buildmg design compahble with the existing character of the surroundmg area~
2. Does the project provide significant amounts of plant material sized m excess of the
city's landscaping requirements? Does the plan show site design techniques which
enhance the qual~ty of the pro~ect?
BACKGROUND:
Site Context
The pro~ect site is located in the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC), across 30"' Street from
the Crossroads Mall site (see v~cmity map m Attachment C and 3-D computer context simulation
m Attachment E). The srte is bordered by the Crossroads East shoppmg center on the north, the
Sussex One office building to the northeast, the Sunnse Center shoppmg center on the south, and
the Crty of Boulder Pubhc Safety Buildmg 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 buildmg on 30`" Street, )ust south of the Crossroads East shopping center. The
approved plans (see Attachment D) show a 26,100 square foot CompUSA retai] store at the
locahon of bowhng alley (along 30`h Street), and a Phase 2 two-story retail/office 20,000 square
foot buildmg at the east edge of the property. A pazkmg area, wrth east-west and north-south
pedestnan connechons, was approved between the two buildings. These pedestrian connections
s•\plan\pb-items~nemos\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 pedestnan kiosks were constructed m the parkmg area
Another key part of the plan was the cross-access drive consriucted by the applicant at the
southeast corner of the property. This dnve allows velucles and pedestnans to move between
30`~ and 33th Streets, wrth usmg major streets hke Arapahoe or Walnut.
Crossroads East Subarea Plan
This project is located withm the Crossroads East / Sunnse Center Area The Crossroads EasU
Sunrtse Center Area Plan, adopted by BURA, Plannmg Board and City Council m 1997, sets
forth the overall image and urban design desired for the area, as well as reyuired pedesman,
bicycle and vehicular connections and facihries. The Plan calls for the followmg improvements
m the vicmity of the CompUSA property.
Create an east-west transportahon connection from 30'h to 33'a Streets, mcludmg s~dewalks,
ad~acent landscapmg, street trees, special crossmg treatments
Create a north-south pedestnan spme from Arapahoe Avenue to Walnut Street, enhanced
with landscapmg, shade trees, special pavmg, crosswalks, signage, hghtmg, and furnishmgs.
Upgrade or replace the former Olympic Bowl buildmg, add a new building to the east, and
reconfigare and landscape parkmg m the middle.
In general, the Crossroads East / Sunnse Center Area Plan encourages
• The addrtion of more useable open space (mim-parks and plazas) throughout the area,
caprtahzmg on views fo the west,
• Creatmg more pedestnan-onented buildmgs, by usmg pedestnan-scale volumes and
matenals, and providmg clear wmdows,
• Enhancing pedestrtan paths and area with landscapmg, hghring, furmshmgs, special pavmg,
• Maintammg commumty retail and office, addmg entertamment, civic and residential (mixed)
uses.
Project Description
The apphcant, Della Cava / Tebo Development Company, requests Site Review Amendment
approval to amend the Phase 2 plans for the proposed building at 1744 30"' Street, ~ust east of the
CompUSA building The applicanYs 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 buildmg height from two stories to three stones and 45 feet in height
(45 feet requires Srte Review approval, where 35 feet is the by-nght height hmrt; the
proposed height exceeds the 40 feet in height which can be considered as condirional
height m the RB-E zonmg distnct)
s \plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ehcompusa2 2pd
AGENDA ITEM # 6C Pase 3
~v~~i
New architectural plans, mcludmg 2"d and 3`a level decks (no architectural plans for the
Phase 2 building were approved m the 1998 Srte Review)
Changes to the approved parkmg layout (meets current parking requirements)
Changes to the approved landscape plan
ANALYSIS:
Staffs analysis of how this proposal meets the Srte Review cnteria is presented m two formats.
A checklist and notes relatmg to the applicable criteria are attached as Attachments B. A
discussion of the critena which are most relevant to this project is found below.
Is the proposed 45 foot height acceptable? Does the building present an attractive
streetscape and incorporate dasign elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale? Is
the building design compatibte with the existing character of the surrounding area?
Buildm~Heieht
The proposed Phase 2 building would be 42 feet above finished grade, and 45 feet as
measured based on the city code defirution of height. The proposed building he~ght
would be taller than the neighbonng 26 feet tall CompUSA building and 16 feet tall
Crossroads East buildmg. The nearby Sussex One building is considerably taller, at five
stories tall. Staff finds that the proposed buildmg height is acceptable at the requested
location, although the buildmg would be consistently taller than most of the existing
surroundmg buildings. It is likely that buildmgs above 35 feet in height will be a part of
the redevelopment of this general area, including redevelopment of the Crossroads Mall
srte.
Buildine Desi~n
The Phase 2 buildmg incorporates design elements mare typical of a pedestnan scale than
a vehicular-onented shoppmg azea. The proposed elevahons (see Attachment H) show
considerable amounts of glass at the first floor level, awnmgs, and a use of matenals 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 azea.
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?
Landsca~g Plan
The Srte Reviaw Amendment plans show changes to approved site design, including
building siring, parking, pedestrian paths, and landscapmg. The applicant requests
s•\plan\pb-~tems~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 4
approval of variahons to the city's current landscaping requirements, which have changed
smce the 1998 Site Review Srte review cnteria require that the landscapmg provide for a
vanety of colors and contrasts and provide a significant amount of plant matenal sized m
excess of the landscaping requirements This requirement would not be met under the
proposed plan. The proposed vanation would reduce the size of the mtenor lot landscape
beds from a mimmum width of eight feet to less than five feet m most of the beds This
reducrion in the size of the beds would I~mit the total amount and size of plant matenals
throughout the parking area and compromise the long-term size and health of the
proposed trees Some of the proposed variahons are requested to keep drive aisle
configurahons consistent m both Phase 1 and 2 For example, enlargmg the proposed
landscape bed along the south property lme from three feet to the required e~ght feet
would result m loss of a row of pazkmg
The apphcant has indicated that the quantity of landscape matenal has been mcreased to
compensate for these dimensional deficiencies. While the landscape plan has improved
durmg the three sets of plans reviewed and may mmimally meet the site review cntena,
staff has encouraged the apphcant to explore more creative landscapmg soluhons to
improve the quahty of the two-phased pro~ect Several suggestions for changes to the
landscape plan are listed below
• One example would be to use a senes of landscape islands rather than the south
property Ime narrow bed While this soluhon might remove one or two parkmg
spaces, the landscaping would be more likely to thnve and haue a visual impact
• Another improvement may be to use a vartety of plant matenals throughout the
beds that will provide contrast and mcrease the percerved 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 matenals avazlable that can
thrive under these condihons.
• The trees could be spaced at shorter intervals (15-20 feet) apart to provide a fuller
tree canopy
• The tree stock used for the imtial planhng could include larger cahper trees than
required. (For example, deciduous trees at 3-4 mch cal~per and ornamental trees
at 2-3 inch cahper.)
Site Desisn
There are aspects of the site design which further the goals of the Crossroads East /
Sunnse Center Area Plan and meet the Site Review cntena East-west and north-south
pedestnan connechons are proposed through the parkmg area and cross-access is
provided to the ad~acent property to the east. These goals would be fixrther attamed by
site plan improvements which would better connect the buildmg to its surrounding
context. The apphcant has made efforts to avoid a"buildmg surrounded by parkmg"
appearance through the use of paths, hghting, and a small pedestnan island Staff has
s \plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2 2pd
AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 5
..~>, s ,~.s~:,~r`
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 pedestnan-onented space. Such an
area might better connect the building to the pedestnan paths and offer a place for
employees or shoppers to srt or eat lunch
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Owners of adjacent busmesses and properties at the Sussex One Buildmg, the I~ng Soopers at
Sunnse Center, and the Crossroads East shopping center contacted the case manager with
comments and queshons about this Srte Review Amendment application. Some concerns were
expressed about the availabilrty of ample parking spaces for the area The owners of Crossroads
East had concerns about shading impacts (and resulhng ice build-up) from the new bu~ldmg,
dramage impacts, and the buildmg height.
Required public nohce was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property
owners wrthin 600 feet of the sub~ect property and a sigi posted on the property for at least 10
days. All nohce requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Plamm~g staff ~nds that the proposal mmimally complies with the applicabie Site Review
critena The applicanYs request to add an addit~onal floor and 13,900 squaze feet m building
area should be accompanied with a srte plan that reflects a higher quahty site design than the
previous approval. City staff has reviewed and commented on three versions of plans and
offered suggeshons to the appl~cant to improve the landscaping and pedestrian circulahon to
create more meanmgful amemhes on the srte. A more creative landscape plan could result in
more attractive and useable landscape features. A larger outdoor gathering space or sittmg area
ad~acent to the building could provide relief to the parking area and building mass. These plan
modifications could be made m a final plan submittal (final landscape plan and final parking
plan) following a Srte Review approval, with condihons.
Therefore, staff recommends that Plamm~g Boazd approve Land Use Review #LUR2001-00007
incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Site Review Cnteria Checklist as findings
of fact, usmg the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment A.
Approved By
t'~ er Pollock, re
~ Plannmg Department
s\plan\pb-rtems~nemos\ehcompusa2 2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Pa~e 6
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A• Recommended Conditions of Approval
Attachment B: Srte Review Cntena Checkhst
Attachment C: Vicmity Map
Attachment D 1998 Site Review Plan
Attachment E: 3-D Computer Context Simulation
Attachment F: Development Review Results and Comments
Attachment G: ApplicanYs Wntten Statements
Attachment H• ApphcanYs Proposed Plans
s\plan\pb-rtems~nemos\ehcompusa2 2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 7
" g~, .~ , ~~»R,~
ATTACHMENT A
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1744 30"' STREET - LUR2001-00007
The Applicant shall be responsible for ensunng that the development shall be m
comphance with all approved plans dated July 19, 2001 and on file m the City of
Boulder Plannmg Department.
Pnor to a buildmg permit applicahon, the Apphcant shall submit a Techmcal Document
Review Application for the followmg items, and sub~ect to the approval, of the Planning
Department~
a. Final architectural plans, includmg matenals and colors, to msure compliance with
the mtent of this approval (and comparibihty with the surroundmg area).
b A detailed final landscape plan, mcludmg size, quantity, and type of plants
exisring and proposed; type and quahty of non-hving landscaping materials; any
site gradmg proposed, and any ~rngation system proposed, to msure comphance
with this approval and the Crty's landscapmg reqmrements. The final landscape
plan shall reflect changes descnbed on page five of the staff inemorandum dated
July 6, 2001, mcludmg but not hmited to landscape islands (rather than a narrow
bed) along the south property hne, a wider variety of plant matenals, trees spaced
at 15 to 20 foot intervals, and three to four inch cahper trees) Removal of trees
must receive pnor approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in
City right-of-way must also receive pnor approval of the Crty Forester
A detailed hghting plan showing locahon, size, and ~ntensity of illuxmnat~on umts,
showmg comphance with Sechon 9-3.3-17, B.R.C 1981
d. A sign program to insure compliance with the mtent of this approval, the
reqmrements of Chapter 10-11, B.R.C. 1981, and the Boulder Valley Regional
Center Sign Gmdehnes.
e. A detailed parking plan showmg the arrangement, locahons, dimensions, and type
of parkmg stalls (including any areas of the site for bicycle parktng or reserved for
deferred parking) to insure comphance with this approval and the City's Parkmg
Design Standards.
A digihzed computer drawing of the development and the computer data used to
generate the drawing. The data must be compatible with the Boulder Urban
Renewal Authonty's (BURA) existing Autocad information on the Boulder Valley
Regional.
s \plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2 2pd
AGENDA ITEM # 6C Paee 8
~
~~ ~ ~:~~~
Pnor to applicahon for a buildmg permit, the Apphcant shall•
a. Subm~t a financial security to guarantee the mit~al operarion of the RTD EcoPass
program for the benefit of all employees wrthin 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 Apphcant shall pay any amount above the amount
provided m the guazantees required to ensure operahon of the RTD EcoPass
program for the benefit of all employees withm the development for three years.
b Obtain re-approval of the expired Engmeenng Construchon Drawmgs approved
on July 6, 1998 (plans expire one yeu after approval date). Ups~zmg of the
previously approved six inch water line to an eight mch hne will be required on
the revised plans
4. Pnor to requeshng a final mspection on any buildmg permrt, the Appl~cant shall:
Construct and complete, subject to acceptance by the city, all pubhc
improvements servmg the site m conformance with the approved engmeenng
plans and with the Crty of Boulder Design Cnteria and Construction Standards
b. Install, at no cost to the city, the southwesternmost fire hydrant m conformance
with approved engmeering plans and with the City of Boulder Design and
Construchon Standards.
s\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2 2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Pase 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 poliaes of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Staff finds that the plans are consistent with the purposes and pol~aes of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Spec~fically, staff considered ihe BVCP pol~cies
listed below
Policy 2 04, Compact Land Use Pattern: The C~ty and the County wdl, by
~mplementing the Comprehensive Plan, ensure that development will take place
m an orderly fashion which wdl 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 m an expanded Service Area, in order to
prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community
Policy 2 20, Role of the Central Area: The Central Area shall continue as the
regional serv~ce 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 focal point of the Boulder Valley The
Central Area mcludes distinct, interrelated activity centers such as the
Downtown Business District, the University, and the Crossroads-area regional
commeraal district A variety of land uses surrounds and connects these
activiry centers
"Policy 2 30 Design That Respects Existing Character: Residential,
commerciai, and industrial development and redevelopment shall be
encouraged to foliow sound and mnovative land use plamm~g The goals are to
provide a livable built environment and, through the ~udicious use ot
landscaping, matenals and human scale, to respect the character of the
surrounding area
(B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the
Bouider Vailey Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation Additionally, if the
density of existing residential development w~thin a three hundred foot area surrounding the
site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Pian, then
the maximum density permitted on the site shali not exceed the lesser of
(I) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehens~ve Plan, or,
(u) 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 Pa¢e 10
Not Applicable, no new residential units proposed, ewshng density is consisfent with the
BVCP
(2) Site Desiqrc Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place
through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the naturai
envvonment, and its physical setting Pro~ects should utilize site design techniques which
enhance the quality of the pro~ect In determining whether this subsection is met, the
approving agency will consider the following factors
(A) Oqen space Open space, mciuding, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and
playgrounds
(I) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional,
(n) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit,
(ni) The pro~ect provides for the preservation of natural features, including, without
limitation, healthy long-lived trees, terrain, significant plant communities,
threatened and endangered species and habitat, ground and surface water,
wetlands, riparian areas, and drainage areas,
(iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the pro~ect and from
surrounding development,
(v) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmentai features
and natural areas; and
(vi) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system
Because the proposed bwlding is 45 feet in height, 15% of the total land area
must be provided useable open space The applicant has provided calculat~ons
documenting fhat the open space meets exceeds this requ~rement Open space
areas are provided m the form of landscaped areas and walkways The open
space area at fhe southwest corner of the proposed butld~ng prowdes some
amenihes (bench, bicycle parking), but could be enlarged to be more funchonal
(B) Landscaoinca
(I) The pro~ect provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard
surface materials, and the selection of materials prov~des for a variety of colors
and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where
appropriate,
(u) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important
natroe species, plant communities of special concern, threatened and
endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural enwronment
into the pro~ect;
(ui) The pro~ect provides significant amounts of plant material sized m excess of the
landscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2, "Landscaping and Screening
Reqwrements" 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 srte plan.
See analysis section of staff memorandum. Proposed landscape design could
be enhanced to increase amount of plant material and provide more v~able
landscaped areas. The landscap~ng proposed contributes to the development of
an attractive site plan and enhances the appearance of the property
s\plan\pb-~tems~nemos\ehcompusa2 2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Pase 11
C Circulation Circulation, including, without I~mitat~on, the transportation system that
serves the property, whether pubiic or private and whether constructed by the developer
or not ~
(I) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the
pro~ectis provided,
(u) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized,
(ui) Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the pro~ect and
between the pro~ect and existmg and proposed transportation systems are
provided, including, wrthout limitation, streets, bikeways, pedestnan ways and
trads,
(iv) Alternatrves to the automob~le are promoted by incorporatmg site design
techniques, land use patterns, and supporting mfrastructure that supports and
encourages walking, bikmg, and other alteYnatives to the single-occupant
vehicle,
(v) Where practical and benefiaal, 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,
(vu) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized,
(vm The pro~ect is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without
I~mitation, automobdes, 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 pedestnan connecfions are proposed through the
parkmg area and help to implement fhe Crossroads East/Sunnse CenterArea
Plan Cross-access ~s prowded to the ad~acent property to fhe east Covered
b~cycle park~ng ~s provided
(D) Parkinq
(I) The pro~ect mcorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide
safety, convenience, and separation ot pedestrian movements from vehicular
movements,
(u) 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 pro~ect,
(ui) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the
pro~ect, ad~acent properties, and ad~acent streets, and
(iv) Parking areas utdize landscaping materials to prowde shade in excess of the
reqwrements in Section 9-3 3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R C
1981
The ewsting oK-street parkmg meets the min~mum standards The visual impact
of the parkmg area ~s reduced by ex~sting pedestnan covered kiosks, eight foot
wide pedestrian paths, and landscapmg.
(E) Bwidinq Desian. Livabilitv, and Relationship to the Existinp or Proqosed Surroundmp
Area
(I) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible
wdh the existmg character of the area or the character established by an
adopted plan for the area,
s \plan\pb-~tems~nemos\ehcompusa2 2pd
AGENDA ITEM # 6C Page 12
a
~ ~~:,
(u) The height of bwldings is in general proportion to the height of existing bwldings
and the proposed or pro~ected heights of approved buildings or approved plans
fortheimmediate area;
(ni) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from
ad~acent properties,
(ro) If the character of the area is identifiable, the pro~ect is made compatible by the
appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting,
(v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site
design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety
and convenience of pedestrians;
(vi) To the extent practical, the pro~ect provides public amenities and planned public
facilities;
(vu) • For residential pro~ects, the pro~ect assists the community in producing a variety
of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family
units as weli as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and s~zes of units,
(vni For residential pro~ects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings,
and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing,
iandscaping, and buildmg materials,
(ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation,
safety, and aesthetics;
(x) The pro~ect incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids,
minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems,
(xQ 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 potential threat
to property caused by geological hazards
See analysis section of staff inemorandum for d~scussion of 6wlding height and
design compatibility
(F) Solar Sitinp 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 buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of
solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria
(I) Placement of Ooen Soace and Streets Open space areas are located
wherever practical to protect buddings from shading by other bwldings within the
development or from bwldmgs on ad~acent properties Topography and other
naturai features and constramts may ~ustify deviations from this criterion
(iQ Lot Lavout and Bwidina Sitinct. Lots are oriented and buddings are sited in a
way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal bwldmg Lots are
designed to facilitate siting a structure wh~ch 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.
(ui) Bu~idinct Form. The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of
solar e~ergy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting
reqwrements of Chapter 9-S, "Solar Access," B R.C. 1981
(iv) Landscaoina. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on ad~acent
buddings are minimized.
The appl~cant has provided a shadow analysis which indicates shading impacts
on the Crossroads East shopping center property The proposed building siting
and addit~onal bu~lding height requested will increase the shad~ng impacts
s\plan\pb-IIems~nemos\ehcompusa2 2pd AGENDA ITEM # 6C Pa~e 13
ATTACHMENT C
of Bould~r Vicinii
Ma
, N(ALNIJT ST ` ' `
~
~ ° ~.
~~'~ ~~~~~~. ~
~°$:*'~, ~.. ~.~,
S116.lEGT PROPERTV ,
1 740-1 744 30TF+ STREET
~~
~
0
, t
0
~
~~°~.
~~"~
-~
Locatiorr: 17d0-'i7A4 Walnut Street /~ ~~,~
Review Type: Site Review 1~
Proj Name: 1744 W~Inut St Retaill~}ffice Buildin~ ~~^'~ ""°P""'` `'~'"a°"'d°"G'~
~ ,~~.~..~.......:~...
irocie rpa~M1rp~v
Review Number: LUR~OQ1-0QOQ7 """°'°""'"~°'~""~
1 `3600 ...-<.,~.~. _....~~
.~....
Appli~ant: Tom Tolleson =a~""""""'~"~~~~
Agenda ltem 4 Page #
~~„ ~_: ~: ~,
ATTACHMENT D
S
s
~~~~ _~
~~° = e
;~~~~ • _
a ~S A
S ' N
~9.'$:a m
0
f ~ ti
; 3 m
~ p~ A
4 ~ A
m
N D
N ~
~q Z ~ T
;R ~ D
4 n
NN N ~
n°y 3 {
~J~ j ~ [(~ ~l~~~
f ~ ~ ; ~ { ~~x~
~ ~ ~ a4~
~ 6
~ F
F ~
0
N
O
• R' b F,<i ~ N '0
g '' m
~~' ~ !~~{~ v N e
E !~ ~ }~~ ~~ " I
m
<
nnu
~~~y CI7Y OF BOULDER ~
?~p PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG
i ~
•
}g
f
~
~
GA
~g ~~ ~~
"' a ~ 1 t _.3"^:
{~ $ ~ , 1740 30TX ST. BouWe, CO. ~ ~-==-
Ddla Cara/Tebo Ikralopmsnt CO. --
}
{
rv ~
~Q
)" ~N
~o
D
O
mm
z
A = AN
tV i
~t
jf
`~wu
, ~.
5
J
age~
~ ~ ~~ y,
ATTACHMENT E
3D Simulation View
Area East of Crossroad,
~
r
, /
Information provided by
City of Boulder
Planning and Development
Services GIS Staff 7/2001
Age~ia lfem #~Page # ~
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 BUILD~NG
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 buildmg. The proposal is for a new 33,900 square foot, three-story, 45 foot tall
retail and office bwlding 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 frve foot setback from the north intenor lot line where 12 feet is required.
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 "ailow 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 exampie, the current plan does not show that the "pro~ect provides signrf~cant
amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements " Staff recommends that the applicant
carefuily consider the comments below and show additional improvements in fhe final plan submittal
This pro~ect 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 wntten statements must be submitted to the case manager no later than Tuesday, July 3rd
for inclusion in the Planning Board packet
The city rewew team for this appiication is available to meet with you to discuss the findings, assist m resolving outstandmg
issues, and discuss the next steps for the application
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circulation
1 The rev~sed traffic impact study, sealed and signed by a Colorado Professional Engineer, ~s required as a condition of
this approval This reqwrement from previous comments was not addressed in this submittal Steve Durian, Pubiic
Works, 303-441-4493
2 As per prev~ous comments, an RTD Eco-Pass program wili be required as a condition of approval This program is
required to provide passes for all empioyees for three consecut~ve years beginnmg at the time of occupancy of this
site This program may be mitiated either by the developer or by the issuance of a finanaal guarantee
Landscaping
1 To improve the area's image and its comfort for pedestnans, the Crossroads East/ Sunrise Center Area Plan cails
for enhancing pedestrian paths with special pavmg, landscaping, architectural elements, lighting, limng all streets
with generous landscaping and street trees, prowding plazas and linear parks among bwldings, and locating
useable open space to take advantage of wews to the west The Plan specificaliy calls for landscaping and other
amenities along the east-west walkway through the CompUSA site This walkway is part of a ma~or, new
pedestrian, bicycie and vehicular corndor through the Area, which connects 33`~ Street and the Crossroads Mall
property In the last revision, the applicant widened the walkway and added street trees along the south wall of the
building, and added a bench to the ad~acent parking island These improvements should be augmented, at a
Address 1740 30TH ST /
pAenda ltem # ~ c Page #
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 budding entry plaza, than presently proposed Fay
Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-4278 ~
IV. NEXT STEPS
BURA mvites the applicant to present the pro~ect to the BUR,4 Board prior to the Planning Board hearing This is a
voluntary, rather than mandatory step, and would entad review and comment only. Please contact Brad Power, BUR,4
Director, 303-441-3219, if you would like to schedule a presentation.
nddress 1740 30TH ST Agenda Item M~ C Page N ~~
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS May 3, 2001
CASE MANAGER Liz Hanson
PROJECT NAME 1744 30TH STREET RETAILIOFFICE 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.
REQUESTEp VARIAT IONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS
A frve 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 reiating to circulation
and landscaping, as discussed below A revised site plan is reqwred to demonstrate compliance with these cnteria, city
parking and landscape reqwrements, and Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) Design Gu~delines and Area Plan
The applicant may choose to fde a revised application to address the staff findings and comments below Pianning Board
is the decision making authority for this application If the appiicant chooses to not revise the proposed plans, staff would
recommend denial of the appl~cation Staff wiii recommend approvai of the pro~ect 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 resoiv~ng outstanding
issues, and d~scuss the next steps for the application Please contact your case manager to set an appointment.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circulation
SITE PLAN
1 The Crossroads EasU Sunnse Center Area Plan identifies the east-west connection from 30th to 33rd streets as a key
spine through the area, and calls for ad~acent 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 matenals, 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 Tra~c Impact Analysis are madequate to
serve this site RTD Eco-passes wdl be reqwred for all employees of this site for a mimmum of three consecutive
years from the date of initial occupancy Evidence of an Eco-pass contract fulfdling this condition or an escrow of
$9,000 will be required before issuance of a bwiding permit for work on this site Additionally, the eight foot wide
easUwest connection outlined above will be reqwred to serve to faalitate bike and pedestnan access to this site
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following 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 s~te's generated traffic and how this traffic impacts the critical transportation
corridors surrounding the s~te
Agenda ~~em a~ G Page #~`L
1 Should any of the comments contained in these comments impact the square footage of any use on this site,
the trip generation information witl need to be updated accordingly. Steve Dunan, Public Works, 303-441-4493
2 Under the section "Trip Distribution and 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 ~s 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 33`d Street access. Please clarify this distnbution on
Figure 3 Steve Durian, Publ~c Works, 303-441-4493
4 Under the section titled "Projected Traffic Volumes" it is stated, "(t)he Year 2010 was chosen as a design year
since it was expected that buddout of the ad~acent development would occur by this 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 tra~c analyses for the Mali, 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 lengths 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 mtersections analyzed in the TIA have the minimum green times shown to accommodate a pedestrian
crossing 4me of 4 0 ft/sec In the case of Arapahoe/33r0 Street, Access/30~h Street, and WaInuU30`" Street,
the green times used in the analysis were below these mmimum green times, The fotlowing are acceptable
minimum green times for these mtersections
• Arapahoe/33rtl Street (for peds crossing Arapahoe) 23 seconds
• Access/30~" Street (for peds crossing 30th Street) 18 seconds
• WaInuU30'h Street (for peds crossing 20'h Street) 20 seconds
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
The following are correct~ons to the signal phasing used in the signalized analyses:
• Arapahoe/33`d Street Eastbound left has a protected phase m addition to permitted phasing
• Arapahoe/30`h Street Westbound left has protected phasing in addition to permitted phasing
• Access/30'" Street. Westbound leg combines left/through/right movements in a single lane,
northbound and southbound left have protected and permitted left turn phasing
• WaInuU30~" Street: Eastbound and westbound lefts have permitted phasmg, northbound and
southbound left turns and westbound right turns have protected and permitted phasing
• Pear/30~h Street Left turn phases in all dvections are protected and permitted
Please make these corrections or prowde explanation as to why these phasings were selected. Steve Durian,
Public Works, 303-4a1-4493
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 mterior lot) in the plan for the new build~ng and parking lot meet this reqwrement.
Please change the parking lot design to prowde more substantial landscaping
2. Plant materials must be planted m sufficient quantity to completely cover within five years of initlal planting The
plantings in both the existing and proposed landscape areas are not dense enough to meet this requvement.
Please show denser landscaping in the proposed beds and supplementary landscapmg in the ex~sting beds.
Bev Johnson,303-441-3272
Address 1740 30TH ST ryo~~~.. ~~0m ~~SlC-NaG3 #~?1_
Legal Documents
Please provide a copy of the DellaCava/Tebo Development Company LLC documents A connection needs to be made
giving Mr Tebo authorizat~on to appoint Mr Della Cava smce 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 C~ty
Attorney, 303-441-3020
Miscellaneous
As a condition of approval, city approval of a uniform sign program for the S~te Review (including CompUSA and the new
buiidmg) wdl be reqwred The program must comply with the City sign code and the s~gn guidelines in the BVRC Design
Guidelines It appears that some of the signs shown on the architectural elevations (total height, awning signs) may not
comply Please contact Robert Myers at 303-441-3138 tor more information
Parking
Please provide at least some of the bike parking under the sheiter of the building, per the Crossroads EasUSunrise Center
Area Plan and BVRC Design Gwdeline 3 4 C Fay ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-4278
Site Design
The Crossroads EasU Sunnse Center Area Plan calls for ennchmg the Area's image and design quality by providmg plazas
and linear parks among buddmgs, locating useabie open space to take advantage of views to the west, enhanang
pedestrian paths with paving, landscaping, architectural elements, lighting, and providing generous landscapmg and street
trees lining ail streets (p 13) In this revision, the useable open space ("park") proposed for the parking iot has been
replaced by seven parking spaces Staff meant to suggest in the comments moving the open space ad~acent to the
buildmg, 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 entad removing three parking spaces ~ust east of the bike parking isiand and
moving the ad~acent handicap space north one space This will result in a net gain of three parkmg spaces, plus the piaza
The plaza should be designed to inwte use and mterest and should include landscaping and furnishings, and perhaps
decoratroe paving, art work, and/or a shade structure Please see BVRC Design Guidelmes 3 6 B 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 fagades of the budding (Crossroads East/ Sunnse Center Area Pian p 28 and
Design Gwdelines 3 3 C and D and 3 8 A) Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-4278
111. INFORMATIONAL 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 pro~ect to the BURA Board pnor to the Plannmg Board heanng This is a
voluntary, rather than mandatory step, and would entail review and comment only Please contact Brad Power, BURA
Director, 303-4413219, if you would like to schedule a presentation
This pro~ect has been tentatively scheduled for the July 19~' Planning Board meeting In order for this schedule to be met,
revised plans would need to be fded by the June 4`" 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 Plannmg Board
meeting in September or October (there wdl be no Planning Board meetings in August)
Address 1740 30TH ST AQBfidB ~0i11$~Nag2 #~
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS March 2, 2001
CASE MANAGER. Liz Hanson
PROJECT NAME• 1744 30TH STREET RETAILIOFFICE 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 off~ce building to the east of the existing CompUSA store. The proposai
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 appiicant has not demonstrated that the application meets the site review cnteria relating to building
design, circulation, and landscaping, as discussed below More information is requested to demonstrate that the proposed
larger second bwldmg is compatible with surrounding bwldings and that the site plan would provide ample parking and
landscaped areas to serve both the existing and proposed butlding
The applicant may choose to fde a revised application to address the staff fmdings and comments below Planning Board
is the decision makmg authority for this appiication
The city review team for this application is available to meet with you to discuss the findings, assist ~n resolving outstanding
issues, and discuss the next steps for the application Please contact your case manager to set an appointment
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circulation
1 The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) for the initial site review included significantly less floor space and different uses
A revised TIA is reqwred for this review The following wiil 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 traff~c expansion rates used in the initiai TIA
• The Trip Generation by the site will need to be updated to reflect the new proposed uses.
• The intersection analyses wdl need to be revisited with the new traffic votumes.
• Update Traffic Demand Management strategies as needed including new Bound bus service along 30~" Street and
participation in the developer initiated employee RTD Eco-Pass program
It is recommended that the trafflc consultant discuss these and other tra~c issues with Steve Dunan at 303-441-4493
before submittal of the revised TIA
2 Please show the locatfon of the connecting east-west pedestrian path east of the property, both on the site plan and
the context plan.
3 The north-south pedestrian connection through the parking lot is a ma~or feature in the Crossroads EasU Sunrise
Center Area Plan Please consider raising the level of the crosswalks, as descnbed in BVRC Design Guideline 3 3.E.,
in order to increase safety and wsibility and encourage usage of this pedestrian spine Fay Ignatowski, 303-441-4278.
Agenda flem R~Page N ~
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 remamder of the building, these wall areas appear rather stark Please address.
Please submit drawings which show the elevations of the proposed budding and the CompUSA and other ad~acent
buildmgs to demonstrate compatibility of the proposed bwlding height Please also address compatibility of building design
and materials In particular, the applicanPs wntten statement and pians must address the height modification applicat~on
reqwrements of Section 9-4-11(g)
1 Please verify the height of the ceilmg in the basement tevel Melissa Rickson - City Attorney's Office
Fire Protection
1 Proposed pro~ect will reqwre 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 receiwng station Adrian
Hise, 303-441-3350
Land Uses
1 If the parking requirement for CompUSA is a number established by the approved site rev~ew, how is a lease
negotiation going to attempt to lower that reqwrement~
2 Please more fully address the height modification criteria to ~ustify the height to 45 feet Melissa Rickson - City
Attorney's Office
Do the overhead doors on the east elevation mdicate a potential auto-related use (e g vehicle installation) for the site~
Please describe, as such a use may require a use review
Does the applicant mtend to lease the ground floor of the new budding to a retail store(s) and the upper two levels as office
space~ Is there a possibility that the ground floor will aiso be leased for office space~
Since the previously approved site review had a more generous parkmg ratio, please address how the applicant believes
the parking needs of this amended site rewew would be met
Landscaping
The landscaping standards as outlined m 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
islands m particular do not appear to meet the min~mum size dimension of 8 ft In order for staff to more
accurately review the proposed landscaping, piease prowde a prelimmary landscape plan of the entire property
which includes the followmg
Plan drawmg at a sca/e of 1" = 10; 1"= 20; or 1" = 30; to mclude
Standard title block including scale, date and north arrow
Zonmg and use of ad~acent properties
Existing and proposed locations of all
- Building footprints for existmg structures and bwlding envelopes for proposed structures
- Sidewalks and curb cuts
- Parking lots mcludmg layout of parkmg spaces, intenor and penmeter parking lot piantings, bike paths and
pedestnan walkways, dnve aisies and curb islands
- Utilities and easements, mcluding fire hydrants, water meters, & height and loca6on of overhead lines.
Existmg loca4on, size, and type of all trees 1 1/2" caliper or greater
Plant~ng spea~cations
Layout and locat~on of all landscaped areas includmg
- plantmg stnps along all streets
- park~ng lot screenmg
- intenor parking lot landscaping
- perimeter site landscaping or screening
Address 1740 30TH ST
Agenda {tem ~~r~,~ ~~¢~,.~~
i
_b x . ~`'
- all other landscaped areas
Botanical and common names and sizes of all plant material proposed prel~minarily
Locations of all proposed plant material, shown at the size they will be withtn 5 years of initial planting, and appropriately
spaced ~
Location, size, and species name of any plant matenals proposed for removal
Proposed plant~ng of all ground surfaces Grass surfaces must be identified as sod or seed with the blend or mix specified
Locatwn and dimensions of sde distance tnangles at all intersections of streets and curb cuts.
Summary chart w~th calculat/ons to include
total lot size ( in square feet).
total parking lot size, including all drwes and driveways (in square feet)
total number of parking stalls reqwred and the total provided
total interior parking lot landscaped area required and the total provided
total penmeter parking lot landscaping required and total provided
total number of street trees required and the total provided
totai quantity of plant materiai reqwred 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)(uQ, the landscaping shouid exceed City
landscaping standards Fay Ignatowsk~, 303-441-4278
Legal Documents
The submitted title work is outdated Please submit a current tit~e commitment or attorney's memorandum, current to
within 30 days of this application. Also, please provide authorization of the person signing all documents for this pro~ect
Melissa Rickson - Crty Attorney's Office
Parking
The Crossroads EasUSunrise Center Area Plan and BVRC Design Guideline 3 4 A call for 2 bicycie parking spaces for
every 10 car spaces Piease attempt to locate at least some of the bike parking in a sheitered location (Guideline 3.4 C)
The City of Boulder Revised Code, 1981 requires that a number of bicycle parking spaces be provided equal to or
exceeding 10% of the total required automobile parking spaces Th~s site has a required parking ratio of 1 400 for this
27,400 square foot bwlding 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 modificat~on of Section 9-4-11(g), including an explanation of
how the height was caiculated according to the city code definition of height, the heights of existing and proposed buildings
within 100 feet, and documentat~on of amount of transparent materials (glass) on the ground level If a model or a
perspectroe drawing is available, these documents would be helpful.
Please add the correct scale to the site plan
Site Design
While the landscaping and furnishmgs proposed for the southeast corner of the site are a generaliy supportable v~sual
solution to this left-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 prowded and should be assoaated with the building form, per
BVRC Design Gwdeline 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 mformation on useable
open space and pedestrian furnishmgs.
P~ease 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'", staff receroed the applicanYs open space calculations indicating that the required open space would be
met (19 6%) Inciuding the upper level decks as required open space would requfred a vanation from the land use
regulations. Please provide information about how these decks would be access~ble and useable by the public
Address 1740 30TH ST
Agenda ilem # ~ Page # ,~~
111. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Access/Circulation
All drive accesses to be designed to accommodate fire eqwpment, per SU-30 template Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350
Budding and Housing Codes
No reqwrements Steve Brown
Neighborhood Comments
Pianning staff has received inqwries from the owners or representatives from several nearby properties or busmesses
including King Soopers, Crossroads East, and Sussex One Comments wdl 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 ~s 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 reqwred to be abandoned and upsized, all new service taps to
existing mains shall be made by c~ty 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 requ~red to grant to the aty any easements required to meet the needs of this
development Grant of Easement Legal Instruments must be submitted to the City for review, approval, and
recordation, prior to the issuance of any bwiding perm~ts
5 Approved fire Ime plans must accompany the fire spnnkler service line connection permit application
Address 1740 30TH ST
Agenda Item # ~ G Page # ~~
~,_ ._._ n.s~-
ATTACHMENT G
Written Response to City of Boulder
Site Review Comments
Retail Office Building
1744 30th Street
~
II City Requirements
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 employees 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 have 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 LLC document
is being provided with this submittal
Ngenda Item R~ 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.
Parking
Three of the seven total bike parl~ng spaces have been znoved to the
covered area at the Northwest Office Entry.
Site Design
The plaza. area at the Southwest corner of the building 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 regarding this
submittal.
Sincerely,
Tom Tolleson, Architect
Agenda item A~Page # ~._..
npr i~ ui ua:ada
Site Review Criteria
Retail Office Building
1744 30th Street
I. Boulder Valley Comprehensive 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 remaining open space sen~es as landscape buffers to
screen parking areas around the periineter and provides interior
landscaping to soften Lhe 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 private open space is provided.
3. The cunent site is an urban unpaved parl~ng lot
completely devoid 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
densiiy from surrounding development with the perimeter
landscaping.
5. There are no sensitive environmental features or natural
areas around the site.
6. The pedestrian walkways are linked to the city wide
sidewalk system. along 30th street.
pgendaltem f ~ c Page # ~
s
~~ . .~_~.
npr ir ui ua:owa
(B) La.ndscaping
1. The landscaping plan utilizes 11 different trees and 13
different shrubs to provide a variety of colors and contrast. The hard
surface areas utilize both scored and colored concrete and natural
broom finish concrete to provide a variety of finishes. There is no
local native vegetation to preserve.
2. There is no important native plant 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 2" 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 have 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) Circulat~on
1. High automobile speeds are discouraged by offsets
('chicanes') in the primary circulation drive.
2. Potential conflicts between between pedestrians and
vehfcles are mtnjmt~ed by a system of clearly identifiable colored and
scored pedestrian crosswalks and protective 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/West axis. The
pgenda {tem k~.Paga # ~ 9
npr ii ul ua:54a
driveway system also connects vehicular traffic to the adjacent
properties along both a North/South and East/West axis.
4. The pedestrian walktuay system promotes alternatives to
single occupant vehicles by providing an inviting system of partxally
protected walkways which are easy to access and use.
5. The primary users of the project wi11 be customers for the
retail uses. It is inherently dif~cult to attract customers while
imposing travel demand management techniques.
6. One condition of the approval 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 improvements 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 minunum to access the parking and make the connections
to the adjacent properties.
8_ The connecting driveway system is designed to
accommodate vehicular and bicycle traffic. Bicycle racks are
provided at both CompUSA and the Retail / Of~ice building.
Pedestrian traff3c 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
e~iaust.
9. All circulation installations are to be constructed within
strict accordance of City Standards and accommodate the SU-30
template for emergency vehicles.
Agenda Item N~I'age u y3~
.~__ . , _ ~~
hpr 1! O1 Oy:54a
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
m;nimusn numbcr of spaces the developer needs in order to sustain a
lease with the prunary tenant (CompUSA) and to lease the new
structure.
3. Parking areas are sunound 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 miniinized.
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. Building Design
1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and
configtiration 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 m;nimt~.es shadows on the
property to the North by placing the long axis of the building North &
South and the short axis East & West. inunediately to the East of the
building is the parking lot for the Public Safety Building. This is the
Agenda Item M~Page M ~
npr i~ u1 ua:54a
only area that the proposed building would block views of the
Flatirons and mountains to the West.
4. The proposed building will utllize the exact same
materials, colors, landscaping and lighting as the existing CompUSA
building Lo make the building compatible with the existing CompUSA
building.
5. The existing CompUSA buffding provides a Streetscape
approved by the City of Boulder Planning Department in 1998. This
Streetscape utilizes a pedestrian arcade, benches walkways,
landscaping and sculpture to provide for the safety and convenience
of pedestnans.
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 lighting plan with an associated
photograrrurietric 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 Item N~ C Page N~~
, _ ~, ~ ~ =u~
r . ~. ~J~J?C
F. Solar Siting 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
property 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 xs sited close to the North properly 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 building. The roof cunently has
unimpeded solar access.
4. The landscaping along the North property line, once
mature, will cause only m;nim~ 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 perrrutted height.
Sincerely.
Tom Tolleson, Architect
Agenda item p~~ Pagz ~~3 3
Written Response to City of Boulder
Site Review Comments
Retail Office Building
1744 30th Street
II City Requirements
Access / Circulation
l. 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 ma.tch the existing CompUSA building
e~ctly to create a"Center" feel for the project.
pgenda Item #~Page ~ ~
~
~ _ ; .~s~ _
Itemized response to Section 9-4-11 (g)
(1) The lowest existing 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 azound the building roof. Please note that most
of the building is 42' above the 8nished grade.
(2) RBE Zoning, (not applicable).
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 Compatibility 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 minimum of (15%). 1'he open space serves 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.
Agenda Item # ~~ Page # ,~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. 'I'he building shall be fizlly
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 department 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 pazking 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 parapeted flat roof system. Three stories are
necessary to accommodate the square footage that the developer feels
is marketable in this location.
3. The overhead doors are provided for service access to the
ground level floor of the building. No tenants are 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 ground level floor of the
builcling to a retail tenant and the upper levels to office use. However
no tenants are currently leased for the building therefore it is
impossible to say at this time what possible future uses may be
considered.
Agenda Item #~Page # °3~
5. The parlflng ratio has been increased to something closer to the
generous ratio of the approved site review. Please see revised site
plans.
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 Building. 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 parl~ng 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 ltem N~ c Page ri~.~
Site Design -
The Planning Departments cornrnents have 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 Drainage plan indicates new grades meeting
existing grades of abutting properties at all property lines.
Upper Level Decks shall be accessed directly 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°~o minimum.
Please do not hesitate to call with any questions regarding this
submittal.
Sincerely,
Tom Tolleson, Architect
Agenda I(am #~ c Page # 3g
~
~°~-~ ~ -~~ Vicin~ty Map ,~~ ~~ ~
--~ ~` , ~ i ~.
.e_
~ _ ~---~'~._ ~ ' - - _._._-- ~-~,y~ -
,~'"~e ~~ ~ ~~~'3~~ ~ '~~l
I : . ; ^' If II,y '~ ~ p~ ~ p ~ -
.~,. ~ tt; i,~ I ~ , Q ~ ~
„ ~ , .
°~ ~'~ ~ I- ~ ~ '
~ tt ,~~ ~i ~ v ~ ~~
r, _ tt z i'~I ' ~~~ p - ~ ~ ~
: L~ ~ I ~~~ ' '
~ i ~ / ~
~------- , ~ ~
- -~ ~
& ~~'~°~~-Jn" ~ ~ ~~ ~ll{kj ~, . ~ "
~ ~ i I ~ ~lL o , ~~ Z~,'Z ~ >' • '
e siev~L'1 ~ i ~ •
0 ¢H i,; ~ ~~=ti. ~-.~
I ' I
~ ~ I III II I~ ~ i4
~ ~
C ` ~'I il `,I I I -- - ~-' ~'~.
; ~ .
1 i~ '
~ - ~ ~ i~~- ~I= II ~ 1L ~1\ , ,
~ f, `` ;~', k~R ~~,_r--~-~~~i ~
-~. ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~i ~ ~ '~,~, ° -'
~ ~I SSW9~•~
~
~%y ~ ~ C~ ~~-~ ~ ~~- -v"=iJ-_~_1
, --~
, ~1~ V `~1~~J' ('~~ _ ~ ,~
I ~I ~!^ I ~~ ~I" I
, ~ ~ ° ~I i ~ ~c.a~:.~ ' ~ i
, _ ~ pk~~ .~i' ' l~ .~~ -~~ ~
., >
~ f~jiF- \ L ~
i~ _. i
~ ~~~ ~Ii CROSSROADS EAST
iN ~ la
!~_`':-~ ~, ~ ' ~~~ N I ~j= --- - - --- -- :------
-_" fl •.3^ G4 ~f~Y ~ ~v' "^~'y-T__ ~i'ili'~i7i',~I'ri~IL _
, ,,a ~/ ~~ t~7 i ~ ~ ~h ~' ~j ~' i l~,~~ =
~ II~TIi II
~c.:~"..-~'_-r°`- ,p~ COMPUSA Ii ~ -
~
------ .~--- ~:zv r -
-.-r~ ~ ~-~= =~_~ =~` ` ,~ ~
_^ --~ ~ ' ^~,~~i~~ .
,~ ,
-'~ i - i -_~ % /
~i ~, i~ ' ~ a ,
~~ ' - -- -~ ~ ~
U _j~ =i i ~
i ~ i /;
~I ~ :
~ ~ ~ 'i
~ •~,
~ ~6 i . - ~
,-.-~f n , l~ ~- a q ,~i
~~ ~
~~.~ ; ~_~~ ,~
11 0 / /
I ~ `~~~ y~~M ~
> ~ / ~
~ o~ ! _;r-,= --~r~~ ~ , - /~
~1~. ~ ~-~~. ~L~
]
PUBI.iC ~,
SAFETY k a
' .---~ :-__ ___ v~oz ~~~ . „n~,i~ i~ ,~ ~--a
~`- ---- y' _ Jn ~il..il.v ' _~ i i~~ i d
"_'_~ l. ' ~ ~~ -~ ~~~ ~ .. ~yi ~/~
' ~ i I ~ ./-- ~_ .__ _ .~J ..lyl ~:J:.i~a:l
_ ' 1 [~ __
~ ~ ~ "_
-- ' ~ i I ~ ~ St1NRISE CNTR. ~
=~f ~ ~ , I i II ~ _ _ -J .
i-' i ` I i~ ~-
~ 1 r~
I, ' ~ - ' ~ ~ f '~ ~ y ~" I
~ I
~. o< °~. I~~~~ ~ ~ S ~
~
i
i ~~
'_ ~ ~;~
~ ~ >,>,a
$ ~ ~ ~ ~;~
o ~
an c~ // i+'~
I ~ '~ I~~
I P'
~
i ~
~1T I ~ _ -•r - ; I I rIY,h
_~ ~~~ I'
~; `~ ~ :~ ~ ~ '
~y
~ - ~
1~~ ~ ~I I~ .
~ ~~,
f -`~, , . , --;a ~,~
) I , ~ S' /' ~ (i~
,i!.~' ~-~ ~~ I
r ;
~ ~h
L- _ =-~6 ~~ ' ' Q ~I ,
, .-,~~._---L~ ~ ~ I
„
° ' ;~ °~~ i, `"- ~1 ~ ; `~ , ~
~-'--- 1' ~r -t~r ~ ~ i
. i ~ ~~ 1 ~ r--~I ,l L_ ~ I ~ it
, _ ~..1. u ._ ~ _,j~ „ ~--~_~.__ _ ~ - ' -
_ Y <C ~ ~
6 ~_~ .....,..,,,~ .... ~ ~ ~ _~S
- -- ARAPAHUE AVE.
~ \ ~ I'~I KING
~ i w~^-:--^-~~-{Ir ~ I SOOPER S t
4~~~Q ~tia ~~~~ ~
Agenda Item ~~¢.~Page # ~
Written Statement
Retail Office Building
1744 30th Street
The site is cunently owned by the Della Cava/ Tebo Development
Company of P.O. Box T, Boulder, CO. 80306.
This application is a moclification 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 expires 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 Owner
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 builcling under 45 feet
in height.
Agenda ~em # ~ C Page # ~
~ _~. ..._.~_ ~~ N.;~k
'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 parl~ng 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 meeting. The Owner and
Architect strongly feel that due to the urban isolation of the site, being
blocks and blocks from any other residential 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 eartremely
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 Owrier feels he
can achieve in renegotiating the lease with Comp USA. Any further
reduction in paxking 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 City of Boulder
proposed and implemented a paved connection between this property
and the adjacent Public Service properiy 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
approximately 10% of the required open space by the City.
Agenda Item # ~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 inciudes a mini park at the Southeast that will
include benches and a table for use by users of the property 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 pian originally approved in 1998. See Landscape
Plan.
Pedestrian and vehicular circulation on the site are virtually identical
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 different 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 ftem N~ Page # ~
PROJECT FACT SHEET
For Land Use Review Applications
Updated 10113I00
Accurate and complete information about a pro~ect is integral to a timely and thorough aty
rewew Please type or print complete answers to the items listed under the boxes
that relate to your project. While some of this information may be mcluded on the
pro~ect site plans or discussed in the written statement, please also enter it here. If you
choose to recreate th~s document, piease oniy ~nclude the items that reiate to your pro~ect.
An electronic version of thts document is availabie on the Web at
www ci boulder.co us/buildinqservices
ALL PROJECTS
Key Information
Sub~ect property address/location• ~~ Q" 4' ~~ t~ 5TR E ET _
Owner name and address D C= L ~. Q G/i V,l. / T(.^' FS r~ p L~ E L c~ P w-t L ti~'
~~, ns ox T, r~d~~~~c~- cd. ~~3a7
Legal Description (orattach): 5~_ ~ Q~~a c.H. C~
Age of existing structures. ~
Size of site in square feet and acres Gross ~' ~T ~~
Net (after pubhc dedications)
Current Zornng Designation
~- ~ ~
For rezoning and annexation appiications, ~~
Proposed Zoning Designatton:
Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Designation• _
Previous Approvals (specify G ~~.P ~ S~A 2' I~1 '`1 Ej
project name, review type)•
Solar Access Area Designation (circle one) Area I Area il Area III
Does the pro~ect include the demolition of any structures7
If yes, what year was the structure bwlt~
~ ~
Please list any requested vanations to the land use reguiations (specific variance information is
requested later in the project fact sheet):
NL-'lG~l-iT ~/~~-LANLE aP~~ SPAG6 ~L-'f~vtJjlc~N
(> c~ iZ d,-
Agenda Item k~ L- Naga «~_
Please indicate with a checkmark ff your property is affected by any of the following:
V~/etland area
Airport Influence Zone
Histonc landmark designation/distnct
Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC)
100 Year Fiood Zone
North Bouider Subcommurnty Plan
CAGID parkmg disUict
UHGID parkmg d~stnct
Other local improvement district
Land Use
Please describe the proposed use(s) of the property, inciud~ng activities conducted on site, number of
seats, number of guest rooms, number of residents, number of employees, hours of operat~on a~d any
other unique operat~ng charactenstics Also, please specify which land use category(ies) in the Schedule
of Permitted Land Uses (Section 93 1-1) that most closely describes the proposed use~
TFf =~'P-ov~2T~ 1 5 A N ~k ISTING P/J 2.1~~ t ~a L~~`
T1rl~t' c~lt..~, l3 '~ l~E FLoP~~ lNto .d 27~ 4'OU
~-1ULT~ USE T3~i~-~ING ~D~ R~~'PIL ONp
O~I L l~ U5~'
Utilities
Are existing buddmgs hooked-up to city water?
Are existing buiidings hooked-up to aty sewer~
Are there c~ty water mains ad~acent the property~
Are there city sewer mains ad~acent the property~
Please name any utility distncts that currentiy serve the property
'-Ecs
`C L-~ S
`t ~ S
-r. cs
~.
Agenda ltem # ~ C Pag2 # _~
. ~
~ _ _,~~.e~.