6A - Boulder Community Hospital, 4835 ArapahoeCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: August 2, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: Jiily 2Q 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of the following items relating to a request to devetop a 48.G acre site located
at 4835 Arapahoe for the Soulder Community Hospital (the northeast comer of Arapahoe and Foothills
Highway) :
• Annexation and Zoning LUR2001-00008, to Agriculture (AE) 31.6 acres and Public (PE) 17 Acres,
• Site Review #LUR2001-00009 including a request for buildings with heights of up to 55',
• a parking deferral for each phase, and
• consideration of "Vested Rights," for up to ten (10) years for each phase of development beyond the
requirements of Section 9-4-12 B.R.C. 1981.
Applicant/owner: Boulder Community Hospital
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Bob Cole, Director of Project Review, Presenter
Brent Bean, Senior Planner
Alan Taylor, Floodplain and Wetlands Coordinator
OVERVIEW:
The Planning Board is asked to consider the annexation, initial zoning, and site review for a hospital and
related uses on the property located at the northeast corner of Arapahoe and Foothills Highway. The site area
totals 48.6 acres and includes a 17 acre development area adjacent to the northwest corner of Arapahoe and
48`~ Street. The remaining 31.6 acres bordering Boulder Creek will be preserved for flood conveyance and
environmental conservation. The development area is proposed to be raised by site fill above 500-year flood
elevations to remove it from the floodplain. Development of the hospital and related uses will also be
constructed in a manner to ensure flood protection to or above 500-year ]evels. Primary access to the site will
be provided at the intersection of Arapahoe and 48`~ Street. Building height far the proposed three story
hospital will be approximately 55 feet from existing site grades, with a physical height from final, filled site
grades of approximately 47 feet. The hospital is to be placed along the northwestern edge of the 17 acre
development area bordering the conservation area such that the overall building height will have limited
impacts on uses east of 48`h Street and south of Arapahoe. Five phases of development are proposed over a
minimum 15 year period of time, resulting in up to 420,000 square feet of ultimate building area on site.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM # i~; ~i Paee 1
STATISTICS:
Proposai: Development of a hospital and related medical services on 17 acres of a 48.6 acre
site. The 17 acre development area will be raised above the higher elevation of
either the 500-year flood level or the 100-year flood level plus an additional two
feet. This will ensure adequate flood protection to allow the development in
conformance with required floodplain regulations and meet recommended
floodplain standards for critical medical facilities. The first phase of development
will include up to 195,000 square feet ofbuilding area (145,000 square feet hospital
and 50,000 square feet of inedical office). The final development will include up to
420,000 square feet of building area (315,000 square feet of hospital and 105,000
square feet of inedical services). The buildings will have heights varying from 40'
to 55', with the taller buildings being placed in the northwestern portions of the site.
Parking deferrals are being requested for each phase of development, as shown on
the site plan, but will be constructed when the need exists.
Project Name: Boulder Community Hospital, Childrens and Womens Center.
Location: 4835 Arapahoe, northeast of the intersection of Foothiils Highway and Arapahoe.
Size of Tract: 48.6 acres (2,117,016 square feet), 17 acres (740,520 square feet) to be used for
development with the remaining 31.6 acres to be preserved for flood conveyance
and environmental conservation.
Zoning: Boulder County Agriculture (with the 17 acre development area proposed to be
zoned Public {PE} and 31.6 acre conservation area proposed to be zoned
Agriculture {AE} upon annexation).
Comprehensive Plan: Area IIA, County enclave (surrounded by city of Boulder).
The current BVCP designation for this site is Light Industrial. The proposed
designation under the BVCP update currently in process is Environmental
Protection (31.6 acres), Public/Semi Public (17 acres)
KEY ISSUES:
ANNEXATION:
1. Does the request comply with the applicable State annexation requirements?
2. Is annexation of the property consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)?
3. Is the project providing a special opportunity ar benefit to the City?
4. Is zoning the property AE and PE appropriate for this site?
SITE REVIEW:
5. Is filling the property above 500-year flood elevations to remove it from the floodplain appropriate
for development of a hospital?
s:\plan\pb-items\memos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #/G~/T Paee 2
6. Will traffic impacts of the proposed development be mitigated, including impacts to Arapahoe and
adjacent neighborhoods?
7. Are the site design characteristics appropriate?
VESTED RIGHTS
8. Is the request to extend Vested Right beyond the three year intervals permitted by city ordinances
appropriate?
BACKGROUND:
Process to Date
Boulder Community Hospital (BCH) has been seeking an expansion site within the southeastern portion
of the city for the past several years. The current main hospital site, located at 1100 Balsam Avenue,
cannot be expanded without granting height exceptions and constructing large parking garages. BCH has
proposed to expand their services, as outlined in their written statements, to meet the growing need for
medical services in Boulder. The current hospital sites (Boulder Community and the Mapleton Center)
are at capacity much of the time and emergency needs have also exceeded available services in the last
few years. BCH has identified the primary need for new hospital services to be located in the southeastern
portion of the community to serve growing demand and reduce travel times.
The BCH board considered several available properties before selecting this site. Three sites including
this property were submitted for review through the city's preapplication process over the past two years.
The two other sites were located near the intersection of Arapahoe and Cherryvale Road. One site located
at the southeastern cornar of Cherryvale and Arapahoe was found to be too small and have poor access.
The other site located north of Arapahoe and adjacent to the west bank of South Boulder Creek was also
found to have poor access and be surrounded by floodplain.
The 4835 Arapahoe property was reviewed by the Planning Board on March 2, 2000 as a Concapt Plan
review and comment. Formal decisions are not approved by the Planning Board at a Concept Plan
hearing. However, the Boud generally supported development of a hospital at this location, subject to the
resolution of floodplain impacts, traffic issues relating to Arapahoe Road (including site access and traffic
movements affecting neighbarhoods to the south) and concerns of adjacent neighborhoods. The Board
also strongIy encouraged the development of onsite employee housing.
The applicant originally included a request for Use Review for medical offices associated with the
hospital. Staff had advised the applicant that Use Review for the medical offices is required in the PE
zoning district. It was determined at the completion of the review process, however, that Use Review is
not required for the current application. The PE zone requires Use Review for medical offices only when
they are on separate lots contiguous to the lot occupied by the hospital. This requirement of the tand use
regulations was added in 1997 to permit development of inedical offices by other owners of PE zoned
property adjacent to the existing hospital in north Boulder. This code requirement is not applicable to the
cunent application for 4835 Arapahoe, as only one lot is proposed, with all the property being owned by
Boulder Community Hospital. The proposed medical offices are therefor regulated as permitted accessory
uses to the hospital.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #(c~~ Paee 3
Flood~lain/Wetlands
The proposed BCH site is currently located within the Boulder Creek and Bear Canyon Creek floodplains.
Bear Canyon Creek crosses the property along a northeasterly alignment from the intersection of
Arapahoe Avenue and Foothills Parkway and flows into Boulder Creek, which borders and forms the
northern boundary of the site. The confluence of these two creeks occurs on-site approximately midway
along the northern property boundary. The site is impacted by the 100-year floodplain, conveyance and
high hazard zones for both creeks, and,rises towards the southern edge of the historic floodplain corridor
near Arapahoe and 48'h Street.
The BCH development application proposes to fill 17 acres of the 48.6-acre site to provide a raised land
terrace above the Boulder Creek and Bear Canyon Creek floodplain. The area of proposed fill is located
outside of the regulatory Boulder Creek and Bear Canyon Creek conveyance zones, and fill in this area
would be permitted under current federal and local floodplain regulations by the issuance of a floodplain
development permit. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) has previously been obtained for
filling the property through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Boulder County.
Boulder County, following consultation with the City Council, has also approved a Limited Impact
Special Use Permit to begin importing fill to this property.
An updated floodplain study for Bear Canyon Creek, prepared by Love and Associates, Inc., has been
developed and is currently undergoing a local public review process prior to submittal to FEMA for
regulatory adoption. The updated study reflects an expanded floodplain and conveyance zone in this area
and south of Arapahoe due to deficiencies in an existing levee upstream along Harrison Avenue. Because
of this condition, the proposed BCH site fill will impact the Bear Canyon Creek conveyance zone and
BCH has been required to consider and mitigate any floodplain impacts that may result under the new
floodplain study.
The BCH development plan proposes to mitigate floodplain impacts for Bear Canyon Creek by increasing
conveyance along the creek both on-site and upstream, and will include reconstruction and upgrading of
the existing, substandard levee along the western side of Harrison Avenue. These upstream and offsite
modifications will serve to mitigate 100-year flooding on the filled BCH site and will also prevent
increased flooding into the existing neighborhoods south of Arapahoe Avenue.
The BCH proposed provision for offsite modifications to the Bear Canyon Creek corridor upstream offers
community benefits to mitigate increased flooding in the MacArthur Park and Willowridge Park
neighborhoods ahead of public floodplain management program activities. BCH and the city have agreed
to allow BCH to design and construct upstream Bear Canyon Creek flood mitigation modifications as part
of the hospital project with city reimbursement for portions of the construction costs for flood mitigation
in the aforementioned neighborhoods.
BCH also plans to modify grades sunounding Bear Canyon Creek north of Arapahoe Avenue in order to
increase conveyance and mitigate the impacts of site fill in the 17 acre development area. This regrading
of the creek corridor will provide improved flood capacity through the existing Arapahoe Avenue culverts
which are partially obstructed by downstream topography. Regrading as proposed will only affect
overbank areas for Bear Canyon Creek near Arapahoe and will not change or channelize the existing
stream bed. Overbank areas do not currently inciude wetlands, but wetland mitigation is planned to be
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~'A Paee 4
created in the regraded areas to address expected wetland impacts to an existing drainage swale along 48'h
Street. Overall site fill and regrading activities on the BCH property will not affect any other regulatory
wetlands.
Traffic
Traffic volumes and flow on Arapahoe are high. There are medians within Arapahoe at the present time
that limit access to the site. Primary access is proposed at 48'h Street which is currently not a signalizad
intersection. The 48"' and Arapahoe intersection is located outside the floodplain indicating that primary
access to the property should be available during major storm events. However, it should be noted that the
Arapahoe and Foothills Parkway intersection wiil be inundated during flooding along Boulder Creek or
Bear Canyon Creek. At such times, direct access across Arapahoe at this intersection will not be available
and an alternative route east on Valmont and south on 55'" Street to access this location would be
necessary if facilities at the main hospital on North Broadway are not available.
Ball Aerospace and the Riverbend Office Park are located to the east of 48'h Street along the north side of
Arapahoe. The RiverBend Office Park has been rezoned to TB-E which permits medical office use by
right. Industrial uses are located to the north of Boulder Creek and west of Foothills Highway.
Residential uses are primarily found south of Arapahoe, with the exception of the Viewpoint of6ce
buildings at the southeast corner of Arapahoe and Foothills Highway that contain some medical offices
approved through Use Review.
ANALYSIS:
ANNEXATION:
1. Does the request comply with the applicable state annexation requirements? Staff has
reviewed the annexation request and finds that the requirements of Section 31-12-105 (1) (a), (b),
(c) and (d) C.R.S. are met. No land held in identical ownership will be divided into separate parts
or parcels by this annexation. The owners of 100 percent of the property have signed the
annexation petition (Attachment B). The subject property is at least one-sixth contiguous to the
city limits (enclave, fully surrounded). No part of the annexation area has been part of an
annexation proceeding to another municipality within the last 12 months, and the annexation will
not result in the detachment of area from any schoo] district. The parcel is within the Boulder
Valley School District. All urban services will be available to the site upon annexation.
Finding 1. The annexation request is consistent with state annexation requirements ofsection
31-12-105(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) C.R.S.
2. Is annexation of the property consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP)? This site is an enclave, fully surrounded by city annexed lands. The site is in area IIA
of the BVCP and is currently designated for light industrial use with a natural ecosystems overlay
over the portion of the site (31.6 acres) not planned to be filled. The current major update to the
2001 BVCP proposes to change the land use designation to "Environmental Preservation" for the
31.6 acres and public/semi-public for the 17 acres, which allows hospital use of the 17-acre site.
The proposed land use map change has been approved by the Planning Board, City Council, and
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~G'~ Paee 5
the County Planning Commission and is scheduled for County Commissioner consideration on
July 26. Hospital use is only permitted within a public zone, which is supported by the
public/semi-public designation of the BVCP. Annexation of this parcel is consistent with the
policies of the 2001 revised BVCP, including:
Policy 1.20(a) Annexation will be required before adequate facilities and services are provided.
Development o this site or a hospital will require citv services. which are available in adjacent
rtght-o~~
Policy 1.20(b) The city will actively pursue annexation of county enclaves, This site is fullv
surrounded bv the cit~and has been eligible for annexation since the 1970's. This site has not
been considered for unnexation previouslv becuuse the site had been kept in agriculture use until
recentl~
Policy 1.20(c) In order to reduce the negative impacts of new development in the Boulder Valley,
the city shall annex land with significant development or redevelopment potential only on a very
limited basis. Such annexations will be supported only if the annexation resolves an issue of
public health or provides a special opportunity or benefit to the city. This annexation is beine
reauested to support development ojneeded hospital facilities and services. Site development is
also proposed to include upstream moda~cations to the existing levee alonQ Bear Can~on Creek
which will not onlv help mitigate 100-vear~looding on the filled BCHsite. but will also prevent
increased IloodinQ into the existinq neiQhborhoods south ofAra~ahoe Avenue ahead of public
floodplain manaeement activities. In addition. 31.6 acres of the site will be breserved~r flood
convevance and environmental conservation to nrotect hazardous and environmentally sensitive
lands within the Boulder Creek corridor.
Policy 2.05 Open Space Preservation. The city and the county will preserve lands with unique
natural features and characteristics as permanent open space by purchase of development rights,
fee simple gifts or purchases and other measures as appropriate and financially feasibie. Thir -
one and six -tenths acres of land within the Boulder Creek and Benr Canvon Creek~lood lain
corridor will be preserved with the development of'this rp opertv. The areas to be nreserved are
proposed to be designated environmental protection areas on the Comprehensive Plan and will be
zoned for agriculture use with the annexation. The 31.6 acres will be nreserved as open snace
through dedication of'the land as a conservation easement in form accentable to the Citv
Mana~
Policy 3.20 Support for Community Facilities. The city and the county recognize the importance
of the health care, social services and nonprofit community agencies that provide vital services to
residents of the Boulder Valley, and shall work collaboratively with these agencies to reasonably
accommodate their facility needs. Boulder Communit~Hospital has emphasized the need to
vrovide expanded services within the Boulder Vatlev. The hospital has determined that the
primary need area is southeast Boulder which has resulted in identi, ~inp this site due to size.
availabilitv and locational features.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~ Paee 6
Policy 4.04 Assessment of environmental impacts. The community and environmental effects of
public and private projects shall be considered in the public decision making process. Local, state,
and federal environmental review processes shall be followed when appropriate. Wetlands.
floodplain, an~rairie dog habitats are found on this site. The applicant has undertakert studies
of'the site to determine that the 17 acres bro~osed for development will not result in im ap cts to
existing ecolo tg'cal svstems within 1loodplain or wetland areas. Impacts to existing wetlands and
the floodplain will be mitiQated through on-site improvements and o~-site modifcations tlsat will
8e completed prioY to construction of public or private improvemerats.
Policy 4.06 Natural Ecosystems. The city and county shall protect and restore significant
ecosystems and habitats for native plant and animal species on public and private lands through
acquisition, land use planning, development review, conservation easements, and public land
management practices. Promotion of biological diversity and protection of federal endangered and
threatened species, and state, county and local species of concern and their associated habitat will
be emphasized. Degraded habitat may be restored and selected extirpated species may be
reintroduced as a means of enhancing native flora and fauna in the Boulder Valley. Natural area
(as designated in the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and by the Colorado State Natural
Areas Program) that are within the Boulder Valley, shall be managed in a manner that is consistent
with the Natural Areas Goals and Policies of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan.
Dedication of a conservation easement over the 31.6 acres located outside of the proposed
development area will preserve flood conve~nce for the Boulder Creek floodplain, protect the
existing riparian. wetlands, prairie do~nd plains ecosystems found in this area, and allow
proper open space management nractices to occur.
Policy 4.07 Ecosystem connections and buffers. The city and the county recognize the biological
importance of preserving large areas of unfragmented habitat. The city and county will work
together to preserve, enhance, restare and maintain undeveloped lands critical far providing
ecosystem connections and buffers for joining significant ecosystems. These areas are important
for sustaining biological diversity and viable habitat for native species and for minimizing impacts
from developed lands. Preservation of the Boulder Creek corridor throu2h the provision o~
minimum 600- oot buf~er from the 17 acre development area will provide and maintain important
connections to existing ecosvstems in this area.
Policy 4.09 Wetland Protection. Natural and human-made wetlands are valuable for their
ecologica] and, where appropriate, their recreational functions including their ability to enhance
water and air quality. Wetlands also function as important wildlife habitat, especially for rare,
threatened, and endangered plants and wildlife. The city and the county wili continue to develop
programs to protect and enhance weflands in the Boulder Valley. The city shall discourage the
destruction of wetlands, but in the rare cases when development is permitted and the filting of
wetlands cannot be avoided, they shall be restored or replaced. Sipnificant wetlands located
alonQ Boulder Creek. Bear Canvon Creek and in the pasture land meadows will not be impacted
bv proposed site ~Il or development. Some existinP wetlands alonQ the 48'" Street drainaQe swale
on the south and east propertv lines will be directlv impacted in order to construct needed storm
water drainage facilities to serve on-site development and improve ailing drainaee cwzditions
south o~pahoe Avenue Wetlands directlv impacted are proDOSed to be relocated on-site in the
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~ Paee 7
Bear Canvon Creek corridor area ad~acent to the Arapahoe where re rading of the overbank
areas will be completed to irnprove jlood convevance. Existing wetlands will be protected or
replaced in accordance with citv and federal reguirements. A se~arate wetlands permit will be
reguired to be reviewed and approved bv the cit~e ore permits are issued for this nropert~
Policy 411 Management of wildlife-human conflicts. When a wildlife species is determined to be
a nuisance or a public health hazard, a full range of alternative wildlife management techniques
may be considered by the city and the county in order to mitigate the problem in a manner that is
humane, effective, economical, and ecologically responsible. Prairie doe habitat exists on
portions of this site and wil[ be managed as a part of the conservation easement reguirements.
Under the nrovisions of citv maintenance. the existingprairie dog_communit~present on this site
will be controlled based on Open Space anct Mountain Parks standards and practices.
Policy 4.26 Flood Management. The functional and aesthetic qualities of drainage courses and
waterways shall be preserved and enhanced. A noncontainment approach to flood management
shall be used on Boulder Creek. A generally nonstntctural approach to flood control that
emphasizes a natural appearance shall be used on all major water courses and drainageways. In
some cases a structural solution may be used, consistent with adopted master plans. The
con uence of Boulder Creek and Bear Can~n Creek occurs on this site. Sitef ll proaosed for the
17 acre development area is located entirel~outside of the Boulder Creek convevance zone and is
consistent with a noncontainment approach~'or oodplain mana~ement. Site fill will encroach into
the convevance zone for Bear Canvon Creek based on the updated preliminarv~loodplain stud.y,
and flood miti~ation will involve overbank excavation and re r~~Q both sides of the creek
near Arapahoe Avenue. This mitiQation satis~es a non-structural non-containment approach
since direct channelization of the creek and the riparian area will not occur. This tvpe of overbank
excavation and re r~~approach ha~reviouslv been ap~lied to increase flood convevance
along Boulder Creek in the vicinitv ofBoulder Hi,~h School. Following restoration ofsurface
conditions and veQetation. evidence of the convevance improvement will be neQligible and an
aesthetic, natural appearance as part of an enhanced drainagewav corridor will result. Flood
i~rovements will be made to the site consistent with citv stanclards and reQUlations. A separate
floodplain permit is rec~uired to be reviewed and approved bv the citv before building permits are
issued~or this propert~
Policy 4.28 Protection of High Hazard Areas. The city shail prevent redevelopment of
significantly flood-damaged properties in the high hazard areas. The city shall prepare a plan for
property acquisition of flood-damaged and undeveloped land in flood high hazard areas.
Undeveloped flood high hazard areas will be retained in their natural state whenever possible.
Compatible uses of riparian corridors, such as natural ecosystems, wildlife habitat, and wetlands
shall be encouraged wherever appropriate. Trails or other open recreational facilities may be
feasible in certain areas. The floodplain hiPh hazard area j'or Boulder Creek and Bear Canvon
Creek will be preserved and set aside from devetopment for human occupuncv throueh dedication
o,~a conservation easement to the citv coverinq this area. No improvements that would be
prohibited as set forth under citti oodplain reaulations will be permitted in the conservation
easement.
~
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM # ll~~ Paee 8
Finding 2: The reguest for annexation and development of this site for a hospital and related uses
is consistent with the BVCP policies.
3. Is the project providing a special opportunity or benefit to the city? Development of this site
for a hospital use will be consistent with the public uses supported by the land use designation
changes proposed in the BVCP update. It has been recognized that a hospital use will represent an
increase in the number of jobs anticipated at this location over the existing light-industrial zoning
designation. However, the overall community benefit of expanding local hospital services and
preserving existing environmental lands and floodplain conveyance can support the development
of this property, given the £ollowing:
a. Hospital and emergency services offer a significant community benefit, as outlined in
BVCP Policy 3, "Facilities and Services." Hospital uses are a vital community service
within the Boulder Valley and expanded medical and emergency services are necessary to
respond to public needs. Local hospitals are currently overcrowded, often turning patients
away and going into "divert status" for emergency room medial care, as identified in the
applicanYs written statement (Attachment E). It is anticipated that medicai service needs
will continue to rise as the "baby boomer" population ages.
b. Preservation of flood conveyance and high hazard azeas and protection of wetland areas
and natural ecosystems offer a significant community benefit, as outlined in BVCP Policy
4, "Environment." The BCH application proposes to preserve 31.6 acres of the 48.6 acre
property adjacent to Boulder Creek and Bear Canyon Creek for flood conveyance and
environmental conservation. Staff is recommending that this preserved area be dedicated
as a conservation easement in a form acceptable to the City Manager. Such dedications are
consistent with annexation requests that involve floodplain conveyance and environmental
constraints.
The BCH application includes limited improvements in the conservation easement that
would be completed as part of initial site development, including increased flood
conveyance along Bear Canyon Creek, wetland mitigation near the creek to compensate for
wetland impacts along 48'h Street, a greenway trail connection between 48'h Street and the
Boulder Creek trail, and construction of a fire access and pedestrian lane along the
perimeter of the 17 acre development uea. Following this construction and site restoration
to re-estabiish a naturalized environment, there will be no further modification of the
conservation easement. Staff is also recommending that pedestrian access be restricted in
the conservation easement to both protect the habitat and limit potential conflicts between
people and prairie dogs.
c. BCH will participate in up to 50 percent of the costs for constructing a greenway trail
connection between 48'h Street and the Boulder Creek trail system, located along the north
side of Boulder Creek. This trail connection is identified in the Tributaries and Greenways
Plan to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access to the Boulder Creek trail system from
properties located south of the creek. This will replace the current pedestrian and bicycle
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #(t^~i Paee 9
use of the railroad bridge and an existing social trail, providing a 48"' Street connection to
Arapahoe Avenue.
d. On-site improvements to increase flood conveyance along Bear Canyon Creek and
upstream reconstruction and modification of the existing deficient levee along Harrison
Avenue offer a community benefit to eliminate increased flooding into the MacArthur Park
and Willowridge Park neighborhoods as identified in the updated preliminary floodplain
study for Bear Canyon Creek. As part of annexation and site development, BCH has agreed
to design and construct these upstream flood mitigation modifications ahead of any
scheduled public flood management activity. The city has then agreed to reimburse BCH
for portions of the construction costs that directly benefit the aforementioned
neighborhoods. This proposal offers a unique opportunity for BCH to mitigate flood
impacts to the Bear Canyon Creek conveyance zone as part of site development and
accelerate needed flood mitigation measures to restore the function of the existing levee
along Harrison Avenue.
Finding 3: Community benefits for annexation of this site include development of an
expanded vital community service (hospital), preservation of 31.6 acres of environmentally
sensitive lands and floodplain, contributions towards the development of a greenways trail
and bridge over Boulder Creek and modification of existing upstream Bear Canyon Creek
floodplain improvements to mitigate flooding into neighborhoods to the south.
4. Is zoning the property AE and PE appropriate for this site? The proposed zoning is consistent
with the "environmental protection" and "public/semi-publid' land use designation changes
supported in the 2001 BVCP update. Preservation of 31.6 acres for flood conveyance and
environmental conservation is consistent with Agriculture (AE) zoning and supports recommended
Open Space and Mountain Parks land management practices far this area.
A"hospital" use is allowed only in a public/semi-public (PE) zoning district and "Medical offices
and clinics on contiguous lots" are allowed by Use Review within the PE-zone. The BVCP update
land use designation change for the 17 acre development area is consistent with a PE zoning and
the BCH annexation and site review application are consistent with the PE-zone.
Finding 4: Zoning this site Agriculture (AE) and Public (PE) supports the proposed
designations ofEnvironmerztalProtection (includingpreservation offZood
conveyance) for the 31.6 acres and Public/Semi public for the reminder of the site.
SITE REVIEW:
5. Is filling the property above 500-year tlood elevations to remove it from the tloodplain
appropriate for development of a hospital? Staff has heard public concerns that development of
a hospital at this site, which is impacted by flooding from Bouider Creek and Bear Canyon Creek,
is inappropriate. Local and federa] floodplain regulations allow the development of a hospital
within the 100-year floodplain outside of the conveyance and high hazard zones, subject to the
provision of standard flood protection measures to elevate and flood proof construction.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~'/9 Paee 10
Federal floodplain guidelines do recommend that the construction of critical public facilities
(which would include hospital uses) provide flood protection to or above the 500-year flood lavel,
to afford a greater level of protection for these critical facilities, if a suitable location outside of the
100-year floodplain is not available. BCH conducted an extensive property search and public
process to acquire a suitable location for the hospital expansion which led to the selection of the
current property. In order to address concerns for the possible impacts of flooding, BCH has
agreed to elevate the 17 acre development area to the higher elevation of either the 500-year flood
level or the 100-year flood level plus an additional two feet. This approach will ensure adequate
flood protection to allow the development in conformance with raquired floodplain regulations and
meet recommended floodplain standards for critical medical facilities.
Access to the property during flooding is also a concern for development of a hospital at this
location. The BCH property borders the southern edge of the historic floodplain and the proposed
site fill connects the elevation of the 17 acre development area with offsite elevations above the
floodplain. The intersection of Arapahoe and 48'h Street, which will provide primary site access, is
located above flood elevations and allows access to the property from an area outside of the
ftoodplain. As mentioned earlier, the Arapahoe and Foothills Parkway intersection will be
inundated during flooding and direct access will not be available. An alternative route east on
Valmont and south on 55t° Street could provide access if necessary.
In addition to elevating the 17 acre development area above 500-year flood levels, BCH has agreed
to construct all structures in compliance with standard flood protection measures to the higher
elevation of either the 500-year flood level or the 100-year flood level plus an additional two feet.
Using this approach, all residential uses including hospital patient rooms and areas for critical
medical care will be elevated above the flood protection elevation. All non-residential uses
including underground parking garages, and excluding areas for critical medical care, will be
elevated or flood proofed above the flood protection elevation.
Finding S. The development area is proposed to be raised by site fill above S00 year flood
elevations to remove it from the floodplain. Development of the hospital and
related uses will also be constructed in a manner to ensure Jlood protection to or
above 500 year levels.
6. Will traffic impacts of the proposed development be mitigated, including impacts to
Arapahoe and adjacent neighborhoods? The Transportation Division has worked with the
applicanYs transportation engineer to design mitigation for traffic impacts. Traffic issues related to
the development of this site include:
a. Impacts to existing traffic flows along Arapahoe.
b. Installation of a new Arapahoe traffic signal between Commerce and Foothills Parkway.
c. Entering and exiting movements at Arapahoe and 48th Street.
d. Right turn movements to and from the hospital site along Arapahoe.
e. Entering and exiting movements for Arapahoe and MacArthur Lane.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700aip.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~7 Paee 11
The applicant's traffic engineer reviewed all the locations where traffic signals could be added to
Arapahoe between Foothills Highway and Commerce to minimize negative impacts to Arapahoe
and neighboring properties. See summary documents provided in attachment "F".
Three locations were identified, MacArthur and Arapahoe, between MacArthur and 48th Street,
and at 48th Street. 48th Street was determined to be the ]ocation where a traffic signal could be
added to meet the needs for the surrounding neighborhoods while most effectively serving the
proposed hospital site. Additional right-of-way has been required to be reserved or dedicated to
permit the addition of a future double left turn lanes for east bound traffic onto 48th Street ftom
Arapahoe. A double left-turn lane would be constructed by the city should this be determined to be
necessary. In addition, a right turn island on 48th Street separating through traffic movements from
the right turn lane will be provided. The right turn island will also serve as a pedestrian refuge,
shortening the distance pedestrian have to go to cross Arapahoe.
Right turn movements from this site to Arapahoe will be limited to 48th Street and a location
between buildings 4 and Sa (see site plan pg C4). Entering right-turns would not be allowed at this
latter location in order to reduce potential pedestrian/bike conflicts at this location. State Highway
standards acknowledges the third lane of a 3-lane facility (6 lanes if considering east-west bound
trafFic) as the acceleration lane. An additional acceleration lane is not desirable.
The city, the applicant and the neighbors have met several times to review these issues. Of primary
concern to the neighbors is the impact to their ability to take access onto Arapahoe. The neighbors
to the south have been concerned that closing the median on Arapahoe at MacArthur Lane would
force all traffic exiting west or entering from the east to use the 48th and Arapahoe intersection. If
this were to occur, the MacArthur neighborhood wouid be required to first go south through
adjacent neighborhoods along Harrison (approximately % mile) to Eisenhower and then north to
Arapahoe along the west side of Eisenhower Elementary School. Review of the traffic studies has
shown that the current intersection of MacArthur and Arapahoe does not need to be altered with
the proposed hospital development. Additionally, the proposed 48th Street signa] would create
exiting left-tum opportunities thereby improving movements from MacArthur.
Finding 6. Traffic impacts will be mitigated for through onsite and off site improvements to be
made by the applicant supporting development of this site.
7. Are the site design characteristic proposed for this site appropriate?
• Is the builcline design comDatible with the existin,~_character of the surroundinp area? This
site is located within an area that is predominately surrounded by industrial uses. The
property itself has been perceived as an agricultural site for years, but the site has been
designated for industrial use for years on the city's comprehensive plan documents.
The primary hospital buildings have been placed along the northwestern edge of the 17
acres to reduce the impact of the hospital buildings bulk and height on adjacent properties.
The design is appropriate to the site, creating a building that appears as several buildings
linked together. The changes in building frontage direction help to reduce the apparent bulk
and scale of the building as viewed from Arapahoe and Foothills Highway. The materials
s:\plan\pb-items~rr~emos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM # li~/9 Paee 12
proposed will provide a varied building materials palette, which will also help to reduce the
bulk and scale of the building as viewed from exterior street frontages.
Phase Two through Five (as shown on sheet L7 of the applicants submittal documents) will
result in adding additional wings to the Hospital and doctors offices along the Arapahoe
frontage. The buildings along Arapahoe have been located immediately adjacent to
Arapahoe to provide a more active street frontage, and to screen the parking areas located
within the central portions of the 17 acre site. A landscaped walkway will connect the
intersection of 48`h Street and Arapahoe to the main entrance to the Hospital.
Does the building present an attractive streetscane anct inco~orate desiQn elements
aDpropriate to a pedestrian scale? While the Hospital will be placed at the back of the 17
acres to be developed, walkways and street connections to the surrounding areas will be
provided. A diagonal walkway will connect the main entrance of the Hospitai to the
intersection of 48`h and Arapahoe. A trail and a bridge over Boulder Creek connecting to
the Boulder Creek trail system wi11 be provided as a part of the development of this site.
Buildings have been placed along the Arapahoe frontage in later phases of the development
which will provide an improved street scape along Arapahoe. Pedestrian access to the site
will be enhanced through the extension of walkways throughout he site.
Concerns have been expressed from ]andowners south of Arapahoe that placing buildings
adjacent to Arapahoe will create unacceptable levels of reflected noise. The buildings can
be designed to reduce or diffuse reflective noise. The buildings will be at least 30' north of
the curb line far Arapahoe. Combining the setbacks, landscape materials and design
elements for these buiidings, will reduce reflective noise level.
Is the hei h~eption to SS' appropriate for this site? The hospital buildings will have a
physical height of approximately 47 feet. However, due to the 7' to 8' of fill that will be
placed on the site and the city's definition of height based on the low point of natural
grade, the Hospital will have a total height by code of up to 55'. The building to be placed
adjacent to Arapahoe in phases 4 and 5 will have a total height of 40', but also will be built
on areas that will be filled, so the actual heights of the buildings will be less than 35'. The
Ball research building located to the northeast of this site (east of 48"' Street) has an actual
height of about 55'. The Ball tower located at Commerce and Arapahoe has a building
height of approximately 72'. The tower was built before adoption of the height limits,
where the research building was built after adoption of the city's height regulations.
As a result of the distance from Arapahoe, the 7 to 8' of land fill, the wide right-of-way for
Arapahoe and the fact that the hospital will appear as several building modules, the impacts
of the requested 55' height will have limited impacts on adjacent uses.
Is the site desiQn approprtate j'or this site? Development of the siCe as proposed is
consistent with all current city development concepts supporting urban, rather than
suburban design principles. While the hospital will be placed at the rear of the property
s:\plan\pb-items\memos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~ Paee 13
with parking lots separating the hospital from Arapahoe, the later phases of the
development will place three office buildings adjacent to Arapahoe and 48`h Streets. Staff
requested that buildings be located along the street frontages to screen proposed parking
lots and create a pedestrian friendly streetscape along Arapahoe. The height of these
buildings will not exceed 40' from existing grade, which is an average of 6 feet below
Arapahoe. Staff has received numerous comments from neighbors concerned about the
height of the new hospital. In response to these issues, the hospital has been placed within
the northern sections of the property to reduce the impacts of the building height on
adjacent neighbors, but as noted above, buildings will be developed along Arapahoe to
create the urban design the city desires for new development.
Fznding T. The site design elements of this plan will be consistent with the city's goals for
compatibility with adjacent land uses, create an appropriate street scape along
Arapahoe and 48`~' Streets and building height and scale have been placed at the
rear (north end) of the site to reduce impacts on adjacent properties.
Finding 8: The overall site design is appropriate for this site and development of a hospital
and associated uses on the site.
VESTED RIGHTS:
8. Is the request to extend Vested Right beyond the three year intervals permitted by city
ordinances appropriate? The applicant is requesting consideration of a phasing plan with time
limits of up to 10 years per phase, but at a minimum the plan will be for 15 years (five 3year
phases). T he hospital has acknowledged that the hospital industry changes frequently, which
could result in the need to modify plans far the site within a few years. However the hospital is
concerned with the ability to build out the plan based on the requested square footage (420,000
square feet total). As a result, staff is suggesting separating the buildout issue from the vesting
(timing of development) issue. Through the annexation agreement, the City can agree to a
maximum building square footage developable on this site. Th consistency with current
regulations of the site design for the allowed square footage can be controlied through the phasing
under the Site Review process.
Staff finds that the request for ten year phases is not appropriate based on the fact that city design
standards do change over time. It is reasonable to expect new development, whenever it was
approved, to meet design standards at the time of development. In addition, the applicant has
acknowledged that the hospital industry and their program needs change frequently. As a result,
the staff is recommending that two five year phases be considered for this request. The first phase
(Syears) would be for initial hospital construction. The second 5 year phase would be for the
remainder of the project. Under the site review rules for phasing, those portions of the plan not
substantially completed during the phase, would become void. However, the ability to build
420,000 square feet would not go void due to the annexation agreement to permit up to 420,000
square feet to develop on this site. The applicant would be required to submit an amended Site
Review to construct the unused square footage after 10 years from the date of approval. This
would allow the city to consider cunent standards for development of the remainder of the site.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~i Paee 14
Finding 9: The current plan supports a maximum of 420,000 of hospital, medica/ office and
related uses. This maximum can be supported through the annexation agreement.
Finding 10: A two phase development with 5 year phases supports the current proposal, und
development plans. At the end of ten years there may be a need to reconsider the
hospital development needs in light of industry changes.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
The applicant has met with the neighbors several times prior to submitting this request for site review.
Concerns have been expressed from the neighbors relating to the potential building heights of up to 55',
traffic impacts to Arapahoe, flood plain improvements and noise leve] increases as a result of placing
buildings adjacent to Arapahoe. The Applicant has responded to all of these issues during the review
process. The talier buildings have been placed along the northern edge of the 17 acres to reduce the
impacts of building height. Considerable time has been spent reviewing traffic impacts to Arapahoe and
making sure that the neighbors concerns have been addressed. Improvements to the Bear Canyon Creek
floodplain will be made that will reduce the impacts of flood levels on properties south of Arapahoe.
Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within
1200 feet of the subject property (normal standard is within 600', but this area was expanded to
acknowledge concerns that have been expressed from a larger area) and signs were posted on the property
for at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Al] notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B,R.C. 1981
have been met.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends approval of this request for Annexation, Site Review and Use Review subject
to the findings listed below and conditions of this memo.
Finding 1. The annexation request is consistent with state annexation requirements ofsection 31-12-
105(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) C.R.S.
Finding 2: The request for annexation and development of this site for a hospital and related uses is
consistent with the BVCP policies.
Finding 3: Community benefits for annexation of this site include development of an expanded vital
community service (hospital), preservation of 31.6 acres of environmentally sensitive lands
and floodplain, contributions towards the development of a greenways trail and bridge
over Boulder Creek and modification of e.risting upstream Bear Canyon Creek floodplain
improvements Io mitigate floocting into neighborhoods to the sotrth.
Finding 4: Zoning this site Agriculture (AE) and Public (PE) supports the proposed designations of
Environmental Protection (including preservation of flood conveyance) for the 31.6 acres
and Public/Semi public for the reminder of the site.
Finding S: The development area is proposed to be raised by site fill above 500 year flood elevations
to remove it from the floodplain. Development of the hospital and related uses will also be
constructed in a manner to ensure flood protectian to or above S00 year levels.
s;\plan\pb-items\memos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #(C ~ Pase 15
Fincting 6: Tra~c impacts will be mitigated for through onsite and offsite improvements to be made
by the applicant supporting developrnent of this site..
Finding 7. The site design elements of this plan will be consistent with the city's goals for
compatibility with adjacent land uses, create an appropriate street scape along Arapahoe
and 48`h Streets and building height mzd scale have been placed at the rear (north end) of
the site to reduce impacts on adjacent properties.
Finding 8. The overall site design is appropriate for this site and development of a hospital and
associated uses on the site
Finding 9: The current plan supports a maxirnum of 420, 000 of hospital, medical office and related
uses. This mazimum can be supported through the annexation agreement.
Finding 10: A two phase development with 5 year phases supports the current proposal, and
development plans. At the end of ten years there may be a need to reconsider the hospital
development needs in light of industry changes.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Annexation Conditions
Prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance, the Applicant shall:
a. Dedicate right-of-way to the city, at no cost, along the west side of the 48th Street right-of-
way to accommodate existing roadway encroachment, the proposed sidewalk and 18" west
of the proposed sidewalk.
b. Sign and file petitions for inclusion in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
and the Boulder Municipal Subdistrict and pay all applicable fees on land and
improvements for inclusion in such districts.
c. Dedicate a conservation and flood control easement to the city at no cost, in a form
acceptable to the City Manager, for the 31.6 acres identified as proposed 100 year flood
plain on Map Clof the Applicants submittai documents.
d. Modify the Phasing plan to, two five (5) year increments for a total of 10 years. Phase one
as requested and phase 2 as the combination of all remaining phases as identified on sheet
L7, dated June 18, 2001.
2. Prior to issuance of a any building permits for the site, the Applicant shall:
a. Obtain approval of a flood plain development permit, as set forth in Chapter 9-9, "Flood
plain Regulations," B.R.C. 1981, for any site development, including grading, excavation
and construction activities.
b. Obtain approval of a wetland permit, as set forth in Chapter 9-12, "Wetlands Protection,"
B.R.C. 1981, for any activities or site development that impacts the regulatory wetland
area and adjacent 50-foot buffer. The adopted regulatory wetland area shall be the area
delineated by Professional Wetlands Consulting, Inc. on Drexel Barrell & Co. drawing SD
107, dated April 15, 1999, as accepted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a letter
dated December 11, 1998.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #&'A Paee 16
c. Enter into a maintenance and use agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, that
sets forth the responsibilities for maintenance, cost and use of land that is within the
conservation and flood control easement area.
3. The Applicant shall continue to satisfy the conditions of the County approvai and shall include all
required conditions outlined in the June 5, 2001 City Council motion, for the import of fill to the
site following annexation, as approved under the Boulder County Limited Impact Special Use
Permit, County Docket LU-O1-02 .
4. The Applicant shall convey drainage in an historical manner and which does not adversely affect
adjacent properties.
5. The Applicant agrees to reimburse the City for the lesser of 50% of the cost of the construction of
a bridge across Boulder Creek to connect to the Boulder Creek Path or $SQ000. The Applicant
shall reimburse the City within 45 days after receiving a written request from the City requesting
payment after completion of the bridge.
6. Issuance of a city of Boulder wetland permit will not eliminate any requirement for the Applicant
to obtain required permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If required, a 404 permit
shall be obtained in addition to a city of Boulder wetland permit.
7. Applicant shall design, construct, and pay for all upstream reconstruction and upgrading of the
existing flood levee along Harrison Avenue. Prior to final approval of the design as part of a
Technical document approval, the Applicant shall obtain approval from the Open Space Board of
Trustees (OSBT) prior to commencing any work on these improvements.
8. All proposed structures and parking garages shall provide flood protection to or above the higher
elevation of the 500-year flood elevation or the 100-year flood elevation plus an additional two
feet, such that:
a. Residential structures, patients rooms and critical medical attention areas (such as
operating rooms and examination areas) shall be elevated with the floor elevation placed at
or above the flood protection elevation.
b. Non-residential structures, excluding patienYs rooms and critical medical attention areas,
shall be elevated or flood proofed to or above the flood protection elevation. Non-
residential structures shall also include features such as emergency backup generators,
compressed gas compressors and storage containers, emergency water supplies and
emergency telecommunications equipment.
9. The applicant shall dedicate to the city, at no cost, public access easements for public sidewalks
adjacent to the city right-of-way, located on the applicant's property; the size and location of said
easements shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #!c'~~ Page 17
10. The applicant shall be permitted to construct 420,000 squaze feet of floor area for the hospital and
related uses. Any additional floor area proposed shall be subject to review and approval through
the Site Review amendment process, and shall be subject all regulations in place at that time.
Conditions for approval oS the Site Review:
This site review and use review approval shall be effective upon annexation of this property into
the City of Boulder.
2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shali submit the following items for
Technical Document review, and subject to the approval, of the Planning Department:
a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the
intent of this approval. The architectural intent shown on the approved plans dated June
18, 2001 is acceptable. Planning staff will review plans to assure that the architectural
intent is performed.
b. A detailed 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. Removal of trees must receive priar approval of the Planning
Department. Removal of any tree in City right-of-way must also receive prior approval of
the City Forester.
c. Provide 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. Provide a sign program to insure compliance with the requirements of Chapter 10-11,
B.R.C. 1981, no variances to code requirements approved as a part of this request.
Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit the following items for the
Technical Document review, and subject to the approval, of the Director of Public Works:
a. Final construction plans for utility, drainage, and storm water improvements, in
accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, including utility
and drainage plans and profiles and a Storm Water Report and Plan.
b. Dedicate public utility easements, in widths, location, and form acceptable to the Director
of Public Works, for all proposed public water, sewer, and storn~water improvements.
Easements shall be a minimum of 25-feet in width and shall be dedicated through the City's
Technical Document Review process.
4. The Applicant shall submit a final site plan through the Technical Document review process for
final review and approval by the City Manager within 60 days of this Planning Boud approval
reflecting the following revisions:
s:\plan\pb-items~rnemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM # lG/~ Paee 18
a. Fira lanes depicted upon the approved site plan shall be relocated to be at the base of the
fill and encroach in the flood plain no more than necessary to conformance with the City of
Boulder Design and Construction Standards.
b. The arboretum area within the flood plain area shall be relocated to the southwest, to be
within the 17 acre site to be filed.
c. Show the additional pavement to accommodate the pedestrian refuge to be constructed by
the Applicant at the northwest corner of 48th Street and Arapahoe Avenue.
5. Prior to the application for any building permit application, the Applicant shall obtain Che
necessary Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Access Permit for access onto
Arapahoe Avenue (State Highway 7).
Prior to final inspection for any building permits, the applicant shall submit a financial security to
guarantee the initial operation of the RTD transit pass program for the benefit of all employees
within the development. The guarantee shall be in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to cover
program operations for no less than three consecutive years. The Applicant shall pay any amount
above the amount provided in the guarantees required to ensure operation of the RTD transit pass
program for the benefit of all employees within the development for three years.
Prior to final inspection of any of the buildings proposed for phase one, the Applicant shall
construct two RTD transit stops. These transit stops shall each include a concrete pad, a shelter, a
bike rack, and a trash receptacle. The locations of these transit stops shall subject to the review
and approval of the Director of Public Works at the time of a final plat or Technical Document
Review.
8. Prior to a building permit application for any of the buildings along the Arapahoe Avenue frontage,
the Applicant shall submit for Technical Document review, and subject to the approval of the
Planning Department, building plans that demonstrate that the design will mitigate and otherwise
reduce the potential for reflective noise from Arapahoe Avenue traffic.
Construction activities shall not encroach into any regulatory wetland area. Any improvements
within an existing wetlands area shall be constructed to minimize and mitigate impacts to the
existing wetlands in conformance with the conditions of the City of Boulder Wetland Permit
issued for this project.
] 0. The Applicant shall design, construct, establish, monitor, and pay for (including financial
guarantees) wetland creation and necessary improvements on site (such as compensatory wetlands,
site restoration and revegetation) to mitigate wetland impacts resulting from the placement of fill
and site development activities.
11. Fill slopes on the site that are exposed to potential scour and erosion shall be protected by adequate
erosion control measures, such as reinforced walls, rip-rap or suitable landscape vegetation, to
s:\plan\pb-items~tnemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~A Paee 19
prevent any failure, carving, scour, erosion or sediment transport resulting from flood water
encroachment into the filled areas.
12. Final engineering plans and reports submitted for Technical Document Review shall meet all
requirements of the Design and Construction Standards (DCS) and Boulder Revised Code, 1981.
If elements of the approved Land Use Review preclude the development of plans meeting these
requirements, the Applicant shall be required to modify the Land Use Review approval through the
appropriate city review process.
13. The Applicant shall design, construct and pay for (including financial guarantees) necessary
improvements on site (such as site grading to improve flood conveyance) to mitigate flood plain
impacts resulting from the placement of fill and site development.
14. The Applicant shall design, construct, and pay for (including financial guarantees) for the upstream
reconstruction and upgrade of flood protection systems (including the existing levee along
Harrison Avenue adjacent to Open Space) to mitigate and prevent expanded flooding from Bear
Canyon Creek (impacting existing residentia] neighborhoods). The Department of Public Works,
Utilities Division, agrees to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Applicant (over a
period of time based on the City Council appropriation of funds) to reimburse the Applicant for the
costs of design and construction improvements that provide an overall community benefit for flood
plain management in the event that site development precedes public improvements by the City of
Boulder, along Bear Canyon Creek.
Approved By:
.
.. ~
~I'eter Pollock, Director
Planning Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Vicinity/Zoning Map
Attachment B: Development Review Results and Comments
Attachment C: Site Review Criteria Checklist
Attachment D: Correspondence Received
Attachment E: Traffic study summary documents
Attachment F: ApplicanYs written statements and proposed plans
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~'~ Page 20
ATTACHMENT A =
of Boulder Vicin
: ~-
,~-~
~~-~
Ma
~ ~-~.
~
~,
~/ / yY. 4
I ~frv ~4~P
~ ~ o,
ca <
,,
f
~i „ ~
i+.
~ l;
m,C ~.
~l~
;~~ ~., ~,
'SO6d'fiGT P1LOP~ERTY'
~JSS~S ARRPAHOE..4Vfi
Location: 4835 Arapahoe Ave
Review Type: Anr~exation Initial Review
5ite Rewiew
Use Review
Project Name: Boulder Gommarrity Hospital
Raview Number: LUR2001-00009
Applicant: Joe McDonald
~. HOOO- ~~~aplink~~o}~'~ erGl8
~ii T~Mxn~T~Y~Y1~~~~111~i~1A~~
~I fM1~6 I~WtlAp1YYTw W~AY•
~v YprN~aivsni i'~irm~.'m~i
wei~JMn
Agenda Ilem #~~.Page #
~
~
~ p py ~ ~
~ F~OB ~~4~ ~~~
~
~[ E p
~~
~ ~
~
€
^ _
~ U ~ ~ I
$ k~
4
S
b
O ~ ~~~ ~~~a~ ~~
g L ~
~
_ U N ,^
u ~
~N,S j '°~~ki{i~`
^ ° ~ ~~8 ~8~~. Q
0
t
I
U
~ ~ ~~ .~.k@
~ t°~n~~ef
~
m
~
~ ~~ ~~ipn
"~~
s~ ~e~6 ~~~~F
~
z
z
N
~W
0
Wa
~
0
a
0
~
a
~~
m
v
~~o
\~
m
~
z
Z We
o ~
NW~
o ~
W =
N V
0 ~
a t~
o Q
~
a
~
Agenda Item ~ l~ Page N~
ATTACHMENT B
r ^ ~~~C ~~-~
~ I ~'S~ ~
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: March 15, 2001 (amended March 29)
CASE MANAGER: Brent Bean
LOCATION: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
COORDINATES: N03W02
REVIEW TYPE: Site and Use Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00009
APPLICANT: JOE MCDONALD
DESCRIPTION: SITE AND USE REVIEW: Site and Use Review to locate Boulder Community Hospital
Arapahoe Campus on the Northeast corner of Arapaho Road and Foothills Parkway.
REQUESTED VARIAT IONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Building heights to 55 feet
REVIEW FINDINGS
There are four primary issues that require further consideration. The first three relate to the safety issues regarding
development of a Hospital site at this Iocation. The first is that the traffic study does not satisfy the criteria for traffic
signalization needs and driveway locations. The second is that the site should be developed using an elevation based on
the 500 year flood plain. Federal guidelines and past city policy support the development of a site housing critical services
such as hospitals at this elevation. See Flood Plain comments for additional information and clarification of design
constraints. The third issue is that the site should be accessible through a roadway system that is outside the floodplain.
This suggests that the applicant should enter into discussions with Ball Aero Space and/or the Riverbend Office park to
construct a new easUwest roadway connecting 48'" Street to Commerce. The fourth issue is that the four medical service
buildings in the western portion of the site should be relocated to the corner of 48~h and Arapahoe to create a stronger
building presence at this intersection consistent with the existing neighborhood, provide a better connection to transit
service along Arapahoe and also to serve as a screen to the proposed parking lots along Arapahoe.
A number of other issues require further consideration such as: the proposed utility plans for the site, internal circulation,
wetlands mitigation methods, trail connections, dedication of openspace areas and details regarding the amount of
building area and use for the two phases of this development.
Please review and respond to all the questions/issues raised in this document. The Site Review criteria should be looked
at closely and additional information provided where indicated within the comments made in this section. Responses to
each issue raised in this document should be provided with the review of revisions submittal. A digital copy of the
comments contained in this review can be forwarded to the applicant via email.
Application does not meet the applicable criteria for Site Review consideration at this time; a revision to the current plan
will need to be resubmit to the city. A revision should be submitted by April 23 2001 to keep this project on schedule. if
this time line cannot be meet, the applicant should notify the case manager, Brent Bean to review submittal deadlines and
dates before a resubmittal is made. The applicant may schedule additional meetings with the Case Manager to review
comments made in this document. If a specific person has made comments, the applicant may schedule a meeting with
an individual staff member(s) to review specific identified issues.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
AccesslCirculation
The City of Boulder Transportation Department does not support a signal at the location of the 48th Street intersection as
recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Arapahoe Avenue currently experiences poor levels of service and
significant per-vehicle delays at signals. The addition of another signal within approximately 800 feet of the Eisenhower
signal will create additional delays for drivers who currently express constant frustration with the existing signal system.
Questions remain as to whether this site will create an adequate traffic demand to warrant signalization. Furthermore, the
progression analysis contained in the traffic study does not adequately address the problems of increased delay caused by
the addition of the signal as proposed in this traffic study.
Although the 48'h Street signal as proposed is not supported, other options remain for access throughout the vicinity of the
site. Cross access between and across sites is generally recommended for properties along Arapahoe Avenue to focus
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agendaltem~~Page~ ~~3
traffic at signalized intersections serving multiple sites. The recommended signal at 48`" Street as proposed effectively
only serves the hospital site and therefore does not achieve the goal of combined site access. Therefore, staff would
support one of two scenarios for access to a signal for this site:
1. An access easement be pursued with the neighboring property to the east that would allow traffic from the hospital
site to access Commerce (Eisenhower) and its signalized access with Arapahoe.
2. An access easement be pursued with the neighboring property to the east that would allow traffic from Commerce
(Eisenhower) to access 48`h Street and a proposed signal at the 48`h StreeUArapahoe intersection. Under this
scenario, the signal at Commerce/Arapahoe Avenue would need to be removed.
3. Signalized access may be considered at a location on Arapahoe that is further from the Commerce (Eisenhower)
intersection than the location proposed. This option would be the least desirable from the City's perspective but
would have less negative impacts than the 48~h Street location.
The City of Boulder sees these three scenarios as the only solutions for access that would minimally increase the already
problematic delays along the Arapahoe Avenue corridor. City staff would work to aid in any negotiations and would
consider financially compensating the parties invotved in these negotiations where appropriate.
A. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)
1. On page 4 of the TIA, the median on Arapahoe Road is described as a painted median. This median is in
fact a raised, landscaped median in the area between Foothills Parkway and 48'h Street and beyond to the
east.
2. Distribution
a) Phase 1: Figure 6(Trip Distribution) shows 80% of expected site generated traffic entering from and
exiting to the west at the 48'h StreeUArapahoe Avenue intersection. This distribution is significantly
dlfferent than what is experienced currently on Arapahoe. The sectlon titled "Trip Distribution" states
that the distribution is largely based on existing volumes, however the distribution shown is not
consistent with either the City's counts or the counts conducted by the applicant's consultant. W ithout
further justification for the distribution used, staff will accept an assumption of 45°/a of the anticipated
site generated traffic entering from and exiting to the west at the 48'h Street/Arapahoe Avenue
intersection.
b) Phase 2: Figure 7(Trip Distribution) shows an overall distribution of 70% of expected site generated
traffic entering from and exiting to the west. The expected distribution of traffic in the future on
Arapahoe Avenue is expected to remain similar to what is experienced currently with possible
increased traffic directed to and from the east. Therefore, the same reasoning applies as for Phase 1,
and staff will accept an assumption of between 40% to 45% of the anticipated site generated traffic
directed to and from the west on Arapahoe Avenue.
3. The RTO access located in the western portion of the site for Phase 2 is not supported by staff for the
following reasons:
a) The access is located within 100 feet of the beginning of the taper for the double left-turn lanes for the
westbound leg of the Foothills Parkway/Arapahoe Avenue intersection. Exiting traffic from the site
that wouid then make a left turn from westbound Arapahoe Avenue at the Foothilis Parkway
intersection would have to negotiate three lanes of traffic while accelerating out of the FtTO access.
b) Stacking during the morning peak period at the westbound leg of the Foothills ParkwaylArapahoe
Avenue was not addressed in the study. This intersection is the most congested intersection in the
city and therefore must be carefully considered in relation to this site. Of particular concern is left turn
lane stacking and how it would impact the type of movement described in comment 2a above.
c) The location of the RTO access would create difficulty for vehicles exiting MacArthur Trail via a left
turn onto Arapahoe and then maneuvering to the right turn lane at the westbound leg of the Foothills
Parkway/Arapahoe Avenue intersection. This condition is of particular concern when the vehicles
exiting the RTO access would be weaving across Arapahoe Avenue to reach the left-turn lanes at the
westbound leg of the Foothills ParkwaylArapahoe Avenue intersection.
d) Future plans for the Foothills Parkway/Arapahoe Avenue intersection are as yet unresolved. It is
expected that the status of this intersection's future alignment will be known within the next few
months. Improvements to this intersection that are being considered may locate the impacts of
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda Item # ~' Page ~ ~-~
queuing traffic within the westbound leg further to the east thereby further exacerbating the concerns
outlined in comments 2a, b, and c above.
4. Transportation Demand Management
a) It is expected that transit use would be significant, however no specific percentage or number of trips
that would be diverted from single passenger vehicles to alternate modes is discussed. Based on
surveys conducted within the City, it would be reasonable to expect that about 20% of employees
would use transit, however it would be expected that a much lower percentage of patients would use
transit. Please provide more information on how the trip reduction was derived.
b) Since it would be expected that transit would be critical to reducing single passenger vehicle trips for
this site, this TDM strategy needs to be reinforced and encouraged with the following measures:
• i2TD Eco-Passes must be provided to all employees for a minimum of three consecutive years
starting at the time of occupation of the site. This program is to be funded at no cost to the City.
The expected cost of this program for the vicinity of this site on a per-year basis is estimated at
$30 per employee.
• The existing bus stops at 48'h Street on the north and south sides of Arapahoe must be upgraded
to City of Boulder standard Type 4 transit stops. These stops include a shelter that corresponds
with specific architectural standards, a bike rack, a trash receptacle, a bench and appropriate bus
route information and signing. Specific details of this transit stop can be coordinated along with
the appropriate building permitting.
. Other improvements for pedestrians may be required depending on how many pedestrians would
be expected to cross Arapahoe to or from the hospital to access transit and how issues
surrounding the proposed 48~h Street signal outlined elsewhere in these comments are resolved.
5. Appendix D identifies only one signal warrant, the Peak Hour Volume W arrant. The City of Boulder
Transportation DepartmenYs policy is not to signalize an intersection based on only this one warrant.
More analysis would be required into other warrants that would be mef before a signal would be
considered at this location.
6. Auxiliary Lane Recommendations
a) The length of left-turn storage for the eastbound left-turn lane at the 48~h Street intersection was not
addressed in the TIA. This information is needed regardless if the intersection is signalized or not.
b) The TIA identifies significant impacts to the 48~h StreeUArapahoe Avenue intersection but does not
discuss the need or the required design elements for additional lanes.
B. SITE PLAN
1. The sight distance eastbound on Arapahoe in the vicinity of the 48`" Street intersection is a concern for
right-turns turning eastbound onto Arapahoe and left turns turning onto northbound 48'" Street. This issue
needs to be addressed with respect to the increased traffic expected at this intersection.
2. The Phase 2 Grading Plan (Sheet C2) indicates that there would be a right-turn-only access on Arapahoe
Avenue located approximately 420 feet west of 48~h Street. This is inconsistent with other plans and with
the Traffic Impact Analysis which show no access at this location. Please clarify this inconsistency.
3. Auxiliary Lane Design
a) As mentioned in comments regarding the TIA, the left-turn deceleration lane must be shown on the
plans !o illustrate how they relate to nearby accesses and turn lanes.
b) Intersection improvements for southbound 48'h Street have not been shown on plans. Any widening
of this street at the intersection will likely impact the wetlands west of 48'" Street and will need to be
coordinated with Alan Taylor, City of Boulder Wetlands Coordinator. Additional right-of-way for 48'h
Street would also likely be needed.
c) Improvements to the 48`^ Street/Arapahoe intersection may require consideration of alignment with the
south leg of this intersection. This issue has not been addressed on the plans, nor do the plans show
the laneage within the south leg of the intersection. A plan showing existing and proposed striping is
required to accompany any proposal to improve this intersection.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV pgenda Item # "~"~ Page ~_r~-
4. The proposed sidewalk on 48`h Street is required to be 5 feet in width and extend to the end of 48'" Street.
This sidewalk improvement will likely impact the wetlands west of 48~" Street and will need to be
coordinated with Alan Taylor, City of Boulder Wetlands Coordinator.
5. The City of Boulder Greenways Plan indicates that there is a need for a multi-use path connection from
the end of 48'" Street across Boulder Creek to the Boulder Creek Path. This connection is required by the
applicant to achieve the TDM strategy of encouraging pedestrians and bicycles accessing the site. Staff
requires details on how this connection will be constructed. Applicable floodplain and wetlands permitting
can be coordinated with Alan Taylor, City of Boulder Wetlands Coordinator.
6. The curb ramps at the Arapahoe Avenue/48'h Street intersection do not comply with current City of
Boulder standards. Curb ramps on all four corners of this intersection are required to be reconstructed to
current standards due to the transit and pedestrian impacts that the proposed site would create.
Drainage .
1. Any stormwater facilities that carry drainage from the public right-of-way across the site will need to be public and
located in an easement at least 25-feet in width. Laterals coilecting on-site drainage are to remain private and should
not be placed in an easement.
2. Per city standards, all projects are required to minimize directly connected impervious areas. Where possible, sheet
flow or surface swales should be used instead of storm sewer pipe. All drainage from roofs and parking lots needs to
be routed through an appropriate storm water quality treatment facility before it leaves the site. Approximate locations
and sizes for water quality features need to be shown on the plans. Outfall locations need to be sensitive to wetland
issues on the site. Final design will be required during the Technical Document Review process.
3. The "Master Utility , Storm Water, and Floodplain Analysis" indicates that groundwater was encountered 1.5 to 5.5-feet
deep on the site. Given the extent of subsurtace excavation, this may be a major issue even with the proposed fiil.
The applicant needs to provide information on the anticipated groundwater discharge associated with subsurtace
facilities, including anticipated quantity, quality, and location of discharge. The applicant should also evaluate any
wetland impacts associated with lowering the water table at this location. As part of the Technical Documents Review
process, the applicant will be required to obtain applicable state and local groundwater discharge permits.
4. The drainage report indicates that the 6' x 3' box cuivert and 24" RCP under Arapahoe Avenue convey the 5-year
storm event but not the 100-year event. Please provide the design capacity used for these culverts and identify any
capacity impacts associated with improvement on the hospital site.
5. Additional information is required to clarify the proposed drainage basin delineation. It is not clear from the plans how
some of the delineation were made or where the point of concentration is located. Please provide additional text in the
report and/or include flow arrows and other annotations on the plans.
6. Additional comments may be applicable as a result of review of revisions due to the additional information being
required and possible site layout changes required elsewhere in these comments.
Engineering
In order to improve the clarity of future city responses, the applicant should label or number the buildings on the utility and
drainage plans. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
Flood Control
1. The Boulder Community Hospital (BCH) East Campus Site development application proposes to fill 17 acres of
the 49-acre site to provide a land terrace to construct the hospital project outside of the Boulder Creek and Bear Canyon
Creek floodplain. The proposed site fill will impact the Bear Canyon Creek conveyance zone as determined under a recent
floodplain study prepared for the city by Love and Associates, Inc. The BCH plan proposes to mitigate floodplain impacts
by increasing conveyance along the creek on-site and upstream, and by improving the existing, substandard levee along
the western side of Harrison Avenue. These upstream and offsite improvements would serve to prevent 100-year flooding
to the BCH site and the existing neighborhoods south of Arapahoe Avenue that are shown to be in the Bear Canyon Creek
floodplain in Love's study.
The provision of offsite improvements to the Bear Canyon Creek corridor offers community benefits to mitigate Bear
Canyon Creek flooding in the MacArthur Park and W illowridge Park neighborhoods. BCH and the city have been
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agendaltem #~Page ~ ~_
discussing an agreement to allow BCH to design and construct Bear Canyon Creek flood mitigation improvements as part
of the hospital project with city reimbursement of a portion of the construction costs for flood mitigation in the
aforementioned neighborhoods.
The submitted application did not include a design proposal for the offsite improvements along Bear Canyon Creek. As a
condition of annexation, an approved flood mitigation design must be prepared so that construction can be incorporated
into development of the site. The proposed design will be subject to city review and approval, to ensure that city goals and
objectives are achieved. Staff will also have Love and Associates, Inc., review the design to ensure incorporation into the
updated floodplain study.
2. BCH East Campus hospital will be a critical community facility. Because site development includes annexation into
the city, staff is recommending that improvements planned to mitigate and protect the site from flooding satisfy a higher
floodplain management standard than the city' s minimum 100-year regulatory requirements. Federal guidelines
emphasize protection of critical facilities to 500-year floodplain conditions, and staff recommends that the 500-year flood
magnitude be set as the minimum level of protection for the BCH site.
Alan Taylor's July 11, 2000, letter to Joe McDonald of BCH, stated that site fiil should extend a minimum two feet above
projected (100-year) floodplain elevations to ensure compliance with minimum city floodplain regulations. Fill extending to
this elevation would raise the site grade above 500-year water surface elevations for Boulder Creek. Given uncertainties in
analytical methods to address flooding at confluences (Boulder Creek and Bear Canyon Creek at this location), staff
suggests that additional fill height may be beneficial along the creek side fill slope. In addition, erosion and scour protection
needs to be added to the creek side fill slope to prevent washout and intrusion of flood waters into the filled site area. Such
protection may be buried to allow surface landscaping or may include decorative walls or hard-scape features.
Buildings placed onsite will be required to meet a minimum flood protection elevation above the 500-year flood level and/or
two feet above the 100-year water surface elevations. Main floor levels, and all medical and patient rooms, shall be placed
at or above these minimum elevations, and underground parking shall be flood proofed to or above these elevations.
3. Emergency access to the property during major flooding events must be addressed, and provisions for alternative
access and egress need to be included in the site development plans. The Arapahoe Avenue/Foothills Parkway
intersection will be flooded during Boulder Creek and Bear Canyon Creek flood events. Arapahoe Avenue at 55th Street
may also be flooded during South Boulder Creek flood events. Direct access (straight east) from the BCH site to
Commerce Avenue is recommended to provide an alternative connection to higher ground.
Emergency operational plans should also be prepared to address conditions if the East Campus Site hospital is
inaccessible during a major storm event. Coordination with the City/County Emergency Preparedness Office (Larry Stern)
to prepare a plan is recommended. Staff has contacted Mr. Stern about access concerns to the hospital site, and he
indicated that emergency activities would be redirected to other medical facilities in the event of closure to BCH East
Campus Site. BCH should also evaluate any needs to relocate medical staff or patients in such an event.
4. Annexation of the VanVleet property requires an applicant to submit a wetland delineation map. The city received
a wetland delineation map prepared by Mr. David Steinmann, Professional Wetlands Consulting, Inc. The Army Corps of
Engineers accepted this delineation in a letter dated December 11, 1998, for a period of 5 years. This delineation was
subsequently reviewed and confirmed on behalf of the city by ERO Resources, Inc., on December 21, 1999. Regulatory
wetland conditions will be applied to the property based on this delineation map.
5. Crossing or eliminating the 48th Street wetland requires additional authorization and a city wetlands permit. The
Department of the Army, Nationwide Permit 26, Corps File No. 199980367, for Waterview Park (I.D. #199880974), expired
September 15, 2000. Approval for crossing or eliminating the wetland area at 48th Street will require a new Section 404
permit or written authorization from the Corps to ensure that federal standards have been satisfied. This will also require a
city wetland permit under Chapter 9-12, "Wetlands Protection," B.R.C. 1981. Wetland permits are subject to a wetland
permit application review of an alternatives analysis to avoid direct impacts to this wetland and any mitigation plans for
unavoidable impacts.
6. U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service clearances for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and Ute Ladies' tresses orchid
provided in the application are two years old. The city recommends that the applicant obtain renewed clearances to ensure
that federal Endangered Species Act requirements are satisfied for activities at the site.
In addition, the plains topminnow (fundulus sciadicus) is a state listed species of special concern. A plains topminnow
individual was recently capturetl in the Bear Canyon Creek area upstream of Arapahoe Avenue. Offsite drainageway
improvements to address flooding will also need to address any potential impacts to this species.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV /~~ ~~0m ~~~/~ Puy~~ ~.!~-7_
7. As a condition of annexation, the city will require dedication of the 32 acres remaining outside the 17-acre
development area as Open Space and a flood conveyance corridor. Dedication in fee to the city will be subject to several
conditions that are needed to facilitate the applicant's development of the 17-acre site and necessary flood conveyance
and drainage improvements in the open space area. The applicant will be responsible for making the proposed flood
conveyance and drainage improvements in the open space, and will also be responsible for reestablishing natural
vegetation and wetland conditions on the disturbed areas. This obligation will extend for a period of 5 years following
construction. After that time, the city will assume responsibility for the property and its management.
8. Public concerns have been expressed to the city about locating the proposed Boulder Community Hospital East
Campus Site near Boulder Creek and Bear Canyon Creek. Because hospitals serve as critical community facilities,
questions have been raised about the potential risks, damages and loss of emergency services that could result from
flooding along Boulder Creek and Bear Canyon Creek.
Inquiries about the hospital application suggest that many citizens do not understand why BCH is proposing to develop this
site instead of another location well away from local floodplains. Public information recapping the site selection process
BCH underwent to arrive at the selection of this site could provide a greater understanding and awareness of the many
factors that where involved in the decision. It may also address the apparent controversy surrounding the use of the
property and future build-out.
City staff has worked extensively with BCH to assess and evaluate the pianned development of the East Campus Site.
Critical floodplain issues that need to be addressed as part of annexation and site review include:
a. Mitigating any adverse flood impacts to lands upstream, downstream and onsite.
b. Providing flood protection against storms greater than 100-year magnitudes.
c. Providing emergency access and egress for the property.
d. Developing emergency preparedness and operations plans for flood crises.
9. Additional coordination and planning is needed between the city and BCH to satisfy floodplain and wetlands issues
for the East Campus Site as a condition of completing the annexation process. This coordination will involve additional
technical evaluation, to address Bear Canyon Creek flood mitigation improvements and wetlands impacts, and
negotiations to reach agreement on design, construction and reimbursement actions for creek improvements, to ensure
that the needs of both BCH and the city are satisfied. Please contact Alan Taylor, Floodplain and Wetlands Coordinator, at
303-441-4232 or by e-mail at tavlorala~ci.boulder.co.us to move forward.
The proposed fire lane should be located outside of the conveyance zone line and not inside as shown. Jeff Arthur, Public
Works, 441-4418.
Greenways
1. A trail connection to 48th Street including a bridge across Boulder Creek has been identified on the Greenways
Master Plan. The applicant should construct these improvements as part of the development of the site, and
shouid dedicate all necessary easements for the improvements.
2. The Greenways Master Plan identifies the majoriiy of this site as a habitat preservation and restoration area. The
following activities are specifically listed in the Master Plan Opportunities Inventory, and should completed by the
applicant as part of this development:
- Protect and enhance wet meadows and conveyance zone on property east of Foothills Parkway.
- Implement water quality BMPs as part of new development at the property at Arapahoe and Foothills Parkway.
- Opportunity for stream restoration which might include improving instream cover, restoring vegetative bank
stability and increasing channel complexity downstream of Bear Creek Confluence.
3. Greenways staff recommends requesting dedication of the area shown on the Greenways Master Plan map as a
habitat preservation and restoration area (note that this area is larger than the development boundary shown on
the submitted plans). Dedication of the conveyance zone should also be required as part of annexation.
4. Greenways staff also has concerns about the development of the 100-year floodplain for a hospital due to the
difficuity evacuating patients and the lack of accessibility during a flood emergency. The Greenways Master Plan
identifies alternative floodplain management opportunities such as property acquisition. If the hospital is built on
this site, it is recommended that an evacuation plan be provided, and that the Federal standard for critical actions
be followed, i.e. lowest floor at or above the 500-year flood elevation.
Land Uses
Open Space and Mountain Parks would consider accepting a dedication of all the property that will be designated
environmental preservation under the new comp plan amendment for this site. The dedication would be for open
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda ltem # rl~A Page # ~~
space purposes but would also allow for flood control improvements and maintenance. Maybe the dedication
would not occur until the flood control improvements were complete and a reciamation plan would be developed
with input from this department. Ann Goodhart, Openspace (720) 564-2032
2. Office and clinic use may include no more than 25% of the total building floor area developed on site.
3. Office use should be relocated to the corner of 48'" and Arapahoe, to create a stronger street presence of the new
use(s} for the site, screen the parking fot and blend the new uses with the existing neighborhood design.
4. A detailed table for both phase of the development need to be provided. This information table should include the
following information:
a. building areas (FARs) individually and by phase totals
b. building use individually and by phase
c. parking number calculations by phase and related to a specific buildings need.
d. Open space calculations on the 17 acres, and the total site.
e. Building height limitations for each building based on natural grade and finished grade.
Landscape
1. Landscaping is shown on the proposed pian in the flood conveyance zone. If this area is dedicated to the city,
landscaping in the area would be subject to approval of the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. This
proposed landscaping would also be subject to flood and wetland permitting.
2. It is unclear if the landscape plan meets the interior lot landscaping requirements. Please provide the following
additional information in the preliminary landscape plan:
Summary chart with calculations to include:
• total lot size ( in square feet).
• total parking lot size, including all drives and driveways (in square feet).
• total number of parking stalls required and the total provided.
. total interior parking lot landscaped area required and the totai provided.
. totai perimeter parking lot iandscaping required and fotal provided.
• total number of street trees required and the total provided.
• total quantity of plant material required and the total provided.
Bev Johnson, 303-4413272
Legal Documents
The title commitment submitted indicates Lookout, LLC is the owner. Please update current to within 30 days and include
authorization for the party signing all documents for approval. 2. On the vested rights form, "MOB" needs to be spelled
out so that it is clear to what these initials refer. Melissa Rickson - CAO
Miscellaneous
The proposed helicopter landing zone is located in close proximity to the proposed trash and recycling enclosure.
Construction of the enclosure needs to be done in a manner that wiil prevent trash from being blown away by landing
helicopters. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418,
Parking
1. Please illustrate the height of the parking garage at 6 stories.
2. Regarding the underground garage sections, please detail how groundwater will be handled and any impacts this may
have on possible drainage of adjacent wetland areas. Melissa Rickson - CAO
Plan Documents
1. The written background has been provided in an 11" X 17" format. This format is difficult to read and reproduce.
Please reformat to an 81/2" X 11" format.
2. The following information should be included in the written information:
a. Table of land uses and total square footage {FAR) of the uses.
b. Timing for each phase of development.
c. Number of parking spaces to be provided with each building/phase.
d. Open space calculations, how much on site (17 acres) and amount to be preserved in floodplain.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV ~~ ~a Z~ Q7
Agendaltem~ 9 --L-
s+te does not provide a good relationship to existing uses and
Site Design stern poriion of the site and iwo
d to
The basic location of suppo~ buildmSs on this 5 have been added to the we
ort bu+lding e The location of the support buitdings 5houfd be move
primary access to the site. FO ~he Arepahoe frontag ark is located on the no~heast corner of
parking structures added along ahoe. The Riverbend office p
ossible to preserve the view toward ~I
this intersection, moving the office uses to thls location will reflect the current office development in the area an
the nor~h east corner of 48`" Street a~d Arap ahoe. It is also p ~aced a the western end of the I
lot area from view to Arap jhe relocation of the
a ahoe if lower structur ublice ght-of-way. structure as
also serve to screen the parking acent or fronting onto p orated with a parking
Boulder Creek for easorts plac ng new buildinlgs adl p ahoe could be incorp
s in this location such ihat they do not excsed a 35' heig
site, City Policy supp
suppo~ buitdings to the north east corner of 48`h and Arap be 45' more less in
ahoe adjacent to the building ~ocation (buildings may ahoe).
proposed. Care shouid be taken to design bui~dea as standard 35' tall buildings along ~aP
above the existing elevation o a~ but would app
height, because of natural g
ear to meet the ratio of Nosp~lal to doctors office and r`ov'ded w 5h,1he next submittallu .
ertinent information should be included in the table. If It is no
The phase one plans app
A detailed table of land use for both phase of the devel~P hase orlth ee Y e
~ number) and other p ears per phase, more detailed informatio~
Type of use, location (bui4ding ~o Bct will be in 1wo provided.
anticipated ihat the build- p~ each phase will need to be p
on the phases and timing
ahoe and the site.
ests poles with a height of 20' maximum. Given the residential nature Sen oaP~anner (303) i
a, The lighting plan sug9 shouid attempt to mi~ror the elevatis nllsl off s'i ee6 en s8 nf ap
south of Arapahoe, final lighting '
Where not possible, ~ighting fixtures shouVd assure that no lighting P ~I
441-3137
e arding the ditch to the east tCAO to be removed - is this a feeder, lateral, or what is iYs status. ~Nho is e
5. R g
ditch owner? Melissa Rickson
uired to submit a utility construction pians and profiles
Utilities licant is req e for any
lication for any building permits, the app ~ Lega~ descriptions and signed dedication languag
q, prior to app lans.
through the city Technical Dooument Review proces ~ drants in locations where no hydrant is
utility easements will need to ~ ears oishow easement extensho p or fire hy
2. The preliminary utility plan app
reviously discussed with
propo58d• P~ease clarify
ear to include any estimated utility demands for the site. As was
3, Tre submitta1 does not app ~S being required at this time, ho~w ements wii~f be requredformation proposed utility
the engineer, no system modeling
use to determine whether additional analysis or r fv aeradequa e separations between utilities. Please refer to 7able 5-
ear to p ~g Final construction plans wiil need to demonstTate
q, The preliminary utility plan does not app
1 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (p ~ ub1ic sewer main. Sewer ~ines into the
that both ver~ical and horizontal separations have bBen ma ate connection to a p in a manhole, built to city
~ each structure will need a sep ~b~~~ mains terminating '
5, Per DCS Sedion 6A8( )~ easement.
site that ha and located nsa m numum 25 foot util'hl need 1o e P Which do not appear to have
standards,
drants serving the west side of the Phase 1 buildmgs ~ot, or fire lane which can
g, The utifity plan shoWS ~O hY
vehicular access. Fire hydrants need to be readily accessibie from a street, parking
ublic bY the DCS will need to be located in a public
accommodate fire trucks.
ermitted in public utility easementsos h~e
e main which is req e~rmaneni structures are not p art of the proP ublic
7 pny utility or storm drainag t Review, p
applicant has indicated that water and sewer lines will need to cross over and under tun~e s a
easement. As indicated at Concep ~an and if conflicts with public mains exist
lans where these ~ io be shown onthe util ty pher the fines s but hould skl be slee~ed
plan. Yt is not clear from the p o under or over building
mains or private services. Tunnel locations nee
the tunnel or main needs to be relocated. Private services may A~n~ ~t0m # '~
lacement by the owner. / n Page ~ 3~_
to facilitate maintenance and rep
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
8. The proposed parking structure does not appear to have a fire service connection. It is anticipated that one will be
required.
9. City standards require a minimum 10-foot separation between trees and underground utilities and require that trees be
shown on the utility plan. Based on a comparison of the landscape plan and utility plan it appears that their may be
conflicts. Please show trees on the utility plan to demonstrate that no conflicts exist.
10. There appears to be a minor drafting error south of the larger phase 1 building.
11. The preliminary utility plan shows the slopes of proposed sewer lines at the minimum allowed by the city. Slopes in the
2% range are generally preferable to the 0.332% shown, Final design will need to be based on the velocity criteria
provided in the city's design standards.
12. The Preliminary Utility Plan - Note 6- Specifies Ciass 50 ductile iron pipe. City standards require Class 52. This
needs to be revised on the final plans.
13. Preliminary Utility Plan - Notes 11 & 14 - The current city public works standards are titled, "City of Boulder Design
and Construction Standards." Standard Drawings 14.21.02 appears to be a reference to the 1981 standards which
were replaced in 1998. Please refer to drawing 4.02, "Utility Trench W ider Than 16-inches" in the 2000 Design and
Construction Standards for the correct detail.
14. Additional revisions may be required based on review of the revised submittal.
Wetlands
W etlands can not suffer net loss regardless of their size therefore, any replacement must mitigate any possible wetland
diminishment. Melissa Rickson - CAO
III. INFORMA710NAL COMMENTS
Access/Circulation
1. Ail accesses to Arapahoe Avenue are subject to review by the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Access from 48~h Street will require a CDOT access permit to be coordinated through Steve Durian with the
City of Boulder at (303) 441-4493.
2. Any work within the Arapahoe Avenue right-of-way wili require a Colorado Department of Transportation right-
of-way permit.
Building and Housing Codes
No requirements for this application but would recommend a couple of preappiications review for buiiding code review prior
to applying for building permit Steve Brown. 4413172
Fire
Access: Applicant is advised that secondary access to the site will be required for Phase 1, perhaps utilizing the location
proposed for the eventual drive on Arapahoe. This may be in the form of a"fire lane", consistent with city standards.
Contact Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350.
Utilities
1. At the time of building permit application, the applicant must demonstrate that the food service facility has
appropriately sized grease interceptors and that any silver bearing wastestream (x-ray) will be treated prior to
discharge.
IV. NEXT STEPS
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV Agenda Ilem #~"~ _f'uye ~t ~3~
SITE REVIEW CRITERIA: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that:
Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan:
(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan. This site is currently be considered for a Comprehensive Plan designation change
from industrial to Public (17acres) and Environmental Protection (31+ acres). Development of a hospital is
only permitted within a Public Zone district, which is supported by the designation change to public. This site
is also within the Boulder Creek flood plain area which will be preserved with the enviromental protection
designation.
(B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionaliy, 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: Residential use is not currently proposed for this site, but would be
encouraged as a support serve for hospital use.
(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 93.2, "Bulk Requirements;' B.R.C. 1981.
II. Site Desian: 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, inciuding without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds:
1. Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; 31 plus acres of openspace
will be preserved within the Boulder Creek flood plain Iocated to the north of the proposed
development portion of the site. Additional openspace has been proposed within the confines of the
public zoned portion of the site in the form of landscaped areas, plaza's, and walkways.
2. Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; Not applicable to the current
request.
3. The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including without limitation
healthy long-lived trees, terrain, and drainage areas; The natural areas within the high hazard
portions of the flood plain (64% of the site). The is a designated wetlands area running along the
west side of 48'" Street that will be relocated through mitigation methods to the western portion of the
site. The are no trees present in the 17 acre portion of the site to be developed.
4. The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding
development; The Boulder creek flood plain area to be preserved provides a separation between
the site and industrial use to the north. Landscaped buffers wili be developed along Arapahoe and
Foothills Parkway.
5. If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. The 31 acres of openspace
are an intragal part of the Boulder Creek trail system. As conditions of approval, connections to the
trails north of Boulder Creek have been requested. In addition, the sidewalk/bikeways along
Arapahoe and Foothill Parkway provide connections to this trail system.
B. Landscaainst:
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; Initial development plans show that a
variety of materials and plants have been proposed for development of the site.
2. The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping
requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2 and 9-3.33, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements;'
and "Landscape Design Standards;' B.R.C. 1981; and Initial concepts support this requirement,
final plans will be required prior to Building permit application to support this requirement.
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 an attractive site plan. The current proposal provides information relating to this
criteria. Staff has requested that buildings be places along 48`h Street and Arapahoe Avenue in the
southeastern portion of the site. This will require some changes in the landscaping concepts
proposed for this site.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda I~em # ~'~Page q ~
C. Circulation, including without limitation the 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; Access to the site will be limited along Arapahoe and 48~" Streets. Arapahoe is a heavily
used street and buffers from the street have been proposed on the landscape concept plans
submitted for this project.
2. Potentiai conflicts with vehicles are minimized; Additional work is required for the traffic study
and access points to this site. General traffic conclusions are that the site does not provide
appropriate access to the site.
3. Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the
project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including without
limitation streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails; An additional connection to the
pedestrian/biketrails north of the site is required in the northeastern portion of the site. Safe access
to the site requires additional review and discussion. Pedestrian/bike access to this site is good with
access to existing trails along Arapahoe and Boulder Creek.
4. On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where
applicable; There are several bus route running along Arapahoe that serve this site. Additional
pedestrian access from the south side of Arapahoe to this site need to be considered. Arapahoe is a
wide right of way and pedestrian safety should be considered for crossing movements that will be
necessary for this site.
5. The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; No additional public streets
have been proposed. Internal drives are appropriate for the nature of this development as a
Hospital.
6. The project is designed for fhe types of traffic expected, including without Iimitation
automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas,
and control of noise and exhaust; and The hospital has been placed in the northern portion of the
site, as far from traffic as possible. Office/clinic uses have been recommended by staff to be placed
along the Arapahoe and 48`h street frontages to act as a buffer to the hospital use and blend the site
development with adjacent building placement in the Riverbend office park area to the east of 48~"
Street.
7. City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated. The hospital
will provide limited emergency service facilities. Access to the site is important consideration of the
final tra~c plans developed for this site. The current traffic documents need to provide additional
supporting information on this issue,
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; The
current plan provided good separation of pedestrian and auto movements, but the delineation of the
underground walkways acknowledged on the plan need to be shown more clearly. Will there be
underground connections to the parking garages7
2. The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of
land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; The applicant has proposed
developing three parking garages, two two story garages and a five story garage. This is an efficient
use of land area for this site. Care must be taken to makes sure parking garages are Floodproofed.
3. Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent
properties, and adjacent streets; and The general concept of placing parking along the Arapahoe
Avenue frontage is not supported by this criteria. Berms and landscaped buffers have been
proposed, but the placement of buildings along the Arapahoe and 48'h Street frontages will serve as
a stronger buffer to adjacent streets and development.
4. Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in
Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C. 7981. Internal landscaped areas for
the parking lots needs further consideration. The use of parking garages limits the amount of
internal landscaping that can be provided, but fringe landscaped area need to be increased in the
intensity and type of materials be provided. The use of trees as a shading buffer needs to be
considered
E. Buildinq Desisan. Livabilitv. and Relationship to the Existinst or Pronosed Surroundinn Area:
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV ~
Agenda Item ri ~ Page ~ ~ ~ -~
1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the
existing character ofthe area orthe character established by an adopted plan forthe area;
The general character of this area is to place the taller buildings to the rear or behind existing
buildings (i.e. Ball), in this case, placing the hospital buildings in the northern portions of the site is
consistent with this character. However, placing all the parking along the Arapahoe and 48`h Street
frontages is discouraged. The four most western office/clinics should be moved to the southeastern
portion of the site and placed along the Arapahoe and 48~" Street frontages, screening the parking
areas for the site. This placement will also provide a more pedestrian friendly site.
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; Building heights proposed are consistent with the placement of taller buildings in the northern
portions of the site as reflected in the Ball ownership. The hospital has been proposed to have a
height of up to 55 feet, but this height is constrained by the natural (existing) elevation of the site.
The site will be filled to raise the buildings out of the floodplain, but the overall height cannot exceed
55' from natural grade (before filling occurs). The physical heights of the hospital have been
represented to be approximately 45 feet (53 feet from natural grade). Placement of buildings along
Arapahoe and 48'h Street shouid maintain an overall height of 35' from the elevation represented for
Arapahoe or 48th Street right of way adjacent to the building.
3. The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent
properties; The hospital has been proposed to be placed in the northern portions of the
developable portion of this site, consistent with this goal. However the western four office/clinic
should be moved to the 48`h and Arapahoe intersection to increase views to the openspace and
mountains north and west of the site.
4. If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate
use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; There is not identifiable character for
this area.
5. Bufldings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design
elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of
pedestrians. The basic architectural elements of the new buildings are appropriate for this site.
6. To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned
public facilities; thirty one acre of openspace lands will be preserved with this
development. Trail connections to the Boulder Creek trail system have also been
requested.
7. For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a
variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached
single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes
of units; No residential proposed for this site. Residential use is encourage however
for this site. Hospital use will generate a need for additional housing associated with
the new use and location.
8. For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings,
and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing,
landscaping, and building materials; Not applicable at this time.
9. A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy canservation,
safety, and aesthetics; The applicant has provided a lighting plan that conforms to
this criteria.
10. The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids,
minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; thirty one acres of
openspace/flood plain areas will be preserved by this plan. Improvements to the flood
plain limitations of Bear Creek and Boulder creeks will also be enhanced by this plan.
The plan also provides for the relocation of wetlands and drainage conveyance within
the developable portion of the site.
11. Cut and fill are minimized an the site, and the design of buildings conforms to
the natural contours of the land. Seventeen acres of this site wil~ be filled to
remove the area from the Boulder Creek flood plain. This condition cannot be meet
an development of the site supported without acknowledging the need to raise the site
above the Boulder Creek flood plain.
(F) Solar Sitina and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potentiai 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:
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda Item k~'~ Page k~~_
1. Placement of Open Space 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: The flood plain is to the north of the buildable portions of this site,
limiting the placement of new buildings on site. However, building separations and elevations will
generally be protected on site from one another for solar purposes. A large parking lot separates the
hospital from building locations along Arapahoe and 48`h Street.
2. Lot Lavout and Buildinsa Sitinp. Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which
maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting
a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are
sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of
shading. The requested revisions to this plan of placing buildings along Arapahoe and 48~h Street
will comply with this provision. As noted above, the parking lot separates the hospitai from the other
buildings to be developed on this site.
3. 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. Final design details will be required to show conformance with
this provision. The current designs for the hospital buildings shows conformance with this provision.
4. Landscaping. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buiidings are
minimized. The general landscape plan submitted with this review shows compliance with this
provision.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV Agenda Ilam N~'~ Page #~'~ ~
~~L~~;~~~`'L ~cc~"~
CITY OF BOUIDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF GOMMENTS; BaenYBean01
CASE MANAGER: GOMMUNITY HOSPITAL 3
pftp~ECT NAME: qg35 ARAPAN~~ AV
LOCATION: N03W02
COORDfNA7ES: Site and Use Review
REVtEW TYPE~ LUR2001-00009 rtal
REV4EW NUMBER: ~pE McDOnald
SITE AND USE REVIEW: Site and llse Review to tocate Bouider Community osp
qppLICANT: ahoe Road and Foothills Parkway.
DESCRIPTION: ~.apahoe Campus on the Northeast corner ofBuading heights to 55'
R~QUESTED VARIATfONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
REVIE~N FINDINGS but there siill continues to be a
of the questions staff had aboutArapahoe lhat would permit a left turn movement
This review has answered many
significant concern refating to the location for a tsaffic light along ahoe at the most optimal
out of the site. The traffic plans and studies provided do not answer the question of where the optimal loca ion o
to Ara ahoe• In addition, the applicant has not provided estimated
a traffic light would be. Staff wilf support the placement of a traffic light along ap the cit cannot
location along Arapahoe that is least impacting rev'ous comments. W ithout this information~stem improvements
water and sewer fYows for the site as required '+n p s stem upgrades to
determine whethe~ th ~hile it w Ilt'be t esapp is capable of serving the proposed use or w a sy
licanis responsibilityrco povements would be necessary. Until the city
might be necessary. ositive
meet requirements, the city canno t d etermine where and if any ~ R
has had an opportunity to adequate review and comment on this informa ti o n, the staff cannot make a p
recommendation to the Pfanning Board on this project.
s cfoser to Arapahoe wifl
ahoe to
The neighborhood has expressed two concerns with lhis plan. 1) Bring the office buil mg
reduce views through the site and result in increased noise fevels as a result of reflected arking lots thatrhave
the neighborhoods south of Ara edestriantlt ansi use of t e s te andto scr~aced clo egt streetgn an Urban setting
Arapahoe frontage to increase P encourages new developme~t to be p
been proposed. Current city policy ~ osed for this site. 2) The access to Arapahoe should be west o
rather than a suburban setting as orig~nally p op
the MacArthur Court access to reduce conflicts with the M~a~ an~~FoolhillstHighw YArapahoe. City transpo a ion
ended that the access be east of this intersection to provide a safe distance for traffic merging
staff has reoomm to make a left turn at Arapa
with Arapahoe traffic desiring
This request has been pulled for consideration at the July 12, 2001 Planning Board meeting to provide adequa e
rovide the information requested in this review. 7he request coutd be consider on
time for the applicant to p on this date. Revisions will have to he resubmitted
August 5, 2001 if the Planning Board agrees to hold a meeting
on June A, but no later than June 18,1o permit consideration of changed material at this meeting.
IL CITY REQUIREMEN7S
AccesslCirculation staff has not yet resolved how access to
ort the signa~ization of ASt" Street as emr oP Arapahoeu H weveon
Previous comments and dis~rtat on st Sf does no~supp representatives and Ci~y
this site will occur. Transp h the technica{ traffic concerns of
the ana~ysis completed for this proposal due to the inevitable degradation of the signa sy
nize that the benefit of a signalized access to this site may outwei9
staff does recog uired to determine the best location for a signalized intersection.
tra~sportation staff, therefore more analysis wiVV be reMacArthur Trail, or somewhere in betwee~n tosed gnalized atccess to
Locations that will be considered include 48` Street,
The following issues must be considered in the analysis to determine thna e fQ~~e soonfsoftware wifV be required for this
this site: ro ression (Synchro or other advanced sig P g
. Optimal signal p 9
analysis rather than the Passer il analysis used to satisfy CDOT requi~re~m'~m ~~A page #~~
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV -
• Left-turn lane lengths and queuing, including consideration of double left-turns lanes on Arapahoe if
appropriate
• Impacts to on-site wetlands
• Neighborhood cut-through traffic impacting MacArthur Trail
• Sight distance and geometric design
• On-site circulation
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following comments apply to the current revision of the TIA. It is expected that these may be resolved or irrelevant
with the requirements described above, however these shouid be corrected where appropriate.
1. The left-turn queuing lengths required for the left-turn lanes at 48~h Street are not defined in the report. It is expected
that the existing left-turn lanes may be adequate for the trips generated by the proposed development. Additional
length may be required to accommodate the left-turning volume entering and existing 48~" Street. It is not expected
that additional left-turn lane length will require additional right-of-way, however if double left turn lanes are needed
additional right-of-way will be required from the site. This issue will need to be addressed as part of the CDOT access
permit and be approved as part of the technical document review/final plat for this site. Steve Durian, Public Works,
303-441-4493
2. Under the Travel Demand Management section, the RTD Eco-Passes that will be provided to all employees are
required to be provided at no cost to the City for a minimum of three consecutive years. Steve Durian, Public Works,
303-441-4493
3. Staff supports the proposed location of the right-turn only access (access D) shown on this revision as opposed to the
location west of MacArthur. Staff acknowledges the difficuity of exiting MacArthur via a left-turn, however it is not
expected that in comparison to the over 2100 vehicles per hour (vph) expected westbound trips on Arapahoe during
the PM peak hour that the additional 102 vph generated from Access D will be significant. Wiih or without the hospital
development, the challenge of exiting MacArthur Trail by crossing six lanes of heavy commuter traffic via a left turn is
expected in the future. Additionally, MacArthur Trail and its U-turn lane must be considered in proposed locations of a
signalized or unsignalized access to the site. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
Site Plans
1. The proposal to fund 50% or up to $50,000 of the cost of the bridge crossing Boulder Creek is supported by staff and
can be considered part of a site Transportation Demand Management program. The exact location of the bridge and
the multi-use path connection will need to be resolved as part of the Technical Document review. Steve Durian, Public
Works, 303-441-4493
2. Two improved transit stops near 48`h Street will be required as part of this development to serve eastbound and
westbound traffic on Arapahoe. If 48~h Street is not signalized, consideration of how pedestrians will cross Arapahoe
will need to be addressed before approval of the Technical Document review. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-
4493
3. The sidewalk along the west side of 48'" Street is required to be a minimum of 5 feet wide and continue to the north
end of 48`" Street to connect to the trail that is proposed to cross the site and connect to the Boulder Creek multi-use
path. Although this is shown in the architectural plans, the engineering plans show no sidewalk but instead a large
drainage channel in this location. The side slope from this sidewalk cannot exceed 4:1 unless a handrail along the
sidewalk is provided. A plan and profile and typical section of 48~h Street showing all proposed improvements will be
required at time of Technical Document review. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
4. The site distance for eastbound left-turning vehicles at 48`h StreeUArapahoe has not been addressed. This issue will
need to be resolved before approval of a CDOT access permit and Technical Document review. Steve Durian, Public
Works, 303-441-4493
5. If new curb on Arapahoe is required as part of left-turn lane improvements, a typical section and plan and profile will be
required at time of Technical Document review where these improvements occur. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-
441-4493
6. As part of Technical Document review, signal plans showing any proposed signalized intersections must be provided
as well as signing and striping plans for Arapahoe Avenue and 48'" Street. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV ~ n
Agenda {tem ~ ~ - ~ =F'age ~
Building Design
The basic building design proposed for this project are acceptable to the staff. Staff will recommend that the fronts of the
buildings places along Arapahoe be designed to reduce reflective noise characteristics through the use of recess and/or
cantilevered building frontages designed to trap noise rather then reflect noise.
Drainage
1. The proposed constructed wetlands appear to conflict with a proposed sidewalk along 48`h Street. A cross section is
needed to demonstrate that slopes adjacent to the sidewalk meet applicable channel and pedestrian safety standards.
Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
2. Based on the information provided, it appears that the storm sewer along the south side of the property will collect at
least some drainage from the Arapahoe Road right-of-way and therefore be required to be in a public easement.
Because of separation requirements beiween utilities and the requirement that utilities be 6-feet from the edge of the
easement, a wider easement appears to be necessary. If the applicant can demonstrate that the storm drainage main
along Arapahoe Road does not collect any water from the public right-of-way, it will need to be located outside of any
public right-of-way or public easements. Private storm sewer systems are still subject to the standards for public
mains except for easement requirements. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
3. The plans show trees planted almost directly over the proposed storm sewer through the site. A minimum separation
of 10-feet is required between trees and underground utilities. This is applicable regardless of whether the storm
sewer will be public or private since root infiltration could disrupt flow and adversely impact public as well as private
property. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
4. It appears that the proposed driveway into underground parking near the north end of the site will collect a significant
amount of water and divert it toward the building. Per city requirements, this drainage will need to be collected outside
of the building and conveyed to a stormwater faciiity. It cannot be discharged to the sanitary sewer system. It is not
clear from the plans how or where this discharge will occur. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418
Engineering
Prior to application for any building permits, the applicant will be required to complete the city's Technical Document
Review process and obtain approval of construction plans including a Final Storm Water Report and Plan, Utility Plan and
Profile, Utility Report if applicable. Any easement dedications will also need to occur prior to building permit application
through this process.
Fire Protection
1. Prior to final plan approval, please add one additionai fire hydrant to the preliminary utility plan, across the drive from
proposed building 1b (sheet C3), aligned with FDC. Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350.
2. Sheet C4 shows access to the fire lane through proposed parking spaces and potentially through a future parking
structure. It will not be acceptable to allow parking across the fire lane access and these spaces will need to be
eliminated. It may be possible to make an arrangement to allow access through the future parking structure, however,
it is suggested that other a~ternatives to be considered. Access through the structure would require substantially more
vertical clearance than is typically provided in parking structures, and access would still be needed for the outside of
the structure itself. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418
Landscaping
1. Preliminary landscape plans reflects city standards, however the external landscaping atong Arapahoe should be
designed to help reduce reflective noise characteristics of the site. Because these planting will be completed before
development of phase 2 occurs, it will be important to place these materials in such a way that they will not have to be
relocated or disturbed when construction begins on phase 2. Within two to five years, many of the planting proposed
for this area wili be maturing and will provide a more finished site feel as new buiidings are added to the site if they
don't have to be disturbed.
2. All landscape beds within the parking lot must meet the minimum dimension requirements of 8 ft. width and 150 sq. ft.
It is difficult to measure the width of the beds at the 1" = 60' scale. Please revise any planting beds that do not meet
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda ltem #~Page # ~3~
this minimum requirement. Please note the requirements for the final landscape plan under the informational
comments below. Bev Johnson, 303-4413272.
Neighborhood Comments
Staff has received comments from the neighborhood south of Arapahoe. Three primary concerns have been expressed:
1. Flood plan improvements not increase risk of flood to their neighborhood. Staff has been working with the applicant to
assure that flood impacts to these neighborhoods are reduced.
2. The neighborhood preferred that the access to Arapahoe not occur east of MacArthur Drive. However, due to the
distance from Foothills Highway, the transportation staff has recommended that the access occur east of MacArthur
Drive.
3. They also supported the original site plan, which placed the office buildings internal to the site. This solution resulted in
a very suburban design for the site. The neighborhood concern is that sound reflective qualities of traffic movements
along Arapahoe will be enhanced by having solid walled buildings placed close to Arapahoe. Recent city design
solutions have encouraged new buildings to be placed adjacent to right of way such that they screen parking lots and
provide improved streetscapes. In addition, pedestrian access to bus routes along Arapahoe were strained due to the
distances of the buildings from Arapahoe. The building designs along Arapahoe can be made to reduce reflective
sound levels by trapping noise within cantilevered and recessed wall designs.
Site Review issues
The following observations have been made on the plan and will be included as conditions of the final consideration of this
request by the Planning Board.
1. Prairie Dogs shall be relocated in accordance with City of Bouider relocation requirements. It appears that some
of the wetlands improvements may be occurring in areas where Prairie dogs are present and that Prairie dogs
may have migrated further east into the site.
2. The City will accept the dedication of the approximate 31 acres of openspace area with the following
contingencies:
a. No public trails will be developed along the north side of the creek, except as shown or the approved site
Plan.
b. Use of a specified portion of the site for staging will require approval of the Open Space Division for
assurance that the area will be returned to natural conditions within a specified time.
c. The addition of landscaping to the openspace area will be approved by the Open Space Division.
3. Final architecture and site development shall be subject to final approval for consistency with the approved plan by
the staff.
4. Phase tWo plan will require approval from City Council to extend the "Vested Rights" for more than three (3) years.
5. All parking will be required to conform to city regulations including under ground parking.
Utiiities
1. The applicant has not provided estimated water and sewer flows for the site as required in previous comments.
W ithout this information, the city cannot determine whether the existing utility system is capable of serving the
proposed use or what system improvements might be necessary. The applicant is advised that they will be
responsible for designing and installing any required upgrades to the city water and sewer system. The city cannot
estimate the potential scope or cost of these improvements based on the information provided. Jeff Arthur, Public
Works, 441-4418.
2. Sheet C4 appears to show a conflict between the proposed parking structure and a utility easement. Structures are
not allowed in easements.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Building and Housing Codes
No additional requirements. Steve Brown
Drainage
1. Staff has concerns with some of the potential impacts of site dewatering identified in the "Potential Impacts from Site
Dewatering" prepared by Waterstone. The report indicates that dewatering of the site has potential to cause several
minor impacts. Among the "minor impacts" listed are "drying up" of surface features including Bear Canyon Creek and
the ponds southwest of the intersection of Arapahoe Road and Foothills Highway. These appear to be considerable
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda Itam ~~Page ~ ~` ~ cf
impacts. In addition, staff is not clear how discharging pumps back to these features will accomplished or what
environmental impacts might occur. Finally, it is not clear how it was determined that dewatering will only be needed
during construction. Staff's experience has been that a significant number of subsurtace structures requiring
construction dewatering also require some form of permanent dewatering. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
2. The site dewatering study identifies lowering of water levels in nearby wells as a possible effect of dewatering. Staff
defers to the applicanPs consultant to determine whether a well permit search is appropriate in this case. The
applicant is responsible for assuring that there are no adverse impacts to adjacent wells. Jeff Arthur, Public Works,
441-4418
3. Permits for construction and permanent dewatering are separate from the Site Review process. The applicant should
contact Donna Scott with the city's stormwater program (441-7364) regarding permitting requirements and is advised
that Site Review approval does not include or imply approval of these permits.
4. The map legend on the grading and drainage plan is incomplete. This needs to be corrected on the final plans. Jeff
Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418
5. The easement for the proposed wetland channel for water quality must indicate that maintenance will be by the
property owner and not the city. Water quality features for the site must be located in an easement and cannot be
located in the public right-of-way. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418
6. If the existing swale along 48~" Street currently has capacity to handle flows in excess of the minor storm, the proposed
pipe should be sized accordingly so that the major storm is conveyed in a historic manner. Jeff Arthur, Public Works,
441-441 S
7. Detailed pipe and inlet sizing calculations must be included in the final report. Preliminary calculations provided have
not been reviewed in detail. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418
8. Final plans will need to include additionai clarification regarding how drainage from the loading area reaches the
proposed water quality features. Based on the preliminary plans, it appears that water from this area may flow into
48'" Street. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418
9. According to UDFCD Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3, constructed wetlands require continuous base flow. Final
design will need to information showing that such base flow exists. If permanent dewatering will occur on the site, the
applicant may want to investigate diverting some of this water to the wetlands to provide base flow. Jeff Arthur, Public
Works, 441-4418.
Flood Control
1. Page 2 of the floodplain analysis indicates that proposed fill and improvements will not raise the 100-year water
surface elevation of Bear Creek, "... by more than %:-foot as required by the City of Boulder criteria." The table on
the following page indicates an increase of 0.7-ft at Section 45 and 0.6-ft at Section 70. Please clarify. Jeff Arthur,
Public Works, 441-4418.
Landscaping
1. The proposed landscaping plan shows trees located within 10-feet of underground utility mains and needs to be
revised. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
2. Please note the following submittal requirements for the final landscape plan:
Plan drawing at a scale of 1"= 10', 1"= 20', or 1"= 30', to include:
• Standard title block including scale, north arrow, and date
• Location of property lines and adjacent streets (with street names identified).
• Zoning and use of adjacent properties.
• Existing and proposed locations of all:
- Building footprints of structures
- Sidewalks and curb cuts
- Parking lots including layout of parking spaces, interior perimeter parking lot plantings, bike paths and pedestrian
walkways, drive aisles and curb islands.
- Utilities and easements, including fire hydrants, water meters, & height and location of overhead lines.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda Item ~fe~.-Page k ~
• Existing location, size, and type of all trees 1 1l2" caliper or greater.
• Where fencing is used for required screening, a scaled drawing of the fence elevation,
Planting and irrigation specifications
• Final irrigation plan indicating type and locations or irrigation and of plant groupings by water requirements.
• Layout and location of all landscaped areas including:
- planting strips along all streets
- parking lot screening
- interior parking lot landscaping
- perimeter site landscaping or screening
- all other landscaped areas
• Botanical and common names and sizes of all plant material and ground cover.
. Locations of all proposed plant material, shown at size they will be within 5 years of initial planting, and
appropriately spaced.
• Proposed planting of all ground surfaces. Grass surfaces must be identified as sod or seed with the blend or mix
specified.
. Location, size, and species name of any plant materials proposed for removal.
• Location, design, height and materials of other landscape improvements, such as:
- earth berms
- retaining walls
- fences
- waterfeatures
- outdoorfurnishings and artwork
- trash enclosures
- lights
- paved area , and/ or walkways
- tree grates and planters
• Location and treatment of any proposed detention ponds.
• Location and dimensions of site distance triangles at all intersections of streets and curb cuts.
Summary graphic and chart with calculations to include:
• Graphic drawing with locations and dimensions of all required landscaped areas. Include dimensions and total
area for each requirement. For example, each interior parking lot island should include dimensions and total square
footage, and the total square footage of all interior parking lot islands should be calculated.
• Total lot size (in square feet).
• Total parking lot size, including all drives and driveways (in square feet).
• Total parking lot interior landscaped area required and total provided (square feet).
• Total number of parking stalls provided, tota~ number required by code.
• Total amount of perimeter landscaping provided, total required by code (square feet).
• 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.
Legal Documents
No further requirements at this time. (Melissa K. Rickson - CAOj
Utilities
1. The preliminary utility plan shows sewer services connected at manholes. The applicant is advised that this is only
allowed at terminus manholes or for 8-inch services. Finai service line sizes and configurations will need to be
determined at final engineering.
2. The preliminary utility plan shows several manholes with a sanitary sewer service (presumably 8-inch diameter) tied to
each side. The city does not have a standard detail for a manhole connecting four pipes, nor is this configuration
necessarily desirable. Details will need to be resolved at final engineering.
3. The applicant is advised that the meter sizes required to serve this facility are likely to require vaults instead of
standard meter pits. The applicant should consider this when determining clearances and easement requirements.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda flem # ~~ page q ~~
All meters will need to be located in public rights-of-ways or easements and will need to be located in landscaped
areas. Meter pits cannot be located in sidewalks or driveways.
4. The plans need to show a valve symbol where the main through the site ties into 48'h Street. An annotation is
provided, but no symbol is shown.
5. The construction plans provided at Technical Document Review will need to include plan and profile drawings of all
proposed water, sewer, and storm sewer mains.
6. Several of the proposed connection to the existing city water system meet valving requirements based on existing
valves in the system. At the time of construction, the location and function of these valves will need to be verified to
ensure that it is consistent with the plans. Tees may be required instead of wet taps if existing valving is determined to
be inadequate to meet city standards.
7. The plans show an additional valve being added to the perimeter water loop in phase two of the project. If possibie, it
appears to make more sense to include this valve in the initial construction to avoid future disruption of service and
contamination risk.
IV. NEXT STEPS
SITE REVIEW CRITERIA: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that:
Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan:
(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan. This site is currently be considered for a Comprehensive Plan designation change
from industrial to Public (17acres) and Environmental Protection (31+ acres). Development of a hospital is
only permitted within a Public Zone district, which is supported by the designation change to public. This site
is also within the Boulder Creek flood plain area which will be preserved with the environmental protection
designation.
(B) The proposed devetopment 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 300 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 shall not exceed the lesser of: Residential use is not currently proposed for this site, but would be
encouraged as a support serve for hospital use.
(i) the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
(ii) the maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying
any of the requirements of Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk Requirements;' B,R.C.1981.
II. Site Desit~n: It utilizes site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining
whether this subsection is met, the approving agency wili 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; 31 plus acres of openspace
will be preserved within the Boulder Creek flood plain located to the north of the proposed
development portion of the site. Additional openspace has been proposed within the confines of the
public zoned portion of the site in the form of landscaped areas, plaza's, and walkways.
2. Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; Not applicable to the current
request.
3. The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including without limitation
healthy long-lived trees, terrain, and drainage areas; The natural areas within the high hazard
portions of the flood plain (64% of the site). The is a designated wetlands area running along the
west side of 48`" Street that will be relocated through mitigation methods to the western portion of the
site. The are no trees present in the 17 acre portion of the site to be deveioped.
4. The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding
development; The Boulder creek flood plain area to be preserved provides a separation between
the site and industrial use to the north. Landscaped buffers will be developed along Arapahoe and
Foothills Parkway.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda Ilem k~' ~i Page N~ ~
5. If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. The applicant has offered to
pay up to 50% of the cost for development a trail and bridge across Boulder Creek to the existing
bike/pedestrian trail on the north side of Boulder Creek. Also a new sidewalk will be provided along
the west side of 48`h Street providing a connecting to the trail system.
B. Landscaping:
1. The project provides for a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the selection of
materials provides a variety of colors and cantrasts; initial development plans show that a
variety of materials and plants have been proposed for development of the site.
2. The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping
requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2 and 9-3.33, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements,"
and "Landscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and Initial concepts support this requirement,
final plans will be required prior to Building permit application to support this requirement.
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 an attractive site plan. Buildings have been proposed to be placed closer to
Arapahoe and 48`h Streets in the second phase of development. Landscaping along Arapahoe
meets city requirements, but should be placed to help reduce reflective noise from flat surtaces on
the buildings to be placed along Arapahoe.
C. Circulation, including without limitation the 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; Access to the site will be limited along Arapahoe and 48`h Streets. Arapahoe is a heavily
used street and buffers from the street have been proposed on the landscape concept plans
submitted for this project.
2. Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized; Additional work is required for the traffic study
and access points to this site. General traffic conclusions are that the site does not have good
access.
3. Safe and convenient connections accessible to the puhlic within the project and between the
project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including without
limitation streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails. Pedestrian/bike access to this site will
be improved as sidewalks and trail connections to existing trails along Arapahoe and Boulder Creek
are completed.
4. On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where
applicable; There are several bus route running along Arapahoe that serve this site. Additional
pedestrian access from the south will be available with the completion of the bridge and trail across
8oulder Creek at the north end of 48`h Street. Arapahoe is a wide right of way and pedestrian safety
should be considered for crossing movements that will be necessary for this site.
5. The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; No additional public streets
have been proposed. Internal drives are appropriate for the nature of this development as a
Hospitai.
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 The hospital has been placed in the northern portion of the
site to reduce the impacts of the proposed 55' hi~h buildings on adjacent properties. Office/clinic
uses have been placed along the Arapahoe and 48 sireet frontages to act as a buffer to the hospital
use and blend the site development with adjacent building placement in the Riverbend office park
east of 48'h Street.
7. City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated. The hospital
will provide an emergency service facilities. Access from Arapahoe to the site for Emergency
vehicles will not be limited by the current plan. Emergency vehicles rely on the use of lights and
sirens when necessary to make turning movements. Placement of a light intersection along
Arapahoe will support emergancy vehicle access to this site.
D. Parkin :
1. The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provfde safety,
convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; The
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda {!em p~Page N ~
current plan provided good separation of pedestrian and auto movements though the use of
sidewalks and landscaped medians.
2. The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of
land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; The applicant has proposed
developing several parking garages and a five story garage. This is an efficient use of land aree for
this site. Care must be taken to makes sure parking garages are flood proofed.
3. Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent
properties, and adjacent streets; and The current plan has placed buildings for phase two
between the hospital and the parking lots, which will reduce visual impacts to adjacent uses.
However in the interim, parking will be visible from Arapahoe and landscape screening and walls
may be necessary.
4. Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in
Section 93.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Current landscape plans meet
or exceed landscape requirements for parking lots.
E. Buildina Desis~n, Livabilitv, and Relationshin to the Existina or Prooosed Surroundinq Area•
1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the
existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area;
The general character of this area is to place the taller buildings to the rear or behind existing
buildings (i.e. Ball), in this case, placing the hospital buildings in the northern portions of the site is
consistent with this character. However, placing all the parking along the Arapahoe and 48'h Street
frontages is discouraged. The four most western office/clinics should be moved to the southeastern
portion of the site and placed along the Arapahoe and 48th Street frontages, screening the parking
areas for the site. This placement will also provide a more pedestrian friendly site.
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; Building heights proposed are consistent with the placement of taller buildings in the northern
portions of the site as reflected in the Ball ownership. The hospital has been proposed to have a
height of up to 55 feet, but this height is constrained by the natural (existing) elevation of the site.
The site will be filled to raise the buildings out of the floodplain, but the overall height cannot exceed
55' from natural grade (before filling occurs). The physical heights of the hospital have been
represented to be approximately 45 feet (53 feet from natural grade). Placement of buildings along
Arapahoe and 48'h Street should maintain an overall height of 35' from the elevation represented for
Arapahoe or 48'h Street right of way adjacent to the building.
3. The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent
properties; The hospital has been proposed to be placed in the northern portions of the
developable portion of this site, consistent with this goal. Two office buildings will be placed along
the Arapahoe frontage and care should be taken to keep these buildings as low as possible to
reduce impacts to views across Arapahoe from existing development.
4. If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate
use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; There is not identifiable character for
this area.
5. Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design
elements apprapriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of
pedestrians. The basic architectural elements of the new buildings are appropriate for this site.
6. To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities;
thirty one acre of openspace lands will be preserved with this development. Trail connections to
the Boulder Creek trail system have also been requested.
7. For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of
housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well
as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; No residential proposed for this
site. Residential use is encourage however for this site. Hospital use will generate a need for
additional housing associated with the new use and location.
S. 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 materiais; Not applicable at this time.
9. A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation,
safety, and aesthetics; The applicant has provided a lighting plan that conforms to
this criteria.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV 'J'/
Agenda Ilam tt~Page k ~
10. The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids,
minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; thirty one acres of
openspace/flood plain areas will be preserved by this plan. Improvements to the flood
plain limitations of Bear Creek and Boulder creeks will also be enhanced by this plan.
The plan also provides for the relocation of wetlands and drainage conveyance within
the developable portion of the site.
11. Cut and fill are minimized on the site, and the design of buildings conforms to
the natural contours of the land. Seventeen acres of this site will be filled to
remove the area from the Boulder Creek flood plain. This condition cannot be meet
an development of the site supported without acknowledging the need to raise the site
above the Boulder Creek flood plain.
(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 buiidings so as ta maximize the potential for the use of sotar
energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria:
1. Placement of Open Space 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. The flood plain is to the north of the buildable portions of this site,
limiting the placement of new buildings on site. However, building separations and elevations will
generally be protected on site from one another for solar purposes. A large parking lot separates the
hospital from building locations along Arapahoe and 48~h Street.
2. Lot Lavout and Buildina Sitinst. Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which
maximizes the solar potential of each principai building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting
a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are
sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of
shading. The requested revisions to this plan of placing buildings along Arapahoe and 48~h Street
will comply with this provision. As noted above, the parking lot separates the hospital from the other
buildings to be developed on this site.
3. Buiidinq 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. Final design details will be required to show conformance with
this provision. The current designs for the hospital buildings shows conformance with this provision.
4. Landscapinn. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are
minimized. The general landscape plan submitted with this review shows compliance with this
provision.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV Agenda ~~2T #~~/ I'age k 7-~
~ ~'~ 1/~ I~EU(C~tc1
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: July 6, 2001
CASE MANAGER: Brent Bean
PROJECT NAME: COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 3
LOCATION: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
COORDINATES: N03W02
REVIEW TYPE: Site and Use Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00009
APPLICANT: JOE MCDONALD
DESCRIPTION: SITE AND USE REVIEW: Second review of revisions. This requests has been
tentatively scheduled for the August 2, Planning Board meeting. Please make
comments based as a condition of approval. Annexation, Site and Use Review to
locate Boulder Community Hospital Campus on the Northeast corner of Arapahoe
Road and Foothilis Parkway.
REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Hospital building heights to 55'
Office building heights to 40'
REVIEW FINDINGS
Additional comments are pending from the Openspace and Mountain Parks department regarding the
recommendations for the flood plain areas proposed for preservation within this site. This report will be
amended on July 9 and adding their findings and recommendations for the openspace areas.
This request has been scheduled for consideration by the Planning Board on August 2, 2001 based on the information
contained in this review. On or before July 18, 2001 the applicant shall pay the $2800 Planning Board review fee.
Planning Board will consider Annexation, Site Review and Use Review for location of a hospital medical offices and clinics
use of the site. This site will be flood proofed to the limits of the 500 year flood plain, not just the 100 year flood plain.
Annexation will require consideration of the following dedications and requirements:
1. Fee dedication or the provision of a conservation easement of the open space areas north of the to Boulder Creek
in a form acceptable to City Openspace division.
2. Dedication of additional right of way along Arapahoe Avenue and 48'h Street.
3. Flood plain improvements to Skunk and Bear creeks.
4. Agreement to pay 50°l0 of the costs for construction of a bridge across Boulder Creek to the Boulder Creek Traii
on the north side of Boulder Creek within the northeastern portion of the site, connecting the Boulder Creek Trail to
48~" Street sidewalks.
5. Improvements and right of way dedications required along Arapahoe necessary to support development of a
hospital and the associated office uses at this location.
Consideration of the Use Review is required for consideration of inedical offices and clinics on lots contiguous to lot(s)
upon which a hospital is the principle use, provided no more 25% of the gross floor area of the hospital to which it is
related and that the office or clinics are occupied only by physicians and oral surgeons who regularly admit patients to such
hospital. See Use Review criteria in the last sections of this document.
A request for extending vested rights beyond the normal 3 years per phase has been requested. It is staffs understanding
that a ten (10) year extension between the first and second phases is being requested. Ball Aerospace recently requested
a ten year extension, which was only supported for a maximum five year time by the Planning Board. The primary reason
for not supporting more than a five year limit is due to the fact that city policies and regulations do change and that the
provision of a five year length of time allows for the Board to review request on a more frequent bases to determine if
regulations may have changed or be changing such that a previous decision could be impacted.
Site Review criteria must also be met for this development. The staff review of this criteria has been attached to the last
section of this document.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV Agenda 11am ~~Page #`~'
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circulation
1. In informal discussions previous to this submittal, it was requested that the applicant show a right-turn acceleration
lane along Arapahoe Avenue. After assessing the pavement width required to achieve this, staff has determined that
the acceleration lane is not desirable. The required design is instead to construct a right-turn out access located
where the fire access lane meets Arapahoe Avenue. This lane musf be designed in a conflguration that will not permit
entering vehicles. Additionally, a raised crosswalk will be required across the opening of the access to aid pedestrians
and bikes. This access will require a CDOT Access Permit before approval of the approval of building permits. The
design of this access will be reviewed at time of Final PIaUTechnical Document Review. Steve Durian, Public Works,
303-441-4493
2. Before application for a CDOT Access Permit or approval of the Final Plat, two signed and sealed copies of the Traffic
Impact Study are required. An addendum or an update to the study is required to contain information about the
storage requirement for the left-turn deceleration lane and acceleration lane design for the proposed auxiliary lanes on
Arapahoe Avenue. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
3. The northwest corner of the Arapahoe/48~h Street intersection will need to be modified to accommodate pedestrian
movements with a right-turn channeling island/pedestrian refuge and a raised crosswaik between the corner and the
pedestrian island. The method for determining the layout of this curve is outlined under Access/Circulation section of
the Informational Comments below. This additional area for the sidewalk and pavement, where it lies outside the right-
of-way, needs to be included in an easement. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
4. The right-of-way dedication on Arapahoe as shown does not contain the entire sidewalk. This dedication is required to
be located 18" behind the sidewalk along the entire length of the proposed sidewalk. This will require an additional
dedication along the entire frontage of the site along Arapahoe. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
5. The left-turn deceleration lane on Arapahoe Avenue has the following deficiencies:
a) The median storage length shown is too long for Phase 1 traffic. The median will be required to have a storage
length of 210 feet and an additional 135 feet of taper length, which is consistent with Phase 1 traffic shown in the
traffic study. Should city staff determine that more length is needed in the future, the city will extend the median.
b) The median on Arapahoe is required to extend past the existing MacArthur Trail u-turn lane, thereby closing this
opening in the existing median.
These elements will be reviewed at time of Final Plat/Technical Document Review. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-
441-4493
6. The street trees and sidewalk along Arapahoe are not located to accommodate a possible future double left-turn lane.
The future curb flowline would extended along the curbline for the acceleration lane parallel to the median for 250 feet.
At this point, the curb flowline would transition to the existing flowline at a location 540 feet further to the west. The
sidewalk needs to be located 8.5 feet offset from this line. The streets therefore need to be relocated to account for
this future condition. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
7. A proposed right-of-way/property line is not shown along 48~^ Street. This line is required to be located 18" behind the
sidewalk along 48`h Street. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
8. All right-of•way dedications, including the 48'h Street and the Arapahoe Avenue rights-of-way, are required as part of
the annexation. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
Drainage
Prior to application for any building permits, the applicant is required to obtain approval of a final Stormwater Report and
Plan through the "fechnical Document Review process. All plans and reports must meet alt requirements of the Design
and Construction Standards and the Boulder Revised Code, 1981. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
Engineering
Preliminary plans and reports submitted in support of Site Review applications are reviewed only for conceptual
conformance with city standards. Prior to application for any building permits, the applicant is required to obtain approval
of final reports and construction plans through the city Technical Document Review process. Any elements of the
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda Item H~~ Page ri~
approved Site Review which preclude development of plans and reports meeting all requirements of the Design and
Construction Standards and Boulder Revised Code, 1981 will need to be modified or revised through the appropriate city
process. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
Flood Control
Staff is in the process of developing specific Annexation requirements and Site Review approval
conditions related to floodplain development. Aian Taylor, Bruce Johnson, 303-4413240.
Fire Protection
It appears that the fire hydrant north of bldg. 1 A needs to be moved to the east slightly to accommodate 350-foot spacing
standard. Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350.
Landscaping
1. Prior to application for any building permits, the applicant is required to obtain approval of a final landscape plan
through the citys Technical Document Review process. The landscape plan must meet the landscape standards
as outlined in Sections 9-3.3-2, 9-3.3-3, and 9-3.3-4. Please see informational comments below for the final ptan
submittal requirements. Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272.
2. For the final landscape plan submittal please note that at least 75% of the required trees in the interior parking lot
landscaped area must be deciduous trees classifled as either large or medium trees in the Approved Street Tree
List (Table 3-1 of the Design and Construction Standards). Bev Johnson, 303-4413272.
3. Phase 5 landscaped islands located above the parking garage to be developed for this phase shall be developed
as 3' minimum depth planters to support medium tree growth. Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272.
Site Design
The fire lanes have expanded further north with in the current plans then originally represented. Staff would
recumbent that the flood plain and wetlands areas not be impacted more than necessary. The fire lanes should
be relocated to the toe of the fill proposed for the 17 acres or place on top of the fill where possible. Openspace,
flood plain and Planning, Brent Bean (303) 4413137
2. The proposed arboretum within the flood plain should also be moved to a location within the area to be filled. The
flood plain area (outside the 17 buildable acres) should be kept in a natural state to reflect the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan policies regarding the Natural Ecosystem designation and the proposed Environmental
Preservation designation. This area should show no development improvements other than as necessary to
support flood improvements and potentia~ wetland mitigation requirements. Openspace, flood plain and Planning,
Brent Bean (303) 441-3137
Utilities
1. Prior to application for any building permits, the applicant is required to obtain approval of a final utility report and utility
construction plans through the city's Technical Document Review process. Plans and reports must meet all
requirements of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and the Boulder Revised Code, 1981.
2. Staff has reviewed the preliminary utility demand information provided. It appears that the city's water and sewer
systems have adequate capacity to serve the site. The applicant is required to provide a final utility report at the time
of Technical Document Review to demonstrate that the city system can serve the project without being upgraded. Jeff
Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
3. The plans still show a few conflicts between trees and underground utilities. These conflicts will need to be resolved
prior to approval of final landscaping and utility plans during the Technical Document Review process. Jeff Arthur,
Public Works, 441-4418.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
AccesslCirculation
A three centered curve with radii 150', 50' and 150' respectively will be required for the curvature of this corner. The
following method is used to design the curvature of the proposed curb line and for the pedestrian island:
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV
Agenda Item ~ ~'A Page k `f ~
1. Extend lines along the flowlines of Arapahoe and 48'h Street
2. From the point of intersections of the lines in step 1, bisect the angle with a line
3. Draw a 50 foot radius arc centered at a point located 93 feet from the point of intersection from part 1 along
the line defined in step 2
4. Draw an arc with a 150 foot radius tangent to the Arapahoe flowline and tangent to the 50 foot radius arc
defined in step 3. This can be easily achieved using CAD software.
5. Repeat step 4 with a 150 foot radius tangent to the 48t° Street flowline instead of the Arapahoe flowline
Steps 1 through 5 above define the flowline of the curb return. The sidewalk, back of curb and other required elements
are offset from this flowline. The foilowing are used to determine the location of the pedestrian island curb:
6. Offset the 50 foot arc (from step 3 above) 18 feet into the intersection (southeast)
7. Extend flowlines from 48~h Street and Arapahoe to where they intersect as in step 1 above
8. Trim the lines and ares in steps 6 and 7 to define an area roughly in the shape of a triangle with one side being
an arc.
9. Fillet the corners of the shape from sfep S. The radii of these fii~ets need to be smal! enough(two to five feet)
to allow a suitable area for the pedestrian island.
Steps 6 through 9 define the flowline of the median island. These lines and ares can be offset to determine edges and
backs of curb. In addition to these elements, a raised crosswalk is required between the handicap ramps at the corner
and the pedestrian istand. This crosswalk is required to be located between the handicap ramps on the island and the
corner. This will be further reviewed at time of Final PladTechnical Document Review.
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
Fire lane markings and configurations will need to be reviewed at time of construction for compliance with city standards.
Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350.
Building and Housing Codes
No additional requirements Steve Brown
Drainage
Sheet C1 - The inlet at design point 7 is shown discharging under a tree against the flow in the main pipe. An alternative
alignment needs to be shown on the final plans. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
Landscaping
Please note the following submittal requirements for the final landscaping plan:
Plan drawing at a scale of 1"= 10', 1"= 20', or 1"= 30', to include:
• Standard title block including scale, north arrow, and date
• Location of property lines and adjacent streets (with street names identified).
• Existing and proposed locations of all:
- Building footprints of structures
- Sidewalks and curb cuts
- Parking lots including layout of parking spaces, interior perimeter parking lot plantings, bike paths and
pedestrian walkways, drive aisles and curb islands.
- Utilities and easements, including fire hydrants, water meters, & height and tocation of overhead lines.
• Existing location, size, and type of all trees 1 1l2" caliper or greater.
Planting and irrigation specifications
• Final irrigation plan indicating type and locations or irrigation and of plant groupings by water requirements.
• Layout and location of all landscaped areas including:
- planting strips along all streets
- parking lot screening
- interior parking lot landscaping
- perimeter site landscaping or screening
- all other landscaped areas
i
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV Agertla I(em tt U'~T Page # ~
• Botanical and common names and sizes of all plant material and ground cover.
• Locations of all proposed plant material, shown at size they will be within 5 years of initial planting, and appropriately
spaced.
• Proposed planting of all ground surfaces. Grass surfaces must be identified as sod or seed with the blend or mix
specified.
• Location, size, and species name of any plant materials proposed for removal.
• Location, design, height and materials of other landscape improvements, such as:
- earth berms
- retaining walls
- fences
- water features
- outdoor furnishings and artwork
- trash enclosures
- lights
- paved areas and/ or walkways
- tree grates and planters
• Location and treatment of any proposed detention ponds.
• Location and dimensions of site distance triangles at all intersections of streets and curb cuts.
• Plans for restoration, revegetation, or enhancement of an affected natural area or natural area buffer zone.
Summary graphic and chart with calculations to include:
• Graphic drawing with locations and dimensions of all required landscaped areas. Include dimensions and total area
for each requirement. For example, each interior parking lot island should include dimensions and total square
footage, and the total square footage of all interior parking lot islands should be calculated.
• Total lot size (in square feet).
• Total parking lot size, including all drives and driveways (in square feet).
• Total parking lot interior landscaped area required and total provided (square feet).
• Total number of parking stalis provided, total number required by code.
• Total amount of perimeter landscaping provided, total required by code (square feet).
• 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.
Utilities
1. The applicant is advised that prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance for the property, they are required to file
a petition to join the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Municipal Subdistrict and pay any associated
fees. Applications are available from Janice Swoboda in the Planning and Development Services Center. Jeff Arthur,
Public Works, 441-4418.
2. Easement dedications at Technical Document Review must include adequate areas for water meters and fire
hydrants. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
IV. NEXT STEPS
Planning Board review of the request for annexation, site review and use review on August 2, 2001. Please submit
sixteen (16) copies of the plan documents dated June 18, 2001 for Planning Board review of this request. Copies of the
plans should be given to Mary Loverien, Planning Board secretary.
Address: 4835 ARAPAHOE AV Agendal~2m N~Page #~_h U
ATTACHMENT C
SITE REVIEW CRITERIA: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that:
Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan:
A. The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan. This site is currently be considered for a Comprehensive Plan designation
change from industrial to Public (17acres) and Environmental Protection (31+ acres). Development
of a hospital is only permitted within a Public Zone district, which is supported by the designation
change to public. This site is also within the Boulder Creek flood plain area which will be preserved
with the environmental protection designation, and portions of this site that will be developed will be
raised to the 500 year flood elevations rather than the 100 year elevations normally permitted.
B. TheproposeddevelopmentshallnotexceedthemaximumdensityassociatedwiththeBouider
Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of
existing residential development within a 300 foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds
the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density
permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: Residential use is not currently proposed for
this site, but would be encouraged as a support serve for hospital use.
(i) the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
(ii) the maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or
varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981,
II. Site Desian: 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; 31 plus acres of open
space will be preserved within the Boulder Creek flood plain located to the north of the
proposed development portion ot the site. Additional open space has been proposed within
the confines of the public zoned portion of the site in the form of landscaped areas, plaza's,
and walkways.
2. Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; Not applicable to the
current request.
3. The project provides for the preservation of natural features, inciuding without limita-
tion healthy long-lived trees, terrain, and drainage areas; The natural areas within the
high hazard portions of the flood plain (64% of the site) will be preserved. There are portions
of the area to 6e developed that have designated wetlands running along the west side of481h
Street. This wetlands will be relocated through mitigation methods to the western portion of
the site. The are no trees present in the 17 acre portion of the site to be developed.
4. The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from
surrounding development; The Boulder creek flood plain area to be preserved provides
a separation between the site and industrial use to the north. Landscaped buffers will be
developed along Arapahoe and Foothills Parkway. The taller buildings of the hospital (up
to 55' in height) will be placed at the northern portions of the site to reduce there impacts on
neighborhoods to the south of Arapahoe.
5. If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. The 31 acres of open
space are an integral part of the Boulder Creek trail system. As conditions of approval,
connections to the trails north of Boulder Creek have been requested. In addition, the
sidewalk/bikeways along Arapahoe and Foothill Parkway provide connections to this trail
system.
B. Landscaqinq:
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd ~~e~P~90 'y~ ~
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; Initial Landscape plans show that
a variety of materials and plants have been proposed for development of the site, consistent
with this criteria.
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 Initial concepts
support this requirement, final plans will be required prior to Building permit application
supporting this requirement.
3. The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along puhlic rights-oE-way are
landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features, and
tocontributetothedevelopmentofanattractivesiteplan. Thecurrentproposalprovides
information relating to this criteria. Office buildings have been places along 48'" Street and
Arapahoe Avenue in the southeastern portion of the site which results in a more pedestrian
friendly street frontage.
C. Circulation, including without limitation the 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; Access to the site will be limited along Arapahoe and 48`^ Streets. Arapahoe
is a heavily used street and buffers from the street have been proposed on the landscape
concept plans submitted for this project.
2. Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized; A detailed traffic study has been
comp{eted for the site, which supports taking access from 48'h Street only. As a resuH,
improvements will be only made to the 481h Street access to this area, which include turn
lanes on Arapahoe, the addition of a west bound acceleration lanes along the north side of
Arapahoe and signalization of the 48'" and Arapahoe intersection.
3. Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and
between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided,
including without limitation streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails; Pedestrian
walkways around the site will be improved and a traiV connection to the Boulder Creek Trail
system will be added to the site. Pedestrian/bike access to this site will be enhanced with
these improvements.
4. On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation,
where applicable; There are several bus route running along Arapahoe that serve this site.
The addition of a traffic light at Arapahoe and 48`" Street will enhance pedestrian access to
transit service available along Arapahoe.
5. The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; No additional public
streets have been proposed. Internal drives are appropriate for the nature of this
development as a Hospital and hospital related services.
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 The hospital has been placed in the northern
portion of the site, as far from traffic as possible. Office/clinic uses will be placed along the
Arapahoe and 48`" street frontages to act as a buffer to the hospital, creating a more urban
street facade along Arapahoe and blending the site with adjacent building placement in the
Riverbend office park to the east of 48'" Street.
7. City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated. The
hospital will provide limited emergency service facilities. Ambulance access to the site will
be by way of 48'" Street. Fire access will be provided through 48'" Street and a secondary
access planned to take access to Arapahoe about 400 feet west of the 48'" Street
intersection.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd ~~m~~(~pa~p .S~
D. Parkinst:
1. The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety,
convenience, and separetion ot pedestrian movements from vehicular movements;
The current plan provided good separation of pedestrian and auto movements.
2. The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum
amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; The applicant has
proposed developing four parking garages, a five story garage two one story parking decks
and a parking garage below portions of the hospital. This is an efficient use of land area for
this site, but development of the garages will be phased with each phase of development and
may result in considerable costs to the applicant to construct. In addition, care must be taken_
to makes sure all parking garages are flood proofed. Two surface parking lots of
approximately 86 spaces each, located at the southwest and northeast corners of the
developable area, are proposed for deferred construction. These lots will be replaced by
building area, or removed for underground parking in later phases. It is not expected that
these parking spaces will be needed until full buildout, so it is acceptable to defer their
construction until the need actually exists. Based on the code requirements for deferred
parking, these spaces will be constructed within 30 days of notification by the City Manager
that they are needed. The applicant has demonstrated that the criteria for parking deferral are
met, as 1) the character of the use, through phased construction, lowers the need for
immediate construction of all the required spaces; and 2) the site is immediately proximate
to public transportation along Arapahoe Avenue. No parking reduction is proposed.
3. Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project,
adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and Phase one of the development will place
a significant portion of the parking onsite within view of Arapahoe. Final lighting and
landscape plans have taken this point into consideration and the proposed plans will buffer
the parking areas from view to Arapahoe.
4. Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the
requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981.
Internal landscaped areas for the parking lots has been proposed and will be consistent with
this standard and City requirements.
E. Buildinq Desistn Llvability and Relationship to the Existina or Proqosed Surroundinq Area•
1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatiblewith the
existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the
area; The general character of this area is to place the taller buildings to the rear or behind
existing buildings (i.e. Ball), in this case, placing the hospital buildings in the northern portions
of the site is consistent with this character. Internal parking lots will be placed along the
Arapahoe and 48'h Street frontages initially, but will be screening through the use of
landscape materials. Most of the parking lots will be screened from view along Arapahoe as
the later phased of development occur.
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; Building heights proposed are consistent with the placement of taller
buildings in the northern portions of the site as reflected in the Ball ownership. The hospital
will have a heights of up to 55 feet, but this height is constrained by the natural (existing)
elevation of the site, which is 7 to 8 feet below the fill that will be provided on site. The site
will be filled to raise the buildings out of the flood plain, but the overall height cannot exceed
55' from natural grade (before filling occurs). The physical heights of the hospital have been
represented to be approximately 45 feet (53 feet from natural grade). Placement of buildings
along Arapahoe and 48'" Street should maintain an overall height of 30' from the elevation
represented for Arapahoe or 48'" Street right of way adjacent to the building (a height
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp. wpd /'/ %/(~
A9~da{tem #~J..~Fage #
exception to 40' maximum for these buildings).
3. The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from
adjacent properties; The hospital has been proposed to be placed in the northern portions
of the developable portion of this site, consistent with this goal. Relocation of the office
buildings to the southern portion of the site has been a result of ineeting staff requirements.
Some views may be reduced for the areas south of Arapahoe, but maintaining a maximum
height of 40' from natural grade and providing the breaks in the buildings will assure that
views from properties south of Arapahoe are not unduly compromised.
4. If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the
appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; There is no
identifiable character for this area, but the proposed buildings will be of a higher design
quality then the industrial buildings to the east of the site.
5. Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design
elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide forthe safety and convenience
of pedestrians. The basic architectural elements of the new buildings are appropriate forthis
site. Pedestrian access to Arapahoe will be enhanced through internal walkways connecting
Arapahoe to the new hospital site.
6. To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public
facilities; Thirty one (31) acres of open space lands will be preserved with this development.
Trail connections to the Boulder Creek trail system will be improved with the addition of the
bridge crossing Boulder Creek connecting this site to the Boulder Trail creek system.
7. For residential projects, the proJect assists the community in producing a variety of
housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as
well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; No residential units
have been proposed for this site, however residential use would be encourage at this site.
Should the hospital find that housing could be provided on this site in the future, current policy
would support development of housing.
8. For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between
buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through
spacing, landscaping, and building materials; Not applicable at this time.
9. A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy
conservation, safety, and aesthetics; The applicant has provided a lighting
plan that conforms to this criteria.
10. The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and
avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; thirty one
acres of open space/flood plain areas will be preserved by this plan.
Improvements to the flood plain limitations of Bear Creek and Boulder creeks
will also be enhanced by this plan. The plan also provides for the relocation
of wetlands and drainage conveyance within the developable portion of the
site.
11. Cut and fill are minimized on the site, and the design of buildings
conforms to the natural contours of the land. Seventeen acres of this site
will be filled to remove the area from the Boutder Creek flood plain. The site is
basically flat and filling the site will raise the site approximately 8'. The site
will remain relatively flat.
F. Solar Sitina 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:
1. Placement of Onen Suace and Streets. Open space areas are located wherever practical
to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd
Agenda{tem# ~P Page# ~~
buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints
may justify deviations from this criterion. The flood plain is to the north of the buildable
portions of this site, limiting the placement of new buildings on site. However, building
separations and elevations will generally be protected on site from one another for solar
purposes. AlargeparkinglotseparatesthehospitalfrombuildinglocationsalongArapahoeand
48'" Street.
2. Lot Lavout and Buildinp Sitinn. Lots are oriented and buitdings are sited in a way which
maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate
siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical,
buildings are sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better
owner control of shading. The requested revisions to this plan of placing buildings along
Arapahoe and 48'" Street will comply with this provision. As noted above, the parking lot
separates the hospital from the other buildings to be developed on this site.
3. Buildinst 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. Final design details will be required to show
conformance with this provision. The current designs for the hospital buildings shows
conformance with this provision.
4. Landscapinp. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are
minimized. The general landscape plan submitted with this review shows compliance with
this provision.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bbhos4700arp.wpd ~ ~1em q / page ~ ~~
ATTACHMENT D
Page 1 of 1
Brent Bean - support for BCH project
From: Mike Moran <~oran@bch.org>
To: Spense Havlick <havlicks@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 06/04/2001 9:33 AM
Subject: support for BCH project
CC: gralappm <gralappm@boulder.lib.c.us>, Andersenc <Andersenc@ci.boulder.co.us>, CorsonD
<CorsonD@ci.boulder.co.us>, ColeB <ColeB@ci.boulder.co.us>, CrainJ <CrainJ n~ci.boulder.co.us>,
CunninghamE <CunninghamE@ci.boulder.cous>, deRaismesJ <deRaismesJ~ci.boulder.co.us>, DwanB
<DuranB@ci.boulder.co.us>, EldridgeT <EldridgeT@ci.bouldar.co.us>, GehrD <GehrD@ci.boulder.co.us>,
GordonJ <GordonJ@ci.boulder.co.us>, grogans <grogans@ci.boulder.co.us>, KaplanM
<KaplanM@ci.boulder.co.us>, LargeA <LargeA@ci.boulder.co.us>, LewisA <LewisA@ci.bouldecco.us>,
LoveK <LoveK@ci.boulder.co.us>, MockD <MockD@ci.boulder.co.us>, MorganKa
<MorganKa@ci.boulder.co.us>, MorzelL <MorzelL@ci.boulder.co.us>, meullera
<meullera@ci.boulder.co.us>, PattonM <PattonM@ci.boulder.co.us>, PetersenJ <petexsenJ@ci.boulder.co.us>,
PoinsatteF <PoinsatteF~ci.boulder.co.us>, PollockP <PollockP~ci.boulder.co.us>, PurdyS
<PurdyS@ci.boulder.co.us>, RiggleG <RiggleG@ci.boulder.co.us>, RomeroR <RomeroR@ci.boulder.co.us>,
SecristR <SecristR@ci.boulder.co.us>, ToorW <ToorW@ci.boulder.co.us>, VarnesR
<V arnesR@ci.boulder. co.us>
June 4,200I
Dcar Cauncilman Havlik,
I am wriling as 1he President Elect of the Medical S[aff of Boulder
Community Hospital to urge your support of the expansion project at
Arapahoe and Foothills Parkway. I have been practicing in[emal
medicine in Boulder Tor the past 25 years and 1 am very familiar with
the increasing demand for hospi[al services over this [ime. I attend
meetings of [he BoarJ of Direcrors of the hospital and represen[ the
views of [he Medical Staff.
I am a gerontologisc My practice involves caring for senior citizens.
I[ is a well known (act that [his population utilizes hospital services
in much grea[er proportions than younger patients. Physicians on a
daily basis are confron[ed with 6ed shortages for patients and
overcrowding in almost all clinical services. The need for hospital
services is growing dramatically as [he baby boomers are aging. Withou[
this new hospital project we will not be able to take care of our
pa[ients. And because of the shortage of land, [he flood
plane/conveyance zone issues, neighborhood concems, and Iraflic
conges[ion adequa[e expansion is not possible at our curtent si[e.
In closing, 1 urge you m support the expansion of the hospital at the
Arapahoe and Foothills Parkway site.
Sincerely,
James Mumhy M,D.
President Elect - Boulder Community Hospital Medical Staff
Any a~tachments to this message have been scanned Cor viruses by The
Elechic Mail Company Inc.'s &mmunity (tm) service employing Trend
Micro technology. Prior to opening any atlachmen[s see liabiliry
disclaimer at: htto~/hvww elec~nemail com/e-mmuniry disclnimer.html
~QQ1~I~fl ~l8(~ N~~ --NaGO $ eJ` ~
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}OOOlO.HTM 06/04/2001
PLAN Boulder County
c/o 200 Pawnee Drive
Boulder, Colorado 80303
May 31, 2001
Planning Board Members
1739 Broadway
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Re: Boulder Community Hospital Site and Use Review
Dear Planning Board:
PLAN Boulder has reviewed the proposal by Boulder Community Hospital to annex and
develop the land at Arapahoe and 47`h Street for a hospita] annex facility. We have met
with Joe McDonald, Alan Taylor and Nancy Steinberger in order to fuily inform
ourselves about the need for a new facility, the chosen location, possible alternative
locations, and site specific constraints.
PLAN Boulder recognizes the need for additional hospital facilities in Boulder. Boulder
Community Hospital is operating at capacity and cannot fully serve the needs of the
community. Nonetheless, PLAN Boulder has serious concems about the site the hospital
has chosen for expansion.
The chosen site is cunently in the floodplain of both Bear Canyon Creek and Boulder
Creek. Despite the plans to remove the property itself from the 100-year and 500-year
floodplain, PLAN-Boulder has grave concerns about locating a hospital in an area that
may be inaccessible in a 100-year storm. Flooding on Foothills Parkway to the west of
the site and on Arapahoe Avenue to the east, may make the hospital inaccessible to
patients and staff at a time when it is most needed. The existence of a hospital in an area
subject to flooding may draw people to an area that would be extremely dangerous during
a flood. There has not been sufficient planning or analysis of whether the hospital could
function in the event of a 100-year flood.
PLAN-Boulder is also concerned that a major facility is being planned near the
intersection of Arapahoe Avenue and Foothills Parkway, which is currently operating at a
LOS of F. No improvements for this intersection are currently in the funding pipeline. It
is not clear whether the intersection can be improved without intolerable impacts to
nearby riparian habitat, or whether improvements would be consistent with the city's
transportation demand policies. The hospital will exacerbate the situation by adding non-
discretionary trips by users who cannot plan their trips around off-peak hours and who
most likely cannot avail themselves of public transportation.
Agenda Itsm #~¢$_ Page ~ ~
Boulder Community Hospital should reassess the availability of suitable parcels given the
serious safety constraints on this property and the population that the facility will serve.
In addition to vacant sites, the search should include sites that are currently developed,
but which may be ripe for redevelopment.
If an updated and more inclusive property search does not reveal any alternatives, and if
city concludes that the proposal conforms to its ]and use and development regulations,
PLAN-Boulder urges the city to condition development on the following:
The hospital must develop an emergency plan far safe ingress/egress from the site in the
event of a flood. This plan should address how the hospital will serve its current
patients if it becomes inaccessible to staff and to suppliers and well as how patients
and ambulance services will access the hospital. The plan should be reviewed and
updated regularly.
• The hospital should contribute towards mitigating congestion at Foothills and Arapahoe
in a manner that does not destroy high value wetlands and riparian habitat.
• On-site traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns must be designed to minimize impact to
the adjacent open space. The adjacent open space should be protected from
pedestrian access by hospital employees.
• Off-site improvements to Bear Canyon Creek must improve the functioning of the
associated riparian habitat. Concrete channelization should not be permitted. Plains
topminnow habitat should be protected or enhanced.
• Wetlands that will be destroyed should be replaced with high-quality, functioning
wetlands at a ratio that exceeds 1:1.
• The hospital should re-survey the site for Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse and Ute
Ladies' Tresses Orchid, and design appropriate mitigation if they or other rare species
are found.
• The 32 acres that will not be developed should be dedicated to City of Boulder Open
Space. This area should be revegetated with native plant species. Invasion of non-
native species must be controlled by the applicant during several growing seasons.
The area should be managed as wildlife habitat consistent with nearby Cottonwood
Grove.
These conditions address some of the development constraints on the property. They do
not mitigate the basic danger of locating a hospital facility in the floodplain and at an
intersection that is so severely dysfunctional. Many millions of dollars of public funds
would be required to fully address the public safety issues on this site. Should the plan be
approved, the city must acknowledge that it has approved a plan that increases the
potential for loss of life and property during a 100-year or 500-year flood, and that there
pgendaltem~~_Fagew .S'b'~
are no plans to remove a larger area from the floodplain.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
Sincerely,
Joni Teter, Chair
C: Joe McDonald
Agenda Item #~Page #. y ` _
(k.t~d l~wS~ol
March 5, 2001
City of Boulder
Planning Department
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80306
RE: Boulder Community Hospital Arapahce Campus
Site and Use R¢view
Iadies and Gentlemen
~veretl, the homeowners of Willowridge Park Townhouse Association are pleased with the
way the hospital has el¢cted to work with us on issues that concem us about the proposed hospital
campus at Foathills and Ampahoe. Our major conc¢ms are around flooding and traffic, and we hope
that th¢ final Sit¢ and Use Reviews will address these issues.
Flooding: At the January 29 meeting among the city, the hospital, and homeowners, the
applicant and the city proposed modifications such as cuiverts beneath Ampahce Avenue, and
building up and fortifying the berm on the west side of Harrison Avenue, as the best solution to the
site's impact on the flood plain. We are enth~iastic about the joint city/hospital proposal, but note
that no mention of these mitigation plans has been included in the submitted site and use reviews. It
seems impossible for the ciiy to approve the site and use plans without formally considering the site's
floodplain mitigation and resulHng impact on the residents to the south of the site.
Traffic: Perhaps owing to a lack of planning in the 1970's, MacArthar Drive pravides the on~cl
northern ingress/egress for the approximately 200 homes and townhomes south of Arapahce. The
only other access from the south and east passes direcNy through the school crossings in front of
Eisenhower ElemenYary School. It seems obvious that, as impediments to traffic at MacArthur and
Arapahoe increase, there will be a corresponding increase in the traffic past the school. We applaud
the hospital's efforts to minimize the impact of their site's traffic on this intersection, but we have some
abiding concerns that the traffic study conducted for the applicant overlooked several pertinent points:
The traffic study predicts an annual increase in ttaffic of 1%. While a 1% annual traffic
increase may be reasonable for Bould¢r as a whole, we think it an insufficient estimate
for such arterials as Foothills and Ampahoe. These arterials are used heavily by people
working in one place and living in another, and despite Boulders attempis to provide
affordable housing, we predict accelerated use of arterials by commuters for the near
future.
As to traffic ¢merging from MacArthur Drive onto Arapaho¢ Avenue, the traffic study fails
to mention the considerable contribution of vehicles to and from Viewpoint -- the office
park at the southeast comer of Foothills and Arepahoe. The park consists of three three-
story buildings housing oHices, one of which is a"virtual office" that perhaps a hundred
clients use for mail, secretarial and conferenc¢ services. Just like r¢sidents of Willowridge
Park, users of Viewpoint must use Arapahce or MacArthur Drive for ingress and egress,
and thus increasing traffic delay at MacArthur will divert considerable office-park traffic
past the Eisenhower School.
Agenda Rem #~ Page k~ ~'
The traffic study suggests that better sequencing of the signals on Arapahoe, including the
pro~xsed new signal at 48'^, would provide some "platooning" of the iraffic at MacArthur
and perhaps help with northbound left tums. Unfortunately, the study dcxs not point out
how w¢stbound hospital traffic at the 48'^ sheet signal would nulli{y much o4 th¢ benefit
of signal timing for MacArthur, since westbound traffic would simply switch from flow
from Arapahce to flow from the h~pital when the signal changes, with no appreciable
gaps.
A preliminary site propcual included a 3/4 intenecfion from the site onto Arepahce east
of MacArthur. We pointed out the difficulty this would present to the MacArthur traffic,
and the curb cut was removed in Phase 1 plans. For Phase II, the proposed curb cut
wouid be to the west of MacArthur to minimize the impact. We feel it is exhemely
important that no curb cuts be allowed east of MacArthur, and we would be glad to assist
in the analysis of why such access to the site should not be allowed.
• A small but imporhant point is that the correct noun modified by MacArthur is Drive
mther than Trail, as suggested by the traffic study. MacArthur Drive is paved and has not
seen a horse-and-buggy in many years and, as the only convenient access to Atapahoe
Avenue for hundreds of people, it should not b¢ consid¢r¢d an inconsequential "path" in
a haffic study.
In summary, we feel the traffic impact of the sit¢ must continually be sensitive to the problems
at MacArthur and at the Eisenhower Elementary School. The proposed Phase 1 use will be adding
additional traffic on Arap~hce (80°h, of total site Uaffic) that will be difficuk to mitigate. Perhaps some
hrilliant signal progression timing along Arapahce will provide 6rief respites to the haffic flow, lt is our
greatest hope that, at th¢ Phase ll review, actual increases in haffic flow might support a signalized
intersection at MacArthur that would also serve as the west exit to the Phase 11 hospital site. This will
probably be the only solution, in the face of exheme egress difficulties from MacArthur, to diverting
significant traffic past the Eisenhower Elemen~ry School.
Thanks for the opportunity to let our comments become part of the city's response to the
applicant. We have had good communication with the applicant and the city, and hope that this
remains hue as th¢ proposal for this site proceeds to acceptanc¢.
Respectfully,
Willowridge Park Townhome Rssociation
~, - ~ ~
J me S~residen~.
\\
~C~c ~~ c~..J r 4-/~
Jackie Dial/freasurer
/~la Item t~Page # ~
From: Brent Bean
To: "CaplanCo@aol.com".GWIAe2.COBNet
Subject: Re: LUR2001-00009
I tried to call you, but you didn't leave me a phone number. I'm not sure the number in the phone
book was correct either, any way response to your questions are in bold.
This is a followup to my phone call earlier today. As I reread the 2/24
letter it isn't clear to me as to wheather this is a review of changing the
zoning or is this to review a variation to the 55 foot requirements or both.this is a two part request.
Annexation and zoning of the property to PE. 2) Site Review, which includes a request for a height
exception to 55'.
1. As to changing the zoning from agriculture to PE I have the following
questions and concerns:
- Your letter shows the present zoning as agricuiture while the Boulder
Valley Comp. Plan update map shows it as light industrial which is it? You are confusing
Comprehensive Plan with Zoning. The Comprehensive Plan is in the process of being amended to
change the designation for this site to Environmental Protection (northern 31acres) and Public for
the developable portion of the site (southeastern 17+ acres). The zoning designation for the
property will be PE (Public). The Comprehensive Plan is the document that provides the direction
for how the property should be zoned. Where zoning provides the specific use criteria for the
property (setbacks, height limitations, uses, etc.)
- It is very difficult to comment on this zoning change specifically
without seeing the overall project plans, and not just the 1 st phase, and
without knowing the usage today and into the future. Hearing on Comprehensive Plan changes is this
evening at the Planning Board meeting (City Council Chambers). A copy of the site plan was
given to Marilynne Tarrall who lives in your area, or you can see a copy of the plan in our office
during office hours 8-5. W ill it have emergency ambulances and or helicopters? They will have an
emergency room, but it is anticipated that most emergency activities will be routed to exiting
hospital site at Broadway and Balsam. How many employees will be working there? varies with the
phase, 450-900 is there estimated number. Addition information in there back ground info.
What will the patient load look like? Initial traffic report available. our engineers are currently
reviewing the document and have several issues with the information provided. Without the
specifics one can only comment in general as to concerns. Please feel free to contact Marilynne
Tarrall (303) 444-1408 to see the information she has for the neighborhood, or come down to the
Planning Office to review the information in the file. I will place your comments into the record as
they stand at this time. There will be additional submittal of information before this request is
considered by the Planning Board. You should have a couple more months of time to review this
request before it is considered by the Planning Board.
Concems:
- First and foremost must be traffic issues, the impact this will
have on the overall Arapahoe-Foothills already difficult situation, the
ability to have ingress and egress from this property and iYs impacts on the
rest of the area, and the potential traffic safety issues for drivers, bikers
and peds. This project should not go through unless the community can be
assured that effective mitigation can and will be used.
- A 24 hour operation will change dramatically the nature of Arapahoe
in this area since all the commercial and industrial properties basically
work normal work hours. This project may add noise and light pollution not
just during normal work hours but may seriously impact on residences in the
area during non normal working times. So how will ambulance sirens be handled
especially in the night and early morning hours will be of importance. What
kind of lighting wili be used and iYs impact on the area is also a concern.
pgendaltem # ~~ Page # /: ,~
- As community concerned with wildlife and flood plain issues we
should be fully assured that there will not be any impact or that it will be
fully mitigated. Is a major consideration of this request. 31+ acres of land wiil be preserved and
city ownership of this land is being discussed at this time.
- View corriedors will be impacted although given the amount of
information we have now iYs impossible to tell by how much. How will the
project impact the views of the offices across 48th street? Will vary based on the location of a specific
office and the new facilities for the hospital. If there is a desire in the plans to build over 55 feet why
should such a varience be allowed, given the size of the project, iPs impact and the precedent it will set.
Does BCH want to go over 55 feet and if so why? City ordinanceslresolutions do not permit building
over 55' A person can only build over 55' if the citizens of Boulder approve a referendum to allow
this specific property to exceed the 55' height limit.
- Is BCH sharing fully what the overall project will be or just the
1 st phase? First phase development will be 176,000 square feet of building area, Second phase will
add up to 244,000 square feet of building area for a total of up to 420,000 sf of building area.
Additional information has been requested for the phasing plans of the site. I would have very deep
concerns about approving one part without knowing the overall plans and impact. So do we.
2. Overall process, as I mentioned on the phone I still don't seem to get my
hands around how ihis is ail coming together. What govt. entity is doing
what and when. I received a notice from the county re. special permit for
land fill, i also saw in the paper re. the BVCP update that this property was
listed for change and then received this annoucement. Am I correct that this
property is not going through the normal update process but has been
separated from it and is being dealt with separately and on iPs own
timetable? There are three things going on at this time. 1) City Comprehensive Plan update. this is
a city wide project and the hospital site is one of 20+ site under review. 2) annexation, zoning and
Site review requests. The piece I am responsible for and the notice sent to the neighborhood. 3)
request fo~ placing fill dirt on the site with 6oulder County. The property is still in Boulder County
and a request to fill the 17 acre portion of the site requires County approval at this time. Once the
property has been annexated, the city has jurisdiction of the process. County review is being
based on City standards. Does that mean if i only interested in this property I don't have to pay attention
to the overall BVCP update process and attend those meetings? Your choice. The merits of changing
the Comprehensive designation for this site is a pubiic issue and comments are being solicited
from the public. What is the timetable on BCH property, when will meetings and reports take place and
be available? As noted above, Cqmprehensive plan discussion is tonight. Annexation, zoning and
site review will take place sometime this summer.
Which leads me to my last comment regarding sharing information with
concerned citizens. The last time we had something like this going on in our
area was the new fire station and it was very helpful to get a regular
newsletter which explained quite well what was going on. I wonder if you
plan on doing something similar to assist us all in becoming educated and
informed so that we can respond in a timely and responsible manner. The applicant has scheduled
meetings with the neighbors already. The city will continue to keep the neighbors notified of
pending city meetings. If the neighbors as a group desire another meeting with the hospital, I
would recommend organizing a request through the neighborhood reps (Tarrals are one)
Thanks for your attention and patience, I appreciate your assistance,
Sincerely,
Michael Caplan
Agendaltem# w~~ Pags# ~.3
FACSA~III,E
TO: Brent Bean
Planniag Depamnent
FAX: 303-441-3241
FROM: Marilynne Tarrall
Nei~hborhood Liaison, Eisenhower Neighborhnod
M. T. "Hony" Tarrall
President, MacArthur Pazk Townhouse Association
PHONE: 303-444-14~8
303~315-2525
FAX: 303-247-0696
DATE: March 5, 2Q01
REVI~W: Site and Use Review
REVIEW #: LUR2001-00009
AP'PLICANT: Boulder Commwtity Hospital
We originally were opposed to the hospital site at 48'~ and Arapahoe. We have since
changed our minds and are now in support of the hospital at that location. We have been
workin~ with Joe McDonald and f nd that so faz Boulder Community Hospital wants to
wnrk with our community to the mutual benefit of all.
Having reviewed the plans, we have soma camments. These are not necessarily d'uect
responses to criteria for the site and use review. They are comments on matters of critical
importance to the acijacent residential areas.
We support having a traffic light at 48~' and Arapahoe (aa well as retaining the
light at Commerce and Arapahoe). This light would be critical for safety.
Specifically, cazs traveling wast on Arapahoe, between Commerce and 48t° Street,
have more lnnited visibility than is apparent due to the grade. This is a peril for
emergency vehicles travelin~ east and tttrning le8 into the hospital_
2. We had a number of discussions regazding a curb cut along Arapahoe, and are
pleased that the curb cut is in Phase 2, and west of the intersection of MacArthur
Drive and Arapahoe. In our discussions with the hospital, we explained that it is
currently diff cult to enter Arapahoe going west from MacArthur Drive. While
lights can be timed to give the neighborhoods some relief from the problem, a
cwb cut east of that intersection would permit cars from the hospital to enter
Arapahoe at random times. Cars entering from the north side of Arapahoe often
do so to t~rn south on Faothills Parkway. In oider to do that, they cut across the
three lanes of tr~c, sometimes i.n an erratic fashion, and would tend to block the
intetseCtion of MacArthur and Arapahoe. If the problem becomes severe enough,
the neighborhoods that now access Arapahoe from MacArthut Drive, will be
A9~~ltem N ~o/~ Page N ._.1-
_' " "". ... ...... ........ m.u.aoaaau.~.an w~o~
forced to access Arapahoe via Eisenhower, which will put mora sutomobiles past
the elementary school and the park-sometbing we hope to limit. We are sure
that Riverbend Office Park would like a curb cut in Phase 1. However, they will
have a light at 48~' where there was none. Commuting traf~'ic from the hospital
occurs at 7 am, 3 pm and 11 pm-none of which are commuting hours for the
office complex, At its maximum, Ball Aerospacc had about 6,000 employees,
most of whom enteted and exited Ball at the single li$ht at Commerce. We
believe that the potential pressuce on the elementazy school should outweigh other
considerations.
3. We are still concemed about the drainage fram MacArthur Park Townhouse
Association north under Arapahae. We recognize that engineers from the
Hospital and from the City are wncking an this prohlem, and would appreciate
coatinuing updates on the progress. We are not opposed to "moving" the
wetlands to a better spot as long as the flood mitigation properties that the
wetlands have provided us up to this point are not diminished.
4. There were some discussions with the Hospital regarding floodplain mitigation,
parkicularly along Hatrison We would appreciate updates on the progress of
these plans.
5. We believe there should be a bike, pedestrian underpass along Bear Creek under
Arapahoe, much like Skunk Creek. One of the benefits stated about placing the
Hospital at 46~' and Atapahoe was the availahility of altemative transportation.
However, the intersection at Foothills and Arapahoe has the most accidents of any
intersection in the City. It is particulazly haTardous for alternative transportation
modes of traval. An underpass would provide a much safer crossing and, indeed,
make altemative modes of transportation to and from the hospifal far more viable.
Also, opening up that area would help d'uninish tlood danger in the area
(including flood danger for the Foothills and Arapahoe hi~hways.)
Regarding Eisenhower: We are concerned about increasing tr~c a]ong
Eisenhower, past the elementary school and the pazk. People living inside these
neighborhoods know that this is an altemative north-south route. RTD reco~;~es
it as such, because it is a bus xoute! A major threat is that, when Foothills is
jammed, people may actually Drefer Eisenhower to 55~' Street as a north-south
route. Since S5~' has the raised crosswalks-it may actually be more difficult to
navigate than Eisenhower. This is of particular concem when citizens aze rushing
loved ones ta the hospital. To at least equalize the chance that a neighhor will use
SSm Sheet, we believe that there should be raised crosswalks placed at EACH side
of Eisenhower school, and a third crosswalk be placed farther north along the
pazk. Additionally, the li~ht at Eisenhower and Harrison should be changed from
an on-demand light for cars going east on Herrison, to a light th~t cycles.
7. We have, of course, concems with the noisa. We noted that the parking areas for
the hospital appear to ba consiructed in sucb a way that tha noise from Arapahoe
Agenda Item #~ A Page Y ~ 5
~
will not be bounced from thc hospital parking lots back to the residences on the
south side and we support whatever can be done to deaden that noise on the north
side of the st~eet We also believe that the additional stop light at 48~' &
Arapahoe will slow traffic on Arapahoe somewhat. There is currently a serious
problem with traffic on Arapahoe speeding far in excess of the 45 mph speed
limit~5 mph is not uncommon. This, of course, creates a high noise level. Wa
would like the speed limit to 6e bettet enforced on Arapahoe. We would also like
to k~ave a suen-free zone along Arapahoe next to the residential areas that abutt
the street.
Agendaltem# ~'~ Pageri ~'~'
ATTACHMENT E
„ Boulder Community Hospital Development
' Boulder, Colorado
Tra~c Impact Study
February 2001
' Rev: May 2001
, Prepared for:
'" Oz Architecture
~ 1820 Folsum Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
' Prepared by:
r 8owers & Krager, Inc.
- 1390 Stuart Street Carriage House
- Denver, Colorado 80204
_ (303}446-2626
9066bch.wps
° Agenda Item k ~'A Page # ~'
Signal Progression
"~ A signal progression analysis has been conducted for Arapahoe Road. As per the City of
Boulder Staff, the following intersections with Arapahoe Road were incfuded in the
r w analysis: Foothilfs Parkway, 48th Street, EisenhowerlCommerce, Conestoga, and 55th
Street. The analysis was conducted using the Passer 11-90 signal progression software.
~~- The AM, Noon, and PM Peak Houcs were analyzed. The existing tra~c signal timings.
,~ were used as best the software would permit. Two scenarios were analyzed: 1) Year
2000 background traffic volumes (without proposed signal at 48th), 2) Year 2000 total
~! traffic volumes (with proposed signal).The results of the progression analyses are
~ summarized in Table 5.
~` » Signal progression on Arapahoe Road is currently operating with an efficiency between
~ 0.13 and 0.22 during the peak hours. This progression is rated "Fair". With the addition
of the signal at 48th Street, neither the e~ciency or attainability changes for any of the
{ r peak hours analyzed.
l
It is our opinion that the addition of a traffic signal at 48th Street does not deteriorate the
~^ progression of traffc on Arapahoe Road. The exact same efficiency and attainability is
~` maintained with or without the addition of this signaf.
r This analysis meets the standards of the Colorado State Highway Access Code for an
~ "' NRB Category Highway (Section 3.11 (2)).
~ _. >
~
r
~
- 1
~
~ Agenda Item # ~'~ Page a ~ ~
TABLE 5
ARAPAHOE AVENUE SIGNAL PROGRESSION RESULTS '
AM PEAK HOUR
MEASURES OF
EFFECTIVENESS Existing Conditions With Proposed Access
Cycle Length 100 sec 100 seC
E~ciency 0.13 (Fair) 0,13 (Fair)
Attainability 0.71 0.71
Band A 10 sec 10 sec
Band B 16 sec 15 sec
Band A Average Speed 38 mph 38 mph
Band 8 Average Speed 38 mph 38 mph
NOON PEAK HOUR
-- -
--
--
MEASURES OF -_ _---- - - -
EFFECTIVENESS Existing Conditions With Proposed Access
Cycle Length 100 sec 100 sec
Efficiency 0.15 (Fair) 0.15 (Fair)
Attainability 0.64 0.64
Band A 14 sec 14 sec
Band B 16 sec 16 sec
Band A Average Speed 38 mph 38 mph
Band B Average Speed 38 mph 38 mph
PM PEAK HOUR
MEASURES OF ~~
EFFECTIVENESS Existing Conditions With Proposed Access
Cycle Length 120 sec 120 sec
E~ciency 0.22 (Fair) 0.22 (Fair)
Attainability 1.00 1.00
Band A 27 sec 27 sec
Band B 27 sec 27 sec
Band A Average 5peed 41 mph 41 mph
Band 8 Average Speed 41 mph 4i mph
Agenda ltem #~ Page u =L___
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
This study assessed the traffic impacts of constructing a hospital and medical office
compiex at the northwest corner of Arapahoe Avenue (SH 7) and 48th Street in Boulder,
Colorado.
The potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated at the following
intersections with Arapahoe Avenue: 48th Street, Foothills Parkway, Eisenhower Drive,
Conestoga Street, 55th Street, MacArthur Trail, and the site access drive. Traffic impact
analyses was performed for the Year 2002 and 2020. The existing traffic, future
background traffic (without project) and total traffic (with project) conditions were
evaluated. Based on the analysis, the following conclusions were reached.
The intersection of 48th Street and Arapahoe Avenue should be signalized with develop-
ment of this site. Traffic volumes wiil warrant signalization, and a signalized intersection
is crucial for the safe operation of vehicles entering and leaving the site. With
signalization, this intersection will operate well. A signal at this location can be
accommodated within the existing signal progression program.
Some increase in traffic may occur on 48th Street south of Arapahoe Avenue due to the
installation of a signal. This street should be monitored for significant increases in traffic.
if traffic does increase on 48th Street, traffic calming measures may need to be imple-
mented to discourage unwanted cut-through traffic.
The addition of site-generated tra~c will not have a significant impact on operations at
adjacent intersections on Arapahoe Avenue.
Northbound left turns at the intersection of MacArthur Trail and Arapahoe Avenue will
continue to face very long delays. The site planners have considered the importance of
this street to the neighborhood and have attempted to develop a plan that will not further
aggravate the situation. it may be possible to improve the operations of this intersection
by changing the signal timing along Arapahoe Avenue. This will be recommended to City
and State Staffs.
All access drives are projected to operate well.
Agenda Item N ~'A Paga # ~
Boulder Community Hospital
Proposal for Satellite Campus
1/31/01
Boulder Corrnnuniry Hospita] was incorporated in 1922 as a locally governed,
non-profit hospital with the specific purpose of serving the health care needs of
the residents of Boiilder County. As Boulder has grown and developed over the
decades, Che ]~ospital has evolved to keep pace with the changing practice of
medicine and to address the community's developing health concerns.
In 1998, for example, the hospital opened the state-of-the-art Boulder Center for Sports
Medicine, which provides comprehensive diagnostic and rohabilitation services for active
members of the Boulder community. That same year, the hospital's substantial effarts to develop
first-class cardiology care were publicly acknowledged when an independent study named BCH
the best bospital in Colorado for treating heart attacks.
Tn ] 999, we opened an outpatient surgery center at 1136 Alpine, adjacent to our main campus at
Broadway a~d Ba]sam, thereby increasing the hospitaPs surgical capaciry. In January of 2001,
we completed a five-fold expansion of a major outpatient care center in Lafayette that will
expand that area's access to physicians and other medieal resources.
O~ir community's buigeoning population growth, along witfi the aging of that population, presant
major new ci~allenges to tl~e Hospital. We Uelieve the only way to address these chaflenges is to
expand the seivice capaeity at our main campas in northwest Boulder. An integral step in
achieving that goal is to build a satellite campus to which we can relocate some of the services
currentJy at our main campus.
Community Need Drives Our Request
An area's demographic character is the primary driver of its need for medical services. Two key
demogi•aphic issues that ai•e impaciing Boulder Community Hospital tu~e the growth and ~ging of
the populations of Boulder and Boulder Counry.
Anyone familiar with Boulder and $oulder County is well aware that population growth is
impacting the city and county in profound ways. As the City's and County's primary provider of
acute care hospital seivices, Boulder Communiry Hospital is seeing its patient volumes increase
in many areas as a result of this population growth.
The following table provides an overview of City and County population growth statistics.
12
Populatioia Growth, Boulder County and City of'Boulder
Year County ~Io ]ncrease City of Boulder % lncrease
Population Since 1990 Population Since 1990
1990 225,339 83,312
1995 256,737 14% 94,261 13%
2000 277,619 23% 99,533 19%
2010 309,456 37% 107,833 29%
Source: City of Soulder, Center for Policy 1nd Program Analysis
As the chart above demonsti-ates, between 1990 and 2000, the City of Boulder's populauon
increased approximately 19%. During this same declde, many of the smaller communities in
eastet•n Boulder County experienced unprecedented population growth. Lafayette and Louisville
grew 40% and 45%, respectively. Erie increased 125%. 5uperior is the fastest growing
community in the sCate.
Not only are the City and County growing more popLilous, but, mirroring a national trend, they
are also growing older as the "baby boom" generation exerts its in'Pluance on ]ocal and nationa]
demographics. According to the Administration on Aging (AOA) of [he U.S. Department of
Health and Iluman Seivices, the older population will burgeon between 2010 and 2030. By
203Q there will be about 70 million persons age 65+, mare than twice their number in 1997.
The following graph projects the growth of the 60+ population group in Boulder County.
12
hO+Yopulatio~t Growth, Soulder Cou~ity and City of Boulder
Year Count~~ % lncrease Cit~~ % Increase
60+Population Since 1990 60+Population Since 1990
1990 23,649 ]0,153
1995 26,988 l4% ll,952 18%
2000 31,603 34% 14,317 41%
2010 51,854 119% 24,195 138%
2020 82,700 250% 26,544 161%
Sow•ces: For County, Claritas Senior Life Reparts utilized by Boulder County Aging Services
Division; for City, estimates developed for BCH by FDS International consulting firm
CompTring the two charts demonstrates that the City's and County's 60+ populations are
growing more rapidly tl~an the overall population and that the "senior" growth rate wil] accelerate
tremendously in the next 20 years. The expansion of this senior population will have immense
ramifications on locl] health care providers.
It has been docu~nented in numerous studies th~t Americans consume more medical seivices as
they age. According to the federal Department of Health and Human Services, direct medical
costs for persons with chronic conditions represent nearly 70 percent of national expenditures on
health care. Some 80% of the senior population have one or more chronic diseases, and 50
percent have two or more chronic conditions. HHS predicts thaY Che number of seniors wich
chronic conditions will increase by ] 00% over the next several decades. According [o the
director o~f geriatric medicine at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, the average person will
have 10 years of disability before death.
Part of the reason for this increase in chronic health conditions is that, according to AOA,
America's older population is itself getting older. According to the AOA, persons reaching age
65 in 1997 had an average life expectancy of an ldditional 17.6 years. In 1997, the 65-74 1ge
group was eight times larger than in 190Q the 75-84 group was 16 times larger and the 85+
group was 31 times larger.
The higher utilization of inedical services by oldcr Americans has 6een well-documented.
According to AOA, people 65+ accountecl for 40% of al] hospita] stays and 49% of all days of
care in hospitals in 1995. The following table briefly demonsn'ates the impact of age on
ntilization of inedica] services.
12
Age Differences i~a Use of Flospitals & Pltysicians -- 1999
65+ Age Group Under 65 Age Group
Average Length
Of I-lospital Stay 7.1 days 5.4 Days
Average Annual
Doctor Contacts 11.] 5.0
Days of lnpatient Care Per
1,000 Members of a Healtb 2,000 200
Plan (national average)
Days of lnpatient Care Per
],000 Members of a Haalth 1,663 ]67
Plan (Boulder Community
Hospital-speciiic)
The health insvrance industty has recognizec3 tl~e higher utilization of inedica] services by older
Americans in its reimbursement programs for l~ospitals. I~~ 1999, risk contracts for Medicare-
eligible patienCS paid Boulder Community Hospital $150 per meinber per month. By
comparison, similar conU•acts for non-Medicare patients paid $a0 per member per month.
It seems certain to planners at Roulder Community Hospital that in the next 10-20 years oLir
community's continued population growth, and the aging of that population, will place
unprecedented demands on local hospitals and physicians. Oi~r proposal to build a satellite
campus is direcUy intended to help us prepare to meet those needs.
Hospital Is Already Facing Capacity lssues
The Hospital is already being challenged by our convnunity's population growth and aging on a
daily basis. Overall patient volume 1t our prima~y campus at Broadway and Balsam has grown at
]east 6% per year for the. ]ast six years. An overview of some ut~lization statistics inclicates khe
magnitude of this impact on the Hospital:
12
.
Inpatient Discharges
Year Boulder % Change Tota] % Change
Resident~ Patients
1995 5,41] 10,169
2000 7,799 44% 16,802 65%
Surgeries
Year Boulder % Change Total % Change
Residents Patients
1995 8,774 16,590
2000 11,783 34i~ 25,130 51%~
Enaergency Departrnent Visits
Year Boulder % Change Total % Change
Residents Patients
1995 14,936 24,035
2000 19,469 30% 44,467 85°Io
Total Outpatie~it Serviees ( excluding ER)
Yea~~ Boulder % Change Total % Change
Residents Patients
1995 33,977 55,687
2000 100,577 196% 207,092 272%
12
~
During the past five ycars, some of the services most needed by an aging population have
reca•ded q•emendous increases in utilization:
. cardiac catheterizations have increased ]00%
. mammograms have increased 76%n
. Magnepe Resonance ]maging (MR~ scans have ii~creased 255%
This growth in demand sometimes means delays in obtaining se~vices for patients whose
conditions are not a9tical. However, while not critical, these patients are still sick or i~~jured, and
such delays can be very upsetting. When interpreting the Hospital's utilization statisdes, it's
vital to keep in mind that hea]Ch care is a unique business in the sense that hospitals routinely
deal with people who are physically and psychologically vulnerable. Problems in service
delive~y which might be mildly aggravating to a bank customer -- i.e. delays in providing a
se~vice, or the inability to provide services in the manner the person had anticipated -- can be
emoYionally draining to a hospital patient f~icing surgeiy for cancer or a heart condition.
In five of tUe last six months of 200Q the Hospita]'s average midnight census was above 90%.
In three of those months, the average midnight census was above 95%. What does this statistic
mean qualitatively in terms of se~ving Boulder patients? Since the midnight census is normally
]ower than mid-day utilization of services, it means that some patients who were scheduled to be
admicted in the afternoon were delayed until the evening, ]t means that patients who needed to
be admitted following U~eatmenC in the emergency room could not be expeditiously transferred to
a hospital bed, thereby preventing other ER patients fi~om obtaining treatment in a timely manner.
lt means inereased time holding patients in the recovery room after surgery and delays
(sometimes days) in transferring patients fi•om Che ]ntensive Care Unit. lt means postponing
elective surgeries and cardiac catheterizations, lt means patients who should have been cared for
on a medica]-surgical uuit instead had to be quartered in a]ess-optimal location (e.g., a female
cancer paCient placed on the obstetrics unit) until a more appropriate room became available.
Providing important services in a timely manner is a priority for the Hospital's management
team. While we have recorded some successes in re-engineering and sn~eamlining our operations,
we are well aware that the City's and Co~mty's growing populations -- along with the aging of
our community - will further strain our available resources in the near future. If current trends
were to continue without a consu~uctive response from the Hospital, there is obvious potential for
adverse impacts to the residents of Boulder. This impels us to act decisively now in order to
forestall futiire problems.
]2
Barriers to Expansion at~ Our Current Sites
BCH has studied options for enlarging our main campus ~t Broadway and Balsam, but we have
encoun~ered major issues in site planning at that location:
. It is difficult io expand our current ]~ospital faciliry due to zoning restrictions.
. There is no available developable properry adjacent to the current hospital.
. Expanding our range of services would bring more auto traffic into an area Yhat i~
already perceived to be congested.
. Adding services would reguire adding more parking.
We have encountered similar issues in enlarging our second campus, the Mapleton Center, which
is located at Mapleton and 4`~' Sd~eet:
. It is difficult to expand the cw~rent facility due Co height ]imitations.
• There is no t~vailable developable property adjacent to the current hospital.
. Adding services would require adding more parking.
. The faciliry can only be accessed througl~ residenti~] su-eeCS; expanding our range of
services would bring more u•affic through this neighborhood.
Numerous Initiatives Are Underway
The proposed satellite campus is just one o'f several initiatives the Hospital has undertaken in
order to address the medical needs of our community's surging population. Over the past few
years, Boulder Community Hospita] has focused on identifying and implementing methods of
inereasing our capacity within the constraints of our existing physical plant. We have expanded
hours of operation, hired more staff ancl/or cross-trained staff in many areas, allowing us to
accommodate more patients on a daily basis. In 1999, for example, our lmaging Department
added staff and inereased operating hours, thcreby reducing the waiting time for non-emergency
MRIs by 75% and the waiting tiine for scheduled mammograins by 83~/0. 1~ early 2000, Lnaging
arranged for a mobile MRl unit to be housed directly adjacent to the hospital, further increasing
our capacity. Despite these aggressive ii~itiatives, it still takes an average of seven days for a
Boulder resident to oUtain a non-emergency MRl scan.
We believe we have taken these measures as far as we can. Like many companies in Boulder, we
are experiencing increasing problems in recruiting and retaining qualified staff. Even if we could
recruit more staff, we don't believe we can realistically extend our scheduling of non-emergency
medical procedures much furtl~er, e.g. we wouldn't expect many people to agree to have an MRI
at midnight.
While we have increased capacity aud decreased waiting times in many areas, we continue to
have trouble reaching our internal goals ~fw• customer satisfaction. Given the emotional strains
people fee] when dealing with serious illness, we fee] we must improve our ability to provide
needed services in a timely manner. ln some areas we would be able to do tha[ by adding more
equipment, buC that requires space that is currently not available.
For several years, the Hospita] h~s been pursuing a sU~ategy of decentralizing service deliveiy in
order to expand the convenience of accessing hospital services and to divert patients from our
12
r
prima~y camptis. Recent initiatives in this direction include:
. Communiry Medica] Center (CMC) in Lafayette
ln 2000, CMC's Ur@ent Care Center treated 18,743 patients, a good percentage oT
whom would have come to tl~c main hospita] emergency room if CMC were not
availaUle. In January of 2001 we opened a 50,000 sq. ft. replacament faciliry fm~ther
east in 1.a1~a,yette. This new CMC includes an expanded Urgent Care Centei•, offices
for private physicians, an endoscopy suite, expanded radiology se~vices and severa]
major reh~bilitTtion programs. We anticipate that tl~e Urgent Care Center will
continue to divert patients fi~om the emergency room at om• main campus. We also
anticipate that the ccnter's mammography and endoscopy suites will divert some
patients from coming to the main campus for those services. We anticipate adding a
small surgery center 1t sane point in the Puture as the second phase of this project.
• mobile mammography
Last year the Hospita] inu~oduced the County's first mobile mammography unit,
which expanded our effective capacity for mammogr~phy se~vices and diverCs some
traffic from heavily congested narthwest Boulder.
. CommuniYy Medical Associates
Since 1995, the hospiCal has directly employed primary care physicians. By recruiting
new physicians, tl~e hospital has expanded the available capacity of physician clinics
in Lafayette, Louisville and Gunbarrel. By giving residents oP those areas improved
access to qualified physicians, the hospita] has removed some of Che impetus to trave]
into Boulder to seek physician care.
The hospitaPs proposal to build a satellite campLis focLised on women's and children's health
services is tl~e latest step in this effort to create capacity at our main campus by decentralizing
services.
An Overview of Our Proposed Satellite Campus
The Hospital has proposed building a satellite campus primarily focused on women's and
children's services on a parcel of ]and located near Foothills Parkway and Arapahoe. This
potenCia] site is the ciilmination of an extensive search that scruUnized but rejected eighC other
potential locations:
. 5765 Arapahoe -- developlble acreage not sufficient to accommodate long-term
growth requirements; serious guestions about access;
. brickyard property (near 63`~ and Valmont) -- relapve remoCeness to patient
population; use of adjacent properties makes site nonconducive to a healing
environment
. Gateway property (Foothills and Diagonal) - this site was ruled out because it was
ge~graphically unsuited to se~ve our patients, there is no public transpor[ation, access
would be difficult and confusing, and excessive overhead noise from planes utilizing
the nearby airport would not be conducive to a healing environment;
. 75~~' and Valmont (northwest corner) - City unable to provide utilities
• Academy at St. Walburga (on South Boulder Road) - concerns about access to
transportation and utilities;
. agricultw~al/residcntial properry (north of East Boulder RecreaCion Center, off of
12
Baseline Road) - this site is not available now and, according to our information, will
not be available for the foreseeable future;
Cherryvale & Arapahoe - this site was ruled out because, compared to an alternative
site, this location affords ]ess proximity to Boulder's core population, arteria] access
is not as good, and the aspect is less favorable;
Arapahoe (west of Cherryvale, north of Flalirons Count~y Club) - this site was ruled
o~~t because the clevelopable acreage is not sufficient to accommodate the Hospital's
]ong-te~m growth reguirements, the property is bisected by a creek which would
complicate development and, compared to an alternative site, this ]ocation affords less
proximity to Bouldei's core population, arterial access is not as good, and the aspect
is less favorable.
~lements of this proposed campus would include:
. a mother-baby center with state-of-the-art birtl~ing irooms
• a"kid-friendly" pediatric center utilizing the newest eguipment and facilities
. Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
. offices for physicians who provide those services
• the latest in medical support se~vices, such as ]aboratory, radiology, etc.
. a breast health center specializing in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer
. an expansive educational resow•ce center focused on women's health issues
. state-of-the-art operaCing rooms
. lntensive Care Unit
. a fully equipped, 24-hour emergency room (major trauma cases woLild continue to go
to our main emergency room in northwest Boulder)
There are two primary reasons for choosing maternity and pediatric services as the care elements
of this satellite campus. Fi~st, patients in these two se~vices are less likely to need the main
campus' advanced diagnostic and critical care services than patients with other health issues,
such as cardiac or neurological problems. Second, many of the families utilizing these seivices
are domiciled in eastern Boulder and BoL~lder County. Moving these services further east would
ease access far that group, and eliminate some of the hospital-generated auto traffic currently
coming to the main campus. Colorado Hospital Association statistics demonstrate that in 1999
Boulder Community Hospita] was the primary obstetrical service utilized by citizens of east
Boulder, and a major provider of such se~vices to other east county communities:
. EasC Boulder (zip code 80301), 71% of all babies delivered
. East Boulder (80303), 76%
. Lafayette, 25%
. Louisville/Superior, 27%
Another important component of the proposed campus is its 24-hour emergency room. It has
been well-documented thal timely access to medical intervention is an important factor in
maximizing a patient's outcome For such major problems as heart attack and stroke. The new
medical can~pus wou]d improve access to such se~vices for residents of eastern Boulder,
Lafayette, Louisville and Erie. PatienCs would receive initial care at the ER on the Arapahoe
campus and, if needed, be p~ansfeired to the trauma center at the hospital's primary campus in
12
northwest Boulder for more advanced treatment.
The new satellite medical campus will be designed and constructed in a manner that re~Plects the
spirit and values of the Boulder area wl~ile ensuring maximum funetionality and cost-
effectiveness. The maja• principles that underlie our planning and design process include:
. ro emphasize the beauty of tbe natural setting
. to incorporate environmenta] concerns into construction and operation
. to utilize warm welcoming elements in the interior/exterior selection of materials
. to maximize operationa] efficiency and cost-effecYiveness
. to minimize the visua] and aural impact of our operations on our neighbors
. to incoiporate appropriate expansion capabilities into the initial campus design
The Impact on Our Primary Campus
ln addition to providing City and Counry citizens with quieker access to imporlant medical
services, our new campus also will reduce some of the traffic currently going to the main eampus
in northwest Boulder. That will n~ake it quicker and easier far eve~yone in Boulder Valley to
obtain se~vices at the main campus. This impact is detailed in a traffic analysis study that has
been submiCted Co the City.
The mission of BoLilder Communiry Hospital is Co offer ]ocal access to the medical treatments
most needed by loca] citizens. Those needs are changing as our population ages and expands.
Transferring the bulk of our services for women and children to a satellite medical campus would
allow us to make major investments in our primary campus in northwest Boulder and, in a few
years, dram~tically improve the local availability of services that specifically address the needs of
an aging community.
Once the satellite campus is built, the Hospita] intends to st~bstantially expand nem~ological and
neurosw~gery services at ow• primlry campus. Neurology and new~osurgery are key elements of
comprehensive u~eatment for stroke, which will become a more importa~t local health issue as
our population ages. We have already begun implementing this initiapve. In 1999, the Hospita]
hired a ful]-time Nem~oscience Clinica] Resource Nurse who is working with our physicians to
expand and improve ow~ patient services in this area. During 2000, we spent $494,000 on
neurology-related medical equipment. However, implementation of a full
neurology/neurosurgery se~vice wil] require more space than is currently available.
The Hospita] also intends to expand the availabiliry of inpatient beds for medica]-s~~rgica]
patients. Such units serve patients facing a host of inedical problems associated with aging, e.g.
pneumonia, heart disease, orthopedic injuries. We have not yet determined how many beds we
would be able to add.
It's also anticipated that the Hospital would have some space available to continue development
of comprehensive cardiology care, wUich is ~nother se~vice needed by an aging community.
Plans a~~e veiy tentative, but could include either expansion of exisung services or development
of new he~rt-related services.
12
~
]n swnmary, Boulder Community Hospital's mission is to provide ]oca] access to those medical
services most needed by ow~ community. Local population growth is already straining the
HospitaPs ability to provide important services io a timely manner. The anticipated increase in
the number of age 65+ citizcns, who have higher utilization of inedica] seivices, has Che potentia]
to overwhelm the currendy available medica] infi-astructure. Boulder Community Hospita] has
responded to these trends with severa] initiatives designed to expand the Hospital's capacity.
Development of a satellite campus for women's and children's services is a vital piece of our
overall plan. Sucl~ a campus would move these se~vices closer to tl~e people who udlize them,
while fi•eeing up space at the HospitaPs primary campus for development of important medical
services that would directly address the needs of our aging communiry. The Hospi[al Board of
Directors and management teau~ believe it is vital to act decisively now in order to Porestall
future problems.
i2
;~i~
. ,,`f ulder Community Hospital
, ~~.
,,~,,
u i ii ~ ";,t,;k;
, i~ !'~li,.f',
~ i~
~ i ~
I ~ ~.~ , .~~ .. . ,,..
^
~ARCNIiECiUBE • BoULDER AssoclATES • CIVITAS
~ PROPOSED PHASE 1
fr