6B - Concept Review #LUR2001-00048, Gunbarrel Town CenterCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: October 18, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: October 11, 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of Concept Review LUR2001-00048, Gunbarrei Town
Center, for a mixed use plan comprised of approximately 138 dwelling units and 200,000 square
feet of commercial space located at the southwest corner of Lookout Road and Gunpark Drive.
Modifications to the Development Standards: The Concept Plan indicates a reduction of 20%
for parking, 33% for open space, and a height increase to 55 feet.
Applicant: O'Connar Development
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Poilock, Plam~ing Director
Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review
Mika Randall, Planner, Presenter
OVERVIEW:
The Planning Board is being asked to comment on the Concept Plan which has been submitted
in advance of a Site Review application. The purpose ofthe Concept Plan Review arid Comment
is to determine the general characteristics of a development plan for the site and to ascertain the
requirements of the city. Based on the staff's preliminary review of the proposal, the Gunbarrel
Town Center is in substantial compliance with the requirements and intent of Che Zoning Code
and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The most significant areas of concern are for
establishing acceptable densities for both residential and commercial development on the site.
KEY ISSUES:
1. Does the Concept Plan conform to the Goals and Objectives of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Are the building designs compatible with the types of use in the area?
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~mr6685GunparkCONCEPT.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~ Paee 1
3. Do the buildings present an attractive streetscape and incorporate design elements
appropriate to a pedestrian scale?
4. Does the Concept Plan include a variety of uses and spaces that are conducive to
pedestrian/bike use, neighborhood service and community activities?
5. Are the requested modifications to development sYandards (parking open space, and height)
justified?
STATISTICS:
Project Name: Gunbarrel Town Center
Zoning: RB-D, Regional Business-Developing
Location: Southwest corner of Lookout Road and Gunpark Drive
BVCP Designation: CB, Community Business
Size of Tract: 3Q7,772 square feet (7.065 acres)
Proposal: Commercial = 200,000 sf in four buildings
Residential = 159,000 sf over two buildings (130-168 du)
10,000 sf townhomes (8 du)
Total = 369,000 sf (1.20 FAR) (138-174 du)
Requested Variations:
Parking: Total required = 880-910 (based on RB-D bulk standards)
20%reduction= 700-730
Parking provided = 720 +!-
Open Space: Total required = 61,500 sf (20% of lot area for development over 45' )
Provided = 40,000 sf (13% of lot area, 35% reduction)
Height: Permitted = 35 feet in RB-D
Requested = 55 feet
GUIDELINE5 k'OR REVIEW AND COMMENT
The following guidelines are provided by the land use regulation to guide the Planning Board's
discussion regarding the site; additional issues may also be identified as part of the process:
1. Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas -- location, surrounding neighborhoods,
development and architecture, natural features and prominent views;
2. Community policy -- the review process, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other
ordinances, goals, policies of subcommunity plans;
s:\plan\pb-items~snemos~mr6685GunparkCONCEPT.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~ Paee 2
3. Applicable criteria for a site review;
4. Necessary permits;
5. Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, trail links, and the need
for a traffic study;
6. Environmental opportunities and constraints;
7. Appropriate ranges of land uses; and
8. The appropriateness of or necessity for housing.
Staff responses to each of these guidelines have been provided in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property lies directly east of the King Soopers and Gunbarrel Center, however, neither
is a part of the project (refer to Vicinity Map, Attachment A). The site has several hundred feet of
frontage on Gunpark Drive and a direct access to Lookout Road. The bulk of the site has never been
developed (there is a two-story medical building on the comer) but has had different plans promoted
from time to time. The only approved plan depicts additional retail and office for the site; later a
plan for residential use was promotad but never approved.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project is strongly street/pedestrian oriented with a plaza as the focal point at the
intersection of two new (private) streets, Main and Market. Four buildings wi11 be built to the edge
of the streets with retail at street level, office at tha second level, and, in two of the buildings,
residential use on the third and fourth levels. A large retail space (30,000 square feet) may be a
market ar other majar retailer to provide an anchor for the site. Medical offices and a health club
are featured in one of the buildings.
The residential usa provides an important element to the plan which will encourage evening and
weekend activities. Presently, the exisYing shopping center has very little evening activity (such as
restaurauts, entertainment). The applicant intends to provide upscale restaurants, an alternative
grocery market, and a unique street oriented retail environment which will Ue conducive to evening
use.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff is generally supportive of, the overall concepts proposed for development of the Gunbarrel
Town Center. Please refer to both Concept Plan Objectives, Attachment B, and Land Use Review
Comments, Attachment C, far more detailed analysis. Generally, the staff has the following
comments:
Does the Concept Plan conform to the Goals and Objectives of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan?
As part of the Year 2000 Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, identifying
locations for new housing, particularly mixed use housing was a priority. Although staff has
s:\plan\pb-items~memos~mr6685GunparkCONCEPZwpd AGENDA ITENI #~~ Paee 3
not analyzed mixed use at the most detailed level in order to determine ideal parking and
open space reductions, it was clear that in order to see housing in the commercial zones,
variances to existing parking and open space requirements would be necessary. Staff
supports in concept parking and open space reductions.
2.
As part of the Yeaz 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, this site
was initiaUy proposed for a land use designation change to Mixed-Use Residential. A115 of
the neighborhood centers were taken off the BVCP land use map proposal. However, the
initial staff proposal for a Mixed-Use Residential designation included: Dwelling units 149
- 176 + Non-residentia194,000 -124,000 sq.ft. (330-435 jobs) = FAR of 0.8
The cunent submittal includes 138 units (169,600 square feet) and 200,000 square feet of
non-residential development, with 6Q000 to 80,000 square feet ofoffice. A keypolicy issue
and concern raised as part of the BVCP Update Analysis is concern about adding too much
additional office use:
POLICY 1.19
JOBS:POPULATION BALANCE. In recent years, employment in the ciry has grown
significantly more than housing. This has resulted in increased in-comnzuting, a greater
daytime population and a general increase in traffic congestion and housing prices. In the
year 2000, the ratio of the number of jobs to the population in the Boulder Valley was
estimated at .92:1(107, 074 jobs: 114,580 population). If current trends continue, the ratio
is projected to become 1.21:1 by the year 2020.
The genercrlly accepted planning standar•d for a balanced jobs-to population ratio is .65 to
1. Given current policies, the city and county agree that the current ratio within the Boulder
Ynlley exceeds an appropriate ratio and theplanningstandard, and that a worsening ofthat
ratio beyand 1:1 will lead to greater regional traffic congestion, affordable housing
shortfalls, and otlier negative impacts on the community as a whole. The city will therefore
embark on a public process to determine whether or not the 1:1 ratio is appropriate. This
will be acco~nplished through a public process that will establish nn appropriate artd
acceptable jobs-to population ratio and identify a combination of actions tluct will recluce
the amount ofcommercial growth, create more affordable housing, and mitigate the impacts
of traff c congestion.
The policy suggests that the amount of non-residential square footage in the project be
reduced in order to not to further exacerbate the jobs/housing imbalance.
Are the building designs compatible with the types of use in the area?
The nonresidential areas of Gunbarrel no not have any uniquely identifiable character. The
predominate type is large scale industrial/manufacturing buildings. On Gunpark Drive,
adj acent to the site, the office buildings have a residential character. This proposal offers an
architectural style which the architect envisions to be typical of a`Town Center.' The
proposal also asks for a four-story design up to 55' which will be much higher than the
typica] Gunbarrel building.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos~mr6685GunparkCONCEPT.wpd AGENDA ITEM # lOtl Paee 4
3. Do the buildings present an attractive streetscape and incorporate design elements
appropriate to a pedestrian scale?
The design incorporates visual elements (fountain, open space) and a pedestrian orientation
(window shopping, restaurants, outdoor seating). These types of elements are to be designed
to attract both daytime employees and evening residents into the project area.
4. Does the Concept Plan include a variety of uses and spaces that are conducive to
pedestrian/bike use, neighborhood service and community activities?
The concept of a Main and Market street invites the surrounding employees and residents
into the project area. With retail, service and restaurant uses on the ground level there will
be a pedestrian orientation. Existing residential areas are not necessarily close by, but the
project may create a strong interest in walking orbiking to enjoy the services provided. The
applicant describes the streets as able to have a farmer's market or other community activity.
The Concept Plan includes a large amount of office space (100,000 s~ which translates to
a large number of daytime employees. Together with the other commercia] uses it is
estimated that approximately 700 new employees wilt be created. However, only 138 new
dwellingunitsareproposedindicatingajobs:housingimbalance. Areductionofcommercial
space and conversion of other commercial space to housing would be necessary to bring the
project into better balance.
5. Are the requested modifications to development standards (parking, open space, and
height) jusYified?
Parking: The mixed use (residential/commercial) components do indicate a possibility of
sharing the parking areas provided and with such a large number of spaces required it appears
that a parking reduction may be justified. The applicant will prepare a traffic analysis and
TDM plan.
Open Space: Within the "Town Center" the requirement is for 20% opan space (Section 9-
3.2-7(d), 20% required for projects with buildings up to 55 feet in height).
Required open space = 61,500 sf (20%)
Provided open space = 40,000 sf (13%)
While a reduction is possible through the Site Review process (provided all criteria for Open
Space are found to be met) no specific justification has been identified. The buildings are
arranged so that there is a pedestrian orientation with high quality usable spaces such as large
plazas and outside seating ueas,. The staff and project designer have not yet thoroughly
reviewed the open spaces proposed.
The subject site is also the location of a mapped "wetlands" and this is not indicated on the
Concept Plan. The preservation of the wetlands may have a significant effect upon the plan
design. The proposed davelopment must conform to the City of Boulder wetlands protection
ordinance (B.R.C. 9-12) which requires avoidance first, then minimization or mitigation.
The concept plan should reflect how impacts to wetlands will be avoided or minimized
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\mr6685GunparkCONCEPT.wpd AGENDA ITEM #~~ Paee 5
according to the standards in Section 9-12-8. If they can not be avoided or minimized, the
applicant must demonstrate that destruction ofthe wetlands is in the public interest. Wetland
remapping of the site may be modified by ordinance according to the standards.
Height: The proposed buildings on the site are two, three, and four stories up to 55' in
height. The top two floors of the four story are residential use over office and retail. The
height is a function ofthe large amount of floor area being proposed (taller rather than spread
out), and this is justified by the applicant as necessary to create a functional mixed use
development. There must be enough of each use (retail, office, residential) to create an
exciting, attractive and lively "Town Center." The objective is to create enough daytime and
evening usage that high quality tenants (such as an upscale restaurant) will want to be located
in the Center.
Summary of Comments:
The Concept Plan provides an attractive altemative for Gunbarrel residents in terms of shopping and
entertainment. The overail amount of non-residential space is very high and creates the need for
extra height, a reduction of open space, and impacts the jobs/housing imbalance. The issue of the
wetlands must be addressed in accordance with the Boulder wetlands protection ordinance.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Required public notice was given in the form of a notice posted on the property and publication for
at least 14 days. Notices wera mailed to all owners of recard within 600 feet of the site. In addition,
the applicant has held two neighborhood meetings. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-10 (g),
B.R.C. 1981, have been met. Correspondence has been included in Attachment D.
Approved By:
~
/ 1 ~(~~.Il~/~
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~mr6685GunparkCONCEPT.wpd AGENDA ITEM # lG'~ Paee 6
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Vicinity Map
5taff Comments: Concept Plan Objectives
Land Use Review Results and Comments
Correspondence
Attachment E: Applicant's submittal
~ Concept Plan Review and Comment Application (August 6,
2001)
• Responses to Land Use Review and Comments (October 1,
2001)
• Gunbarrel Town Center Neighborhood Meeting: Responses
from comment sheets (June 22, 2001)
~ Visual Preference Survey (June 2Q 2001)
• Proposed Conceptual Site Plan (11" x 17", October 1, 2001)
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~nr6685GunparkCONCEPT.wpd AGENDA ITEM #' Pa e 7
(:.,
of Boulder Vicin
ATTACHMENT A
(-~,,/V( ~~
` ~'~v~ _
R- D
~
ILi-D
PROJECT LOCATICN:
6685 GUNPARK DR
Q~
W
A
0
(A
~
Location: 6685 Gunpark Dr ~
Review Type; Concept Flan Review ///`` 1:600D ~~
ProjectName: Gunbarrel Town Center `` MapLJnK an,aa«,~tlgo~9
~ ~.a...~,.w,..M.~,.~..
ReviewNumber: LUR200~•D0048 ~'"'~ '~"~""tl""`'"~"."`",ty.""`
m.uvnowa..r~:aa.,, ...,.ny,
, N ;~e:xm~s~~.,:m,;,~'~,,:~
Applicant: C3 ConnarDevetopment m»~.,~M~
~
A~ NBm t " ' Page #
Attachment B
CONCEPT PLAN OBJECTIVES
Concept Plan Guidelines for Review and Comment.
(~Guidelines for Review and Comment: The following guidelines will be used to guide the
Planning Board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues otl~er th~n those
listed in this section will be identi~ed as part of the concept plan review and comment process.
The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a
conceptplan.
(1)Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location,
surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any know~~ natural features of the
site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes
and prominent views to and from the site;
The current site is vacant except for a two-story medical office building on the comer of Lookout
Road and Gunpark Drive, with a surface parking ]ot. On the west side is the back side of the
Gunbanel Shopping Center and of the delivery and docking area of the King Soopers store. North
of the site is a gasoline service station. South and east, and on the opposite side of Gunpark Drive
is a row of several small office buildings.
There are no idantifiable natural features present on this site and it appears that the site has been
filled and graded. However, there is a mapped "wetlands" area in the west/central area of the site.
The wetland is shown on our regulatory maps. The applicant has not given this inforn~ation in the
concept plan submittal and this may be a major issue.
As long as the City has a regulatory wetland shown on the site, the landowner is required to follow
the wetland's ordinance which requires avoidance first, minimization second, eta If they want to
change the wetland mapping, they would have to go through Planning Board and then City Council
to make a mapping change.
(2)Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and
likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommanity
and subarea plans;
The BVCP identifies the site as a"Community Business" which is described as:
"...the focal point for commercial activity serving a subcommunity or collection of neighborhoods.
These are designated to serve the daily convenience shopping and service needs of the local
populations, and are generally under 150,000 to 20Q000 square feet in area. Offices with in
Community Business areas should be offices designated specifically for residents of the
subcommunity. Where feasible, multiple uses will be encouraged within these centers."
s:\plan\pb-items~mamos~mr6685GunparkCONCEPT.wpd AGENDA ITEM #- Pa e~
The applicant's Concept Plan seeks to create a focal point for Gunbarrel, utilizing a mix of retail,
personal service, of£ice and residential use arranged around the intersection of "Main and Markei"
streets.
The approximate total potential development (in squaze feet) within the Community Business area
is:
Existing Undeveloped Concept Plan Total Use
Retail (non office) 120,000 0 100,000 220,000
Office 170,000 30,000* 100,000 300,000
Residential 0 0 169,000 169,000
Total Development 290,000 30,000 369,000 689,000
"(r•epresents (!ie deve(opnrent polentin! of the feiV r e~nrtirring vncrtnt lots n/o~~g tpe soutlr side of G~mpm•k)
(3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review;
The staff has reviewed the Site Review requirements with the applicant. Substantial preliminary
technical work needs to be completed to assure that the site will adequately accommodate drainage
and storm detention, traffic circulation, and the issues concerning the existing wetlands designation.
(4)Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior
to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval;
The site has a wetlands designation and all regulatory permit requirements must be satisfied prior
or concunent with the Site Review process.
(5)Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without
limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation
system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible
trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study;
The Gunbarrel area is not adequately served by alternate modes oftransportation and there are severe
automobile congestion problems. A traffic and transportation study should address how trips by
residents and employees of the project can be limited and how trips by Gunbarrel residents and
employees can be curtailed by a proper mix of neighbarhood related retail and service uses not now
available in the area.
6)Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identi~cation
of weflands, important view corridors, tlood plain and other natural hazards, wildlife
corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological
inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary;
A wetland has been mapped on this site and it will be required that all regulatory measures to protect
or mitigate the wetland wil] be enforced.
(7)Appropriate ranges of land uses;
The applicant is encouraged to use the site for mixed use. The site represents the last opportunity
to produce a proper mix of neighborhood related retail and service uses not now available in the area.
There are no entertaimnent facilities, quality restaurants in the area at this time. Gunbarrel residents
must of necessity shop far almost all services outside of the area and this produces unwanted vehicle
s:\plan\pb-items~memosUnr6685GunparkCONCEPT.wpd AGENDA ITEM # ~.C3 Paee ~Q
trips. The proposed project may also have a beneficial impact on the existing commercial by
creating a greater diversity and choice that would encourage residents to make the Gunbarrel Town
Center their choice in shopping locally.
The proposal contains 369,000 sf of floor area on a site of 307,OOOsf for a Floor Area Ratio = 1.2:1.
This exceeds the FAR assumed far mixed use designations as part of the comprehensive plan update,
and is comparable only to the FAR found in the RB-X zones found in the city's downtown.
The proposed development would result in approximately 700 jo6s and 138 units, worsening the
city's jobs:housing imbalance and generating more housing demand than supplied on the site. The
cunent approved PUD would allow less than one half of the non-residential square footage and job
growth. The mixed use designation proposed by staff as part o£ the comprehensive plan process
anticipated a significantly lower FAR and significantly less non-residential development.
Possible modifications to the Concept Plan to reduce jobs:housing imbalance include:
• Reducing the overall FAR by eliminating some of the proposed non-residential square
footage, in particular the office square footage.
• Converting some of the office to residential.
• Considering eliminating some of the ground floor non-residential and having residential on
the ground floor in certain locations. Perhaps convert the first floor on the "market street"
to residential - potentially adding some townhomes.
(8)The appropriateness of or necessity for housing.
The proposal contains 138-176 dwellings mostly on two levels above the retail and office. This
residential component will provide day and night activity in the development which will enliven the
project. Although not nearly large enough to support all ofthe retail and service activityproposed,
tHe residential component will put people into the project, on the street, in the parking areas,
walking, using the available services and thus encouraging other Gunbarrel residents to come to and
remain in the project area. Presently, the lack ofnearbyresidential areas leaves the commercial area
practically empty in the evening. People prefer areas frequented by other people and the presence
of the residences will keep the Town Center occupied at all hours.
The developer is required to provide 20% of the units within the affordable range. At this time there
are no affordable housing units in the Gunbarrel area. The developer has proposed an "Alternate B"
which could increase the number of affordable units by increasing the number of ef$ciency living
units in the project. The Planning staffhas not evaluated the proposed housing or affardability that
are a part of this concept plan.
s:\plan\pb-i[emstinemos~nr6685GunparkCONCEPT.wpd AGENDA ITEM # ~i~ Pase //
ATTACHM~:IV 1 l:
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: August 24, 2001
PROJECT NAME: GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER
LOCATION: 6685 GUNPARK DR
COORDINATES: N10E03
REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review & Comment
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00048
APPLICANT: O'CONNOR DEVELOPMENT
DESCRIPTION: Concept Pan review to ailow for a mixed use development in line with allowable
uses of the present RB-D zoning and the 2020 plan of the BVCP
REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: 20% Parking Reduction
REVIEW FINDINGS
Staff finds that the application meets all Concept Review review criteria. Generally, the staff is supportive
of the mixed use development and the provision of added housing including affordable units. The
Planning Board is the final review authority for this application. The appiication has been tentatively
scheduled for the October 25, 2001, Planning Board meeting. The applicant must submit 15 new copies of
the plans and project description with a Public Hearing fee of $2800 on or prior to September 18, 2001 in
order to proceed to the Planning Board.
The staff comments below are preliminary and based only on the limited information contained in the Concept
Review application. It is critical that the following review findings be addressed thoroughly in any future Land Use
Review Application:
1. There is a mapped Wetlands area identified within the subject site. Significant regulatory limits exist for
the preservation and/or mitigation of this area.
2. Almost all of the site will have building or paved surface coverage which will cause significant increases in
stormwater runoff and detention requirements. No on-site areas are depicted in the Concept Plan to
store/control this added flow.
3. The proposed Main and Market Streets may need to be public rights-of-way and this will impose some
design and use limitations on the street system. Whether the streets are public or access/utilities
easements needs to be explored.
4. There are issues with respect to the high FAR for commercial development and the associated jobs in an
area that is already disproportionately high in jobs to housing. The added housing is beneficial and
perhaps should be increased while decreasing some of the commercial, particularly office.
tl. CITY REQUlREMENTS
Access/Circulation
1. It is unclear from these plans whether the streets through the site are intended to be public right-of-way or access
easements. Right-of•way would be required if the lot is subdivided and these streets are used to access these multiple
lots. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
2. As discussed in the application material, a Traffic Impact Analysis is required at the time of Site Review. Steve Durian,
Public Works, 303-441-4493
3. A 20% parking reduction appears to be high for this site. The site is relatively isolated with limited high-frequency
transit potential lack of adjacency to the residential areas in Gunbarrell. However, a modest parking reduction,
Address: 6685 GUNPARK DR
Apenda Ipem ~.~Page ~ ~ _
perhaps as high as 10%, may be justified. The Traffic Impact Analysis will be requried to further address this issue in
terms of trip reduction. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
4. The plan shows one access to Lookout Road serving the gas station. Currently the gas station has two accesses, and
this needs to be reflected on the plan and considered in dealing with access to this site. Steve Durian, Public Works,
303-441-4493
5. MA1N STREESiLOOKOUT ROAD INTERSECTION
Due to Lookout Road being classified as an arterial roadway, there are several issues to consider regarding the
location of this intersection:
• If Main Street would be right-of-way per comment 1 above, the City of Boulder Design and Construction
Standards (DCS) requires that the intersection be spaced 500 feet from the next public intersection. This
would be impossible to achieve due to Main Street's location to Gunpark Drive. Therefore, if Main Street were
requried to be right-of -way, it would not be permitted to access Lookout Road.
• If Main Street were an access easement, the DCS requires that the intersection be location 250 feet from
other intersections and accesses. This requirement poses several concerns:
a) The accesses to the gas station would have to be relocated or reconfigured. A driveway could be shared
with Main Street or access from the gas station to Lookout Road would have to occur indirectly.
b) Assuming comment "a" above could be achieved, the spacing between the location of Main Street on this
plan and the existing King Sooper's parking lot is only 210 feet. A varience to the spacing requirement
could be accommodated by showing in the Traffic Impact Analysis that the required left-turn lane for the
King Sooper's access could be provided within the 210 feet separation.
c) Regardless of where the proposed Main Street access would occur, its spacing west of Gunpark Drive
would require that left-turn storage for vehicles entering this development be accommodated without
negatively impacting turning movements at Gunpark Drive. This would have to be shown in the Traffic
Impact Analysis.
Stave Durian, Public Works, 3~3-441-4493
6. The accesses along Gunpark Drive are required to either be aligned directly across from existing accesses along the
east side or offset by a minimum of 150 feet from existing accesses. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
7. If the internal streets are required to be right-of-way per comment 1 above, the Traffic Impact Analysis would need to
provide information about traffic volumes using the intersection of Market and Main Streets. If it is determined that the
roundabout is justified from the volume of traffic using the intersection, the physical design will be reviewed.
Regardless if the streets are right-of-way or not, this roundabout will need to be approved by the city fire marshall for
emergency access. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
8. The sidewalk widths internal to the site are unclear from the information provided. For commercial areas the required
sidewalk width is 12 feet clear of tree grates and obstructions. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
9. With the redevelopment of the site, the sidewalk along Gunpark Drive will need to be repaired where damaged. Steve
Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
Drainage
Detention ponding facilities, for water quality mitigation and runoff storage volume, will be required for this development.
Adequate space has not been reserved on the Concept Plan for these improvements. Underground, enclosed, roof-top,
and parking lot detention will not be permitted. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Fire Protection
No problem with concept from fire protection standpoint. Please see informational comments.
Housing and Human Services
1. New residential development is subject to "Incl~sionary Zoning" (Boulder Revised Code, 9-6.5). The general
inclusionary zoning requirement is that new development contributes at least 20°/o of the total units as permanently
affordable. There are several options available to meet the inclusionary zoning requirement. Applicant does not specify if
the proposed units are planned for rental or homeownership; the options differ for each type of development.
Adtlress: 6685 GUNPARK DR
ApendalMm# ~~ Page# /~3
a) For homeownership units, at least half of the permanently affordable units must be provided on-site. Off-site
options include making a cash-in-lieu contribution or dedicating existing comparable units or land as
permanently affordable.
b) For rental units, options to satisfy inclusionary zoning include dedicating on or off-site homeownership units, or
mak'rng a cash-in-lieu contribution. Private for-profit developers generally cannot provide rentai units to satisfy
inclusionary zoning. It may be possible for private developers to partner with a non-profit housing agency in
order to dedicate rental units toward meeting the inclusionary zoning requirement.
2. There is also a minimum size cequirement for the permanently affordable units. The proposed residential units appear
to be all attached units. For attached units, the average floor area of permanently affordable units need to be a
minimum of 80°/o of the average floor area of the market rate units, up to a 1,200 square foot maximum.
3. Covenants to secure the permanent affordability of the units must be signed and recorded or any applicable cash-in-
lieu contribution must be made prior to application for a building permit.
4. There are benefits for projects including more than the 20% permanently affordable requirement. Projects including
35°/o or more permanently affordable units are exempt from the Residential Growth Management System. Projects
providing more than 20% permanently affordable units or projects making units affordable to lower income households
may be eligible to apply for housing subsidy funds.
5. There is a preference for a variety of housing types and sizes, and for the permanently affordable units to be dispersed
throughout the development.
6. Applicant outlined two residential alternatives, with one alternative including 36 "additional LLU" units. It is not clear if
these are intended to be efficiency or small one-bedroom units. Additional information regarding this proposai is
requested. We have a concern that this alternative may include too many low square footage units given the limited
demand we are experiencing for very small units.
Applicant expressed an interest in working with staff to develop details regarding the permanently affordable units; feel free
to contact us for additional information.
Linda Hill-Blakley, Housing Planner, Housing Division, 441-3140
Land Uses
Long Range Planning Comments
As part of the Year 2000 Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, identifying locations for new housing,
particularly mixed use housing has been a priority. Although staff has not analyzed mixed use at the most detailed
level in order to determine ideal parking and open space reductions, it was clear that in order to see housing in the
commercial zones, variances to existing parking and open space requirements would be necessary. Long range
staff supports in concept parking and open space reductions.
As part of the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, this site was initially proposed
for a land use designation change to Mixed-Use Residential. All 5 of fhe neighborhood centers were taken off the
BVCP land use map proposal. However, the initial staff proposal for a Mixed-Use Residential designation
included: Dwe~ling units 149 - 176 + Non-residential 94,000 - 124,000 sq.ft. (330-435 jobs) = FAR of 0.8
The current submittal includes 138 units (169,000 square feet) and 200,000 square feet of non-residential
development, with 60,000 to.80,000 square feet of office. A key policy issue and concern raised as part of the
BVCP Update Analysis is concern about adding too much additional office use.
The percentages of residential and commercial uses in the submittal is:
Residential SF
Commercial
Total
FAR
Address: 6685 GUNPARK DR
169,000 46 %
200,000 54% (700 jobs)
369,000 100 %
1.2
Agerda item t~Page # ~
The existing PUD is approved for an additional 96,000 square feet of non-residential development, which would
add approximately 335 additional jobs.
Long Range Planning Conclusions and Ftecommendations
The proposed FAR of 1.2 is high. It exceeds the FAR assumed for mixed use designations as part of the
comprehensive plan update, and is comparable only to the FARs found in the RBX zones found in the city's
downtown.
The proposed development would result in approximately 700 jobs and 138 units, worsening the city's
jobs:housing imbalance and generating more housing demand than supplied on the site. The current approved
PUD would allow less than one half of the non-residential square footage and job growth. The mixed use
designation proposed by staff as part of the comprehensive plan process anticipated a significantly lower FAR and
Significantly less non-residential development.
The amount of office and the additional grocery square both raise concerns. Can this area support another
grocery store. It would not be desirable to repeat the situation in Table Mesa, with a large footprint building that
has had continual difficulty in finding te~ants.
Therefore, we would recommend:
Reducing the overall FAR by eliminating some of the proposed non-residential square footage, in particular the
office square footage.
Converting some of the office to residential.
Considering eliminating some of the ground floor non-residential and having residential on the ground floor in
certain locations. Perhaps convert the first floor on the "market streeY' to residential - potentially adding some
townhomes.
Landscaping
No comments at this time. Please see th requirements for preliminary site plan in the informational comments below. Bev
Johnson,303-441-3272.
Utilities
1. Several city utility mains and easements cross the subject property. The proposed plan will require the relocation of
existing city utilities at the developer's expense. All city utility mains will be required to be located in appropriately sized
easements (25-foot minimum), which will involve additional easement dedications by the owner.
2. The proposed roundabout wi11 not be permitted to be located over existing or proposed city utilities. Scott Kuhna, 303-
441-3121
Wetlands
1. The site contains city mapped wetlands. Mitigation of the wetlands by proper permitting procedures is required. Scott
Kuhna,303-441-3121.
2. The proposed concept plan does not reflect the mapped wetlands on the site. The proposed development must
conform to the City of Boulder wetlands protection ordinance (B.R.C. 9-12) which requires avoidance first, then
minimization or mitigation. The concept plan should reflect how impacts to wetlands will be avoided or minimized
according to the standards in Section 9-12-8. If they can not be avoided or minimized, the applicant must demonstrate
that destruction of the wetlands is in the public interest. Wetland remapping of the site may be modified by ordinance
according to the standards outlined in Section 9-12-4 (c). Bev Johnson, 303-4413272.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Access/Circulation
The proposed roundabout needs to be designed to accommodate turning radius and widths for fire apparatus. SU-30 is a
useful tool for this purpose. Otherwise, consult Design and Construction Standards manual for radius, vertical clearance
Address: 6685 GUNPARK DR .
Agenda Item t~Page # ~_
and width requirements. Same will apply for design of proposed Main and Market streets, as well as service drive. Adrian
Hise, 303-4413350.
Drainage
1. Storm water quality enhancement is an issue that needs be addressed during the Site Review Process. A Preliminary
Storm W ater Report and Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards must be
provided by the applicant at the time of Site Review application. The required report and plan shall address the
following issues:
• Water quality for surface runoff using "Best Management Practices"
• Detention ponding facilities
• Storm sewer main construction
• Erosion control during construction activities
2. Discharge of groundwater to the public storm sewer system is anticipated to accommodate construction and operation
of the proposed underground parking structure. City and/or State permits will be required for this discharge. The
applicant is advised to contact the City of Boulder Storm Water Quality Office at 303-413-7350 regarding permit
requirements. All applicable permits must be in place prior to building permit application. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Fire Protection
1. All occupancies will require automatic fire sprinkier protection with water-flow supervision.
2. Hydrant design and placement to be per city standards. Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350.
Landscaping
Please note the following requirements for the preliminary landscape plan:
Plan drawing at a scale of 1"= 10; 1"= 20', or 1"= 30', to include:
Standard title block including scale, nofth 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 for existing structures and building envelopes for proposed structures
- Sidewalks and curb cuts
- Parking lots including layout of parking spaces, interior and perimeter parking lot plantings, bike paths and
pedestrian walkways, drive aisles and curb islands
- Utilities and easements, including fire hydrants, water meters, & height and location of overhead lines.
Existing location, size, and type of all trees 1 1/2" caliper or greater
Where fencing is used for required screening, a scaled drawing of the fence elevation.
Planting specifications
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 proposed preliminarily.
Locations of all proposed plant material, shown at the size they will be within 5 years of initial planting, and
appropriately spaced.
Location, size, and species name of any plant materials proposed for removal.
^ Proposed planting of all ground surtaces.
Location and treatment of any proposed detention ponds.
Location and dimensions of site distance triangles at all intersections of streets and curb cuts.
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.
Adtlress: 6685 GUNPARK DR
a~airen-t ~r Payea~
total interior parking lot landscaped area reuqired and the total provided.
total perimeter parking lot landscaping required and total provided.
total number of Street trees required and the total provided.
total quantity of plant material required and the total provided.
Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272.
Utilities
1. All proposed public utifities for this project shall be designed in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards. A preliminary Utility Report per Section 5.02 of the Standards will be required at time of Site
Review application to establish the impacts of this project on the City of Boulder utility systems.
2. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along the property frontage may conflict with existing or
proposed utilities, including without limitation: water, wastewater, storm drainage, flood control, gas, electric,
telecommunications, drainageways, and irrigation ditches, within and adjacent to the development site. It is the
applicanYs responsibility to resolve such conflicts with appropriate meth'ods conforming to the Boulder Revised Code
1981, the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and any private/franchise utility specifications. Scott
Kuhna, 303-4413121
IV. NEXT STEPS
Prepare 15 packets of information for distribution to the Pianning Board and a submission fee of $2800.
Address: 66H5 GUNPARK DR . Agg~(jg ~~8m ~~Py90 # I~ .
ATTACHMENT D
1~iOL1,Y T,~6.Y $ R ~~
Gunbarrel Town Center
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Responses fiom Comment Forms
Compi/ed as ofJane ZZ, 2001
The foilowing responses were received on the hand-out comment form provided
at the June 20 meeting. ~*' indicates the number of multiple responses.
1) I would like to see the following shops and services provided in this
development:
• Gourmet food and wine
• Nice liquor store!
• Park/play area/open space *****
~ good restaurant (not fast food) with outdoor seating ************
• Upscale CofFee shop with evening hours ***
• Good bakery or bagei shop ***
•"upscale" fast food like Noodles or Pressto **
• antique shop
• Beauty shop
• toy shop for children
• good card shop **
• good flower shop **
• A Conoco station
• Good deli **
• Small food market - size of Ideal/wild Oats/Alfalfas **********
• Brew Pub ***
• Bagel shop
• Private school
• Pedestrian area ***
• Natural foods/heaith foods ***
• Boutiques/dress shop (like Fine Lines -Niwot) **
• Pet-oriented stores
• Expanded post office ***
• Farmers market **
• Casual dining
• Good book store
• Good drug store
• Executive suites for home-based consultants
~ Library *****
• Outdoor eating spots with good views
• Bike shop
Agendsitemi~~ '2.Page# ~~-
• Boston Chicken
• Small retail
• Hardware store
~ Residential lofts **
• Underground parking
• Destination for families to meet
• Health club
•(small) Interpretive Center with exhibits and touring story/history of
Gunbarrel
• Bus stop/transit center RTD-Boulder
• Good Japanese/Asian food open for lunch and dinner
• Italian food
• Independent video rental store (not Blockbuster)
• Rooftop bar/pub
2) The design elements that I heard about in this workshop, and that I think
should be incorporated include:
• Don't dupiicate the kind of shops that are already out here.
• Pedestrian/pet friendly
• Quaint
• Outdoor/visual amenities
• Plaza with water feature *****
• Pedestrian walkways *****
• Underground parking **
• A traffic light at Idlewilde and Lookout
~ Benches/outdoor seating ***
• Lots of flowers/greenery **
• Changes to King Soopers??? **
• Minimum residentiai
• Something that will unify this neighborhood without a huge parking lot
• Nice mixed use development **
• Playspace/park and something to interest families **
• "Cute" shops •
• Open space **
• Assure there is a good grid to create connections between the development
**
• Bike and Ped access, especially from apts. To South
• Cooperation of King Soopers is key
• Stay away from "hodge podge" design
• Traffic mitigation
• Multi-purpose paths **
l~dalbm/ ~~ PageN~
• Greenway with meandering trails
• Good gathering space, gardens **
• Utilize alternative energy: solar roof generators, windpower, more...
• Make this a "green-built project
• If mixed use- put the housing above the stores and make it high-end/2 to 4
stories ***
• Not another strip mali!
• Attention to aesthetics of all store/retail fronts
• Don't make this another car magnet! .
• Good attractions for night activity as well as day/shops open at night
3) Please be sure to consider the following impacts that I would NOT want to
experience as a result of this development:
• Increased traffic on Lookout east of the Center- BIG ISSUE ******
• Strip mall design ******
• Any uses that create a regional draw. Mr. O'Connors statement about the
Farmers Market being a regional draw worried me.
• Not being able to park in this wonderful new area
• I don't want to see industrial park design (look at where green dots are on
photos)
• Office space, warehouses, etc. ****
• Any business that requires employees to work 8-5 wiil add to the east-west
traffic problems
• Bright lights **
• Noise ***
~ No apartments/condos
• Big box stores ***
~ No height exceptions. Stay within what is allowed
• I assume there will need to be more traffic lights or we wili not be able to get
out on Lookout Rd.
• No huge parking lot ***
• No chain stores with huge parking lot **
• No gas station **
• No fast food ***
• No Increases density
• No Increased job growth
• Need commitment that improvements will be made to improve infrastructure
~ Trash concerns
• No connection from one shopping area to another
• No overcrowding of roads
• I drive into town ail of the time because the Gunbarrel Center has little to
offer for food and groceries,
Ilpende Nem t~Page 9 ~
No more vacant (building/retail) spaces
If King Soopers does not expand or improve, they will eventuaily lose
business and this will hurt your development.
This area suffers from 1960-1970's planned development. Isolated "blocks in
the landscape" on the proposed site plan are a maior disappointment =
vacuous open space. No matter how pretty in plan, rarely works.
4) Please keep me informed as you proceed with the planning. I most
frequentiy get information about community interests from:
The Boulder Dailv Camera 10 mailed postcard _14_
Neighborhood newsletter _8_ Other: website/email
5) I have a specific question and would like staff to follow up with me:
^ Lana Wellington 303-530-9559 "Thank you fo~ this meeting and future ones in
which you will inform us I know that if we object to anything you wil/ hear us.i"
^ Mike and Diane Assenmacher 303-527-0549 - no question
^]enny Bailey 303-527-3200 "king Soopers needs to p/an to meet community needs
Currently terrib/e!"
o Melton 303-581-9710 - no question
^ Timbrocknn webaccess.net
^ J. Haugen?Hangen? 303-444-7824
^ Barbara Maloy -no number "Thanks forgiving us this opportunity forinput. To be
continueo:.. "
^ R. Rose 303-530-7404 - no question
^ Todd Ballantine 303-530-1882 tnfonatoaabaltanci~e.com Ballantine Environmental
Resources "P/ease ca/l. I wou/d love to he/p with the enviro site p/anning and bui/t
green concepts My s/lecia/ry is interpretive exhibits "
o Mark A. Karpowich 303-530-9850 "I am strong/y concerned about the existing
businesses in Gunba~re/ and wonder about the communiry supporting new
business "
^ Jason Bartell 303-527-1946 - no question
^ Leslie Irvine 303-527-3768 - no question
~ry~~ 1~t3 Pege#~_
V„'~esga gonne~"~°"~ ~~.NQqRREL
~ TOW
Fr4m: <JW N CFMr~R
T °~ wg~ N/@aol. corn>
pate: `$SCCo
gUb• ~~4/20pm ~5 p~ci.boulqer.co.U5>
_ lect:
-- ---,NBARREL. T
~ wor --`--- ~wN CEIV7'~~
k in one of t --
o~ice haurs ~ co ~°ffrce buifdin -'~~-_
d~ elopfientl ~~ S~ plansf fo the Laf~Yefte/Lou svil~ra~eauring ~g~~~a~ M F
W tenever the Ac~~ c~~~~nt pa k~n erg~OUnd and garqe
~e P~rkin p ~cture school 9 situation alo n
9 a1o ~e~ ~ p
cles R9 Gun e a
adjacenk b n9 the pa~k rkin ~~~b~
referr uildir~ ~Oad (iheY do se~m foh session drive ~~
eq ~o as t g~s parking ~ots • rhe students r~ e
out talkrn9 to h~ GUnb~rrel row~ven parking in~he °pd abo take up
street parkin each other w~th t n C~~ter ~acant I uf ^ot us~n9
~a ~C 7hisn t8 ~g to eX1 a tbeg makes if~e~ So pen' on the sfreet~ents o~ften han
' a~~Aark is u~ d anq aed hm ~~~ nUm~ ous s'peedi~ots onto ~U pa kT he g
dt So po~hts
~n also conc~r YOUIUSt ca~~t g ~a~s afon
~T~ th~rY hazar~ ~S sabout deliveries to th Se~ around ~ e ucorner~~
faciiit ~OUth of Serranost~~~ °n t e ne .
entr~~~ treet parking ~$ r~staurar~tsouth side o~h~~~Urcgnt S Currenfl
~/exif oF the allowed at a~I Mail eoX~s, ~.tc hOPpin Y f~'~re
When the s~ o~d shp t~mes aro ~~~d th~ 8~~ea,
doub7e hOOI bus, UPS ~f U'ng Ceryter und fhe souther ~
park daY car
s~ems t ~"'hich leav~s ~k, or otherh both sides of n
situ ° happon offe ~nly on~ delivery truc Gunpark prive.
ation and 1 ~ft ~ durin9 hi Car w'dth available ona~un S lt has fo
knOWn wh~ to ~~ ~`0nd gh traffic ti G
cornPound CO~t~ct. I c~rtWhY this ls allo me$ of the Park Drive. This
desi °Y ~ause a ainfY hope that ted to cont nue bt ~S ~ dan~ero
gnateq d~livQ d~itronal P~oble h~ ~eW uk have ~+s
built along the ~' on1Y are ms Ir tlevelo nevQr
~ast as for bu k~ t~is one, rhere sh nt
behveen the side Siness~s. If c will not
~rive sitle w two shopA~ngfCe~ °urr~nt sho °mmercial ~uld be
~enters ~uld be s~y~d fornters couid bepin9 center th~n th~~Velopryleht Was
use
on ould then look nice ~~starpPerm d for defive~ries ar~a Gun
You a~ fr° he ~ss. h the ~nd
If want m t eter. Bot ew and olct shopp ng
~omp~°pmenta The a ee to drive whY ar
that at~ th~ situation and ~n~~sted enYou puttin
stre Parking shquld for pep pugh Witf~~ streets wifhin khe
~o es} willth m makebh pa king along~h~to u se as SG ~~ ~dinse nre toreeks to
lust ~SSg onto ~fs• ems
ndertut but addi ~ area more m{and e~~,~ Park but to have ~
ng the auto °pngested. daublg Parkin9 at more
~ know this mabiies seems llke asest~ for Uld b
believ mixed,use stu kin WalkWays Wb
live ore there are several ff~s pOpular in t a~ accident. ~
~n tairs to turna~own thess swry suchtant hat wopq ke~slve p~~n but 1
unttsh~ar each other e stQre° so th ar~a~ ~ow p me from w
and the dst~~ ki c~e 9 What about th ~iners qnd~e qe ~~t the rgs d~9~to
k~$A the SoU~ aitin me~ls fro oth thent
lust don t_ from int ff~b~sih ss--del ~erles~ach others sp ~s? ~ S tlent
there that would no~rn~nd~ e5e sduat a sers sak ttF~ee aes P~o le g~ tdo You
p out
s~e:iiC: i W1N~ows~TE~iG W} ooor3.HrM
AO~rdeUem~ ~;.~
~~Pagg# -~
- $/idi~~„
pt7ge
Page 2 of 2
All in all I really don't think you are going to cut down on the traffic in
this area. I would bet that most employees of the businesses in Gunbarrel
come from outside the area (look at the trafficjams at 63rd and the Diagonal
and Lookout and 75th Street during rush hours) and most of the people living
in the area are not going to give up their cars. 7he limited amount of
retail offerings in the area even with the new shopping center just won't
provide enough choices for the seasoned Boulder consumer.
I would like to see a natural foods grocery store, another fast food choice
or two and some really good sit down restaurants added to the mix in
Gunbarrel. Bus service from Louisville/Lafayette to Gunbarrel without having
to go through downtown Boulder would probably get my car off the street a
couple days per week.
OK -- I guess that's enough from me on this subject! As a commuter into the
Gunbarrel area I hope that my comments are useful in the development of what
could be a very nice addition to my daytime living space. '
Bonnie Worrall
jwwblw@aol.com
Agende Item # ~~ Page d~. ~ 3
file://C:AWINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00013.HTM 8/ 14/2001
marceau
From: Dan McLellan [danm@bch.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 9:15 AM
To: towncenter@oconnor-group,com
Subject: Gunbarrel Town Center
What exciting news! We are so excited at the prospect of having a center tor our neighborhood. We have talked
about how nice it would be to have some restaurants and shops we can walk to and have a sense of a"Town
Center". My wife and I would love to attend the meeting next Wednesday, but unfortunately will be out of town. Our
input would be to please include paths so that patrons could walk or bike from homes. Also, outdoor eatinglgathering
areas would be great. Please send us any information you can on the proposed plan to:
Dan and Kay McLellan
5520 Northfork Court
Boulder, CO 80301
thanks again.
Program Coordinator
Pediatric Rehabilitation Services
Boulder Community Hospital
(303)441-0434
Agende ilem A~ l? Page #~` _-
6/] 4/01
MARCEAU/outlook
marceau
From: suzi hendrix [hendrixsuzi@hotmail.com]
5ent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:16 AM
To: towncenter@oconnor-group.com
Cc: hendrixsuzi@hotmail.com
Subject: Gunbarrel
Hi Terry 0'Connor,
My husband and I reside on Idylwilc Trail in Gunbarrel and received the ter.t
invite yesterday. We wi11 not be able to attend the meeting, but thougnc you
would appreciace a f2w thoughts on c~e development.
We would be tne direct recipients c~ any noise or flood iiahts, as we can
s2e tnis parael (and the back of Ki~g Socpers) througn che o:*ice buildings
on the ith te° box o? the gol~ cou_sz. We sit outside in the eveniaqs and
mornings near'_y every day all Pour seasons. We would 'nignly onnose any
activity that generates flood 1ia1,:=s, as the liqhting in che area irom
security, Kinq Soopers, etc. is al_~ady at a point of saturation and
nuisance, especially in the winter. We live where we do because o: the
excreme quiet and peace. To have t;tis quiet and peace is primary to our
qualicy o~ 1i~`e...therefore, we wocld strongly oppose any so=tball or soccer
or noise gzneraci,^.g spcrt field. (?.nother goif course would be nice!)
Sc, what would be n-:ce there i° ic cannot be left a naturai f'_eld? The area
-ealiy could use scme more restaurants witn patios outdoors. ~Ahat abouc a
cence: iccn~a=n area with some roo'cop patio restaurar.~s, ie ~ Greek
rzstsuranc, cr ~~alzan ;a Med Ca*e cyoe p'_ace) with some bouciaue shopping
?cr unic~~e g'_=~s...a 'iower shop, a bakery, a sma11 "Euroeear. type" flavor
to che arza? Someching that is NOT "strip-ma_1"...PLEASE, P~c~SE, PLEASc!
9coe these `ew ideas are of help :n your plans to keep quiet and peace in
the neighbcr^cod.
Sincerely,
Suz_ a;:d Brzd Herdr_x
Get your EREE cownload ci MSN Explcr2r ac h~tp://2:tplorer.msn.ccm
Agende Ibm #~~ Page a as
[frank marceau] 6/14/O1
marceau
From: Ron Romano [ronr@rmi.net]
Sent: ' Wednesday, June 13, 2001 10:31 AM
To: towncenter@oconnor-group.com
Subject: Gunbarrel
Terry
We need some restaurants, real restaurants not fast food or Pizza. They would be packed for lunch with all of the
offce space in the area and would do well at night being one of the only restaurants in Gunbarrel/ Niwot. A restaurant
like Red Rabin or Chili's would be good.
Ron
Agenda Item A ~ ~ Page # ~ ~~
6/14/O l
MARCEAU/outlook
marceau
From: Dessel, Tricia [Tricia.Dessel@valleylab.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:27 AM
To: 'towncenter@oconnor-group.com'
Subject: town center
Thank you so mucn for including input from the residents of Gunbarrel. I~
~ have lived in Gunbarr2l ior 9 years~and love living out there excepc tnat
the "heart" of our commur.ity is King Soopers (how lame). What we really need
is something that qives ouz communicy some heart and ~oul. What we DON':
need is another st°ip mall witl~ a huge parking lot in the front.
Here is what I think we do need:
Any development should include a p'_ay structure! There are iviANY stay ac ncme
moms in Gunba~rel. What we need is a REASON to come to your new town cencer.
If you look at Cherry Cr2ek ma L and Twin Peaks mall they 'r.ave a tzrri=ic
piay structure and ic draws moms w±~h young kids to the mall. Flatirons mall
has fa±led miserab'y in this area. So, please include some tyoe of
apqropriate, safe and _'cn play st=ucture in our new "town cent2r".
Make a"mir.i" Pear1 Street ma11. 'r.ave all the stores face toward a walkinq
mal'_ and have the play structure ir. the centzr of the walk_ng ma11. Put all
the parking in t:~e r=ar (so we dor.'c have to lcok a~ it). This would create
a cown cenc2r sor~ of `zeling and reallv gec people ce wanc te come. If you
look ac the new Vil~age section o* =ne Flatirons ma'il it is so inviting and
war:n. The cnly thir.q they omitted svas a qiay area for 'cids and :noms to
congregatz and aec to know or.e znc~:er.
Gunbar_el ne=ds some restaurants. Perhaps 2- 3 restaurants (NOT CHAINS or
EAS: FOOD) one `amily restauranc _r.d 1- 2 mid scale "date niqht"
restaurar.ts or maybe even a small~T:~_c~o brew. Ii you did the mini p2ar_
stre=_t _"~~cc ther. you could have cutdocr pacio seaLing. Boulder_tes love to
sit outside and e~t' Therz are alot oi oeoole in Gur.barrel aad Niwot with
significanc dispesable income but ~~e have no whzr~ in the "neighborhood" to
ao to eac and have z very nice mea'_.
~r7e also need a nice co`fze shoo and bacel shoo (perhaos you could convince
~Yioe's bagel to come out to Gunbarr=l).
The other thing missinq in Gunbarr2l is a rec center. :his is probably
beyond your con~rcl ba*_ just thouqhc I'd throw it in!
I aporeciate being able to provide my input. I love living in Gunbarrel and
would love something like I described to be in my neighborhood. PLEASE do
not put in just anotner strip ma•1:. There are too many litt2ring chis earth
already. Get creative!
You can contact me at 303 581 9255 if you would like.
Tricia Dessel
qgenda Ilem R ~ ~ Page # ,~ ~
[frenk marceau] 6/14/01
MARCEAU/outlook
marceau
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
- To whom zt may concern:
John Daley [John.Daley@Miltope.com]
Wednesday, June 13, 2001 7:32 AM
'towncenter@oconnor-g rou p. co m'
suggestion for gunbarrel towncenter
What types of services and shops would I like to have ia Gunbarrel? A
decent restaurant please! eurger King, Taco Loco, Sorrento's, Pepperoni
Pizza Kitchen, Pngelo's, Pizza Hut, Chiaa 8uffe*, Quizno's, and the Gunpark
Deli (at least th2 last ownership) are ooor excuses for restaurants in my
unhumble ocinion. The cnly reason they s~ay in business is for tne large
lanch crowd that wants to avoid dowr.cown Bouider traf:ic. Takz a look at
these restaurancs at Som on any gi-;en day, and you'11 see that no one
considers these restaurants their =avorit2 place to eat dinner.
We have a loc of residents in Gunbarr2l these days. Judging by the price o'
nousing, mest musc have decenc incomes. Some medium to hign 2nd res~aurants
cculd do we11. ?lease stay away =_om substandard fast food shacks. Put
some quai~-ty into Gur.barrel.
h1y only oirer commen~ ~dould be on zpnea^ances. The shoppiac centers
currentiy in Gunbarrzl would be a;cod example o~ wnat not to do. I am sure
" am not __one in lcathing develooers ~~ho pu~ prc~its in iront cf a_1 21s2,
including~che aopearanc= of tneir ..~veleomen~ prejac~s. We have to live
wich these structures for =he nexL `0 years or so. P_ease make them look
casteful. C'_nder bleck and steel s'_ding construction are noc most people's
ide~ of tastzf~~l. The new shops c:: Pearl (=zst of the mGll) are good
zxamolzs o_° new euali~y cer.scructioa th,t biend well witn the existir,g
neighborhocd. eleasa do not turn Gar.nar_el inco a tacky sCrip mall alley
like thac o~ _he Westminster area. I k;ow Gunbarrel can do better than
chat.
Thank you ~or the invitation to sna_e my input.
Agenda Item A~Page ~ a!Y
~_
[frank marceau] 6/14/O1
marceau
From: REALTYGROUPINC@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 6:07 PM
To: towncenter@oconnor-group.com
received your postcard in reference to proposed town center.
i will not be able to attend the meeting on june 20th, but would like a phone
number
to talk to someone about the proposed town center as this has been a topic in
our most recent hoa meeting at gunbarrel greens. the number on the post card
has been
disconnected.
sincerely,
rusry howard
303-875-0160
Agenda Ilem A~Page # ~a
6/ 14/O l
~ ~i\ . .....i
i~~~ij%i';(
i
~ Y 1 i;
Y ~'
:.i
+t
Y. ~~ ~
..
fF
i
~~ ~ti~
"~u~I Y,.~ ~'
a ~
~
.,
I '
fi
~_
3
I ~ ~,
'~~'tiixqi
u
uk~
~1I~
HARTRONFT
FAURI
ARCHITECTS
ATTACHMENT E
Mr. Mike Randal, Planner
City of Boulder, Planning & Development Services
7 739 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Planning 01 October 2001 Re: Cunbarrel Town Center
Archiiecrure Response to Land Use Review
i~~re.io~ nesi~;~~ Results and Comments
M i ke,
so~ nnA~~ srHt~Taaoo Attached please find responses to each staff/referral comment indicated in your
~o~~s~~«E, co soox~ ~~Land Use Review Results & Comments" dated 8/24/O1
We understand that
TEL: 303.G73.9304 .
the comments, like the submittal, are very preliminary and conceptual in
rnx: 303.673.9319 nature. Hopefully, our responses, based on the owner's direction, will help to
"'"'"' "`""` `°"" clarify the intent of this proposal for purposes of this Concept Review.
Although we have not revised our drawings or development summary, please
note the issues addressed below will most likely result in changes to the
submittal as we move to the next step in the Site Review Process.
As requested, we have attached 15 copies of the submittal information, as
originally submitted on 8/6/01, in addition to this "Response to Land Use
Review Results and Comments". We have also included 5 sheets depicting
the Visual Preference Survey conducted at the June 20, 2001 neighborhood
meeting.
Please review the enclosed information. We look forward to a continuing,
constructive dialogue with the City of Bouider Staff and the Planning Board.
REVIEW FINDINGS (Note: City comments are in italics)
Staff finds that the application meets all Concept Review review criteria.
Generally, the staff is supportive of the mixed use development and the
provision of added housing including affordable units...
There is a mapped Wetlands area identified within the subject site
The Applicant has submitted records of the previous wetlands mitigation
to Alan Taylor for review.
Almost all of the site will have building or paved surface coverage which will cause
significant increases in stormwater runoff and detention requirements. No on-site areas
are depicted in the Concept Plan to store/control this added flow.
Appropriate on-site stormwater detention areas will be included in the
project development.
Ag~d91Mm t~ a Page N~-~
r~ :
~h ~ '
r.,~:,;: ~~ ~
~..
,~
u ~
{~&
Mike Randal
01 October 2001
Page 2
3. The proposed Main and Market Streetr may need to be public rights-of-way and this
will impose some design and use limitations on the street system. Whether the streets
are public or access/utilities easements needs to be explored.
We are anticipating dedication of ~rtility and public access easements
throughout the site once the development is further defined. At this time,
the Applicant anticipates maintaining Main and Market Streets as private
streets.
There are issues with respect to the high FAR for commercial development and the
associated jobs in an area that is already disproportionately high in jobs to housing...
The mixed-use aspect of this development (commercial, including office
combined with residential) is important to minimize the impact of
vehicular traffic, both locally and regionally. The commercial
development proposed has the potential of providing unique live/work
opportunities which do not currently exist. It is not intended that this
development will be the home to any large employers. It is envisioned
that smaller, local businesses and retailers appropriate to the
neighborhood center concept will be the primary tenancy. Note that a
portion of the commercial area may be devoted to a medical clinic, as
well as a health club, and possibly a community facility. These uses are
community services rather than large corporate employers. It is also
important to maintain a mix of uses, both commercial and residential, to
decrease parking demands on the site. (See #11.3 below)
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circulation
It is unclear lrom these plans whether the streets through the site are intended to be
public right-of-way or access easements. Right-of-way would be required if the lot is
subdivided and these streefs are used to access these multiple lots.
(See response to #3 above)
As discussed in the application material, a Traffic Impact Analysis is required at the
time of Site Review.
A Traffic Impact Analysis will be submitted at time of Site Review.
A 20% parking reduction appears to be high for this site... However, a modest parking
reduction, perhaps as high as 10%, may be justified. The Traffic Impact Analysis will
be required to further address this issue in terms of trip reduction.
(Also see response to #4 above), Actual reduction in overall parking
demand for mixed use developments (which include residential uses) is
Mike Randal
O1 October 2001
Page 3
typically as high as 20 - 30%. This is based on the staggered timing of
demands for parking between daytime commercial uses and
evening/nighttime residential demand. As we are all aware, ~and is a
precious resource in Boulder County, as well as our state and nation.
Smart growth, which maximizes mixed-use opportunities with
appropriate densities and more efficient use of land for smaller shared
parking areas will ultimately decrease dependence on the automobile
and protect undeveloped lands from sprawl. We will continue to explore
the appropriate parking ratios based on the Traffic Impact Analysis, the
final mix of uses, as well as regional and national data regarding
appropriate parking densities based on use.
The plan shows one access to Lookout Road serving the gas station. CunenHy, the gas
station has two accesses, and this needs to be reflected on the plan...
(See #5a below)
MAIN STREET/LOOKOUT ROAD INTERSECTION
Due to Lookout Road being classified as an arterial roadway, there are several
issues to consider regarding the location of this intersection:
If Main Street would be right-of-way per comment 1 above, the City of
Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) requires that the
in[ersection be spaced 500 feet from the next public intersection. This would
be impossible to achieve due to Main Street's location to Gunpark Drive.
Therefore, if Main Street were required to be right-of-way, it would not be
permitted to access Lookout Road.
We believe that it is imperative that Main Street has direct access
from Lookout Road. Otherwise, this development would not be
viable commercially. Given the nature of this development and
the proposed community uses envisioned (sidewalk fairs, outdoor
dining, farmer's market, etc.), it is more appropriate to maintain
these streets as private streets.
• If Main Street were an access easement, the DCS requires that the intersection
be location 250 feet from other intersections and accesses. This requirement
poses severa! concerns:
a) The accesses to the gas station would have to be relocated or
reconfigured. A driveway could be shared with Main Street or access
from the gas station to Lookout Road would have to occur indirectly.
The shared access scenario is currently being pursued. In
the event that the shared access is not obtained, a variance
would be required to allow Main Street to access Lookout
Road. It should also be noted that the current land lease will
Mike Randal
01 October 2001
Page 4
expire in 2003. This would be a logical time to reconfigure
access to that pad site.
b) Assuming comment "a"above could be achieved, the spacing between
the location of Main Street on this plan and the existing King Sooper's
parking lot is only 210 fee[. A varience to the spacing requirement
could be accommodated by showing in the Traffic Impact Analysis that
the required left-turn lane for the King Sooper's access cotdd be
provided within the 210 feet separa[ion.
A Traffic Impact Analysis is being commissioned for this
project, which will address these and other concerns.
c) Regardless of where the proposed Main Street access would occur, its
spacing west of Gunpark Drive would require that left-turn storage for
vehicles entering this development be aCCOmmoddted Witl7out
negatively impacting turning movements at Gunpark Drive...
We anticipate that the Traffic Impact Analysis will address
this issue.
6. The accesses along Gunpark Drive are required ro either be aligned directly across
from existing accesses along the east side or offset by a minimum of 150 feet from
existing accesses.
Acknowledged. We are reviewing the existing drive cut locations with
respect to the proposed development. It should be noted that there are
significant opportunities regarding the reconfiguration of Gunpark Drive
with regard to parking and streetscape. The Applicant has expressed a
desire to work further with Staff and adjacent landowners to expiore
these possibilities. We believe that increasing on-street parking in this
area would be relatively simple to accommodate and provide benefits to
all the surrounding developments.
If the internal streets are required to be right-of-way per comment 1 above, the Traffic
Impact Analysis would need to provide information abou[ traffic volumes using the
intersection of Market and Main Streets. If it is determined that the roundabout is
justified from [he volume of traffic using the intersection, the physical design will be
reviewed, ftegardless if the streets are right-of-way or not, this roundabout will need to
be approved by the city fire marshall for emergency access.
The Traffic Impact Analysis will address the intersection of Market and
Main Streets even though they are proposed to be private streets. The
proposed roundabout will be studied further. It is proven that
roundabouts are effective on high-volume or low-volume streets. The
~,~
~a ;~
~~i.~ v~x
Mike Randal
01 October 2001
Page 5
final design will comply with City design standards and Fire Department
requirements.
The sidewalk widths internal to the site are unclear from the information provided...
Sidewalks will be provided of ample width to accommodate the
anticipated pedestrian traffic as well as areas for outdoor restauranUcafe
seating, landscaping, etc.
9. With the redevelopment of the site, the sidewalk along Gunpark Drive will need to be
repaired where damaged.
(See response to #11.6 above)
Drainage
De[ention ponding facilities, for water quality mitigation and runoff storage volume, will be
required for this development. Adequate space has not been reserved on the Concept Plan
for these improvemencs.
(See response to #1.2 above)
Fire Protection
No problem with concept from fire protection standpoint...
Acknowledged.
Housing and Human Services
New residential development is subject to "Inclusionary Zoning" (Boulder Revised
Code, 9-6.5). The general inclusionary zoning requirement is that new development
contributes at least 20% of the total units as permanently affordable. There are several
options available to meet the inclusionary zoning requirement...
a. For homeownership units, at least half of the permanently affordable units must
be provided on-site. Off-site options include making a cash-in-lieu contribution
or dedicating existing comparable units or land as permanendy affordable.
b. For ren[al units, options to satisfy inclusionary zoning include dedicating on or
off-site homeownership units, or making a cash-in-lieu contribution. Private for-
profit developers generally cannot provide rental units to satisfy inclusionary
zoning. It may be possible for private developers to partner with a non-profit
housing agency in order to dedicate rental units toward meeting the inclusionary
mning requirement.
There is also a minimum size requirement for the permanently affordable units... For
attached units, the average floor area of permanently affordable units need to be a
Mike Randal
01 October 2001
Page 6
minimum of 80% of the average floor area of the market rate units, up to a 7,200
square fwt maximum. ~
Covenants to secure the permanent affordability of the units must be signed and
recarded or any applicable cash-in-lieu contribution must be made prior to application
for a building permit.
There are benefits for projects including more than 20% permanendy affordable
requirement Projects induding 35% oc more permanen[ly affordable units are exempt
from the Residential Growth Management System. Projects providing more than 20%
permanently affordable units or projects making units affordable to lower income
households may be eligible to apply for housing subsidy funds.
5. There is a preference for a variety of housing types and sizes, and for the permanendy
affordable units to be dispersed throughout the development.
Applicant outlined two residential alternatives, with one alternative including 36"
additional LLU° units. It is not clear if these are intended to be efficiency or small one-
bedroom units,.. We have a concern that this alternative may include too many low
square footage units given the limited demand we are experiencing for very
small units.
Applicant expressed an interest in working with staff to develop details regarding the
permanently affordable units; feel free to con[ac[ us for addi[ional information.
The Applicant has not yet made final determination regarding how the
affordable housing component will be addressed in terms of rental, or for-sale,
on or off-site, cash-in-lieu of, unit size, etc. This development, by its nature,
will provide an increase in affordability of housing in this area with the market
rate units proposed. The Applicant will be working with the Department of
Housing and Human Services to determine the best approach for this
development.
Land Uses
Lon~ Ranae Plannina Commen[s:
As part of the Year 2000 Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, identifying
loca[ions for new housing, particularly mixed use housing has been a priority.
AlthougA staff has not analyzed mixed use at the most detailed leve! in order to
determine ideal parking and open space reductions, it was clear that in order to see
housing in the commercial zones, variances to existing parking and open space
requirements would be necessary. Long range staff supports in concept parking and
open space reductions.
As part of the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, this site
was initially proposed for a land use designation change to Mixed-Use Residential. All 5 of
the neighborhood centers were taken o(( the BVCP land use map proposal. However, the
initial staff proposal for a Mixed-Use Residential designation included:
Mike Randal
O1 October 2001
Page 7
Dwelling units 149 - 176 F Non-residential 94,000 - 124,000 sq.fL (330-435 jobs) _
FAR of 0.8
The current submittal includes 13t3 units (169,000 square feeU and 200,000 square feet
of non-residential developmen[, wi[h 60,000 to fi0,000 square fee[ of o(fice. A key
policy issue and concern raised as part of the 6VCP Update Analysis is concern about
adding too much additional office use.
The percentage of residential and commercial uses in the submittal is:
Residential SF 168,000 46 %
Commercial 200,000 54% (700 jobs)
Total 369,000 100%
FAR 1.2
The existing PUD is approved for an additional 96,000 square fee[ of non-residen[ial
development, which would add approximately 335 additional jobs.
Lona Ranae Plannina Conclusions and Recommenda[ions:
The proposed FAR of 7.2 is high. It exceeds the FAR assumed for mixed use
designations as part of the comprehensive plan update, and is comparable only to the
FARs found in the RBX zones found in the city's downtown.
The proposed development would result in approximately 700 jobs and 738 units,
worsening the ciry's jobs:housing imbalance and generating more housing demand
than supplied on the site. The current approved PUD would allow less than one half
of the non-residential square footage and job growth. The mixed use designation
proposed by staff as part of the comprehensive plan process anticipated a significantly
lower FAR and significantly less non-residential development.
The amount of office and the additional grocery square both raise concerns. Can this
area support another grocery store. It would not be desirable to repeat the situation in
Table Mesa, with a large footprint building that has had continual difficulty in finding
tenants.
Therefore, we would recommend:
Reducing the overall FAR by eliminating some of the proposed non-residential square
footage in particular the o(fice square footage.
Converting some of the office to residential.
Considering eliminating some of the ground floor non-residential and having residential
on the ground floor in certain locations. Perhaps convert the first floor on the "market
street" to residential - potentially adding some townhomes.
The applicant is currently evaluating the relative market demands in the area for both
the commercial and residential components of this development. Opportunity exists
for re-classifying space, especially as it relates to the concept of live/work units,
which could occupy storefronts. At this time, the Applicant is seeking flexibility to be
able to respond appropriately to market demands. Regarding the proposed density,
this development has been envisioned as Gunbarrel's Downtown. As such, we
believe that a FAR of 1.2 is not particularly high, given this other RB (Regional-
Business) zoning in the City (generally Pearl St. and the BVRC areas) are allowed
Mike Randal
01 October 2001
Page 8
F.A.R.'s ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 with some exemptions in calculating floar area ratios
for residential uses and parking structures. It is important to review this proposed
development on its merits without getting too hung up on F.A.R. calculations, and
trying to fit this unique proposal into an existing set of rules, which are appropriately
being adjusted to better respond to our current market and the City's goals.
Landscaping
No comments at this time.
Utilities
Several city utility mains and easements cross the subject property. The proposed plan
wi!! require the relocation of exis[ing city u[Nities at the developer's expense. A!! city
utility mains will be reyuired to be located in appropriately sized easements (25-foot
minimum), which will involve additional easement dedications by the owner.
Acknowledged.
2. The proposed roundabout will not be permitted to be located over existing or proposed
city utilities.
Acknowiedged. However, as the project develops, we will need to
clarify the details of this requirement as utilities under the paved roadway
in appropriate easements are anticipated, some will undoubtedly cross
the area of the roundabout drive lanes.
Wetlands
The site contains city mapped wetlands. Mitigation of the wedands by proper
permi[ting procedures is required.
(See response to #I.1 above)
The proposed concept plan does not reflect the mapped weNands on the site... The
concept plan should reflect how impacts to wetlands will be avoided or minimized
according to the standards in Section 9-12-8. If they can not be avoided or minimized,
the applicant must demonstrate that destruction of the weNands is in the public
interest...
(See response to #1.1 above)
Mil<e Randal
O1 October 2001
Page 9
III. INFORMATONAL COMMENTS
AccesslCirculation
The proposed roundabout needs to be designed to accommodate turning radius and
widths for fire apparatus. SU-30 is a useful tool for this purpose... Same will apply
for design of proposed Main and Market Streets, as well as service drive.
Acknowledged. All access roads to be utilized for Fire Department access will
accommodate the SU - 30 criteria.
Drainage
Storm water quality enhancement is an issue that needs be addressed during
the Site Review Process. A Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan in
accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards must
be provided by the applicant at the time of Site Review application.
Acknowledged.
Discharge of groundwater to the public storm sewer system is anticipated to
accommodate construction and operation of the proposed underground parking
structure. Ciry andlor State permits will be required for this discharge...
Acknowledged.
Fire Protection
All occupancies will require automatic fire sprinkler protection with water-flow
supervision.
Acknowledged.
Hydrant design and placement to be per city standards.
Acknowledged.
Landscaping
Please note [he following requirements for the preliminary landscape plan...:
Note: The requirements indicated a~
typically required at Final Landscape
Land Use Regulations (Title 9).
"Preliminary Landscape Plan" are
Plan Submittal per the City of Boulder
Mike Randal
01 October 2001
Page 10
Please refer to 9-4-11 (f) - 13. We believe that requiring final landscape
design at the time of Site Review is unnecessary and creates an undue
hardship on the Applicant, as typically the site development plans change
throughout the course of the Site Review Process. Providing detailed
landscape plans as "preliminary" is simply wasteful. We anticipate submitting
the following level of detail for the initial Site Review Application:
General Landscape Plan, combined with overall Site Plan, at a scale of
1" = 100' 0" to include:
Standard title block including scale, north arrow, and date
Location of property lines and adjacent streets (with street names
identified)
General location of existing and proposed:
- Building footprints for existing structures and building envelopes for
proposed structures
- Sidewalks and curb cuts
- Parking lots including layout of parking spaces, general layout of
interior and perimeter parking lot landscape areas, bike paths and
pedestrian walkways, drive aisles and curb islands
- Utilities and easements (with additional detail on Master Utility
Pian)
- Landscaped areas and plazas, detention ponds, etc.
- Existing location, size, and type of all trees 1 1/2" caliper or greater.
- Location of proposed fencing
Preliminary summary chart with calculations to inciude:
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 total provided.
total perimeter parking lot landscaping required and total provided.
totai number of street trees required and the total provided.
total quantity of plant material required and the total provided.
Utilities
All proposed public utilities (or [his project shall be designed in accordance with the
City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards...
Acknowledged.
Mike Randal
O1 October 2001
Page 11
2. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along the property frontage may
conflict with existing or proposed utilities...
Acknowledged.
We believe the above responses address the issues raised to the extent
possible at this stage in the Project Development Review Process. We look
forward to the Planning Board input as well as additional review comments as
this project develops. If you have any questions or require any additional
information regarding this Concept Review Application, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Erik Hartr<
~itect, AI
pc: O'Connor Development
File 0065, City Correspondence
\\Sta022\ Docs\PROJ-NET\2000prq\0065\general\checklist092701.doc
City of Boulder
,,„; Concept Plan Review and Comment Application
r ` `
:~'1"
Gunbarrel Town Center
O'Connor Development Co.
6 August 2001
BACKGROUND
HARTRONFT
FAURI O'Connor Development is proposing to revise the previously approved
Site Plan Review for Gunbarref Square to accommodate a vibrant mixed-
ARCHITECTS use development that is intended to give an identity, or Town Center, for
the residents of Gunbarrel and the surrounding area.
~~~"""'~' This proposal is based on years of evaluating Boulder's need for housing
Arcl~itecture and the recognition that traditional retail center planning and office
Inferior Design development is not as congruent with Boulder's goals as a more urban,
mixed-use development which includes a sustainable combination of
801 MAINSTREET#300 housing, retail; and office uses with partially underground parking areas.
~o~~s~~«E, co aooz~ This proposal is intended to support the City's goals to help correct the
TEI: 303.673.9304 current jobs/housing imbalance, reduce the auto-centric nature of
FA%:'303.673
9319 traditional developmenCS, and encourage a strong sustainable economy
. to fund quality city services for all citizens.
WWW.HFAPC.COM .
Although this property is not currently included in the Comprehensive
Plan revisions, it is clear that the trend indicated through the
Comprehensive Plan update and Council Goals is for more mixed-use
developments and to create and preserve housing opportunities in order
to promote an economically diverse community. This proposal is
consistent with that trend and is appropriate for that area.
Due to the mixed use nature and urban densities proposed, it is
necessary to seek vacancies from the current RBD zoning, or modify the
zoning to be more compatible with the mixed-use concept. We are
submittin,g this application for concept review with the assumption that
variances will be sought through the Site Review process. The requested
variances will primarily be for a 55' height, a 20% parking reduction
based in the mix of uses, and a variance of the open space requirements
(see attached "Preliminary Site Analysis").
TECHNIQUES AND STRATEGIES FOR ENVIRONMBVTAL IMPACT
AVOINDANCF/MINIMIZATION/MITIGATION ~
The proposed development will utilize techniques for energy efficiency,
which will exceed the Colorado Energy Code, as well as provide
opportunities for passive solar access. Where practical, recycled and
renewable materials will be utilized in the construction. The energy
efficiency built into the development, along with the strategies to reduce
single occupancy vehicle trips, will help to make this a truly sustainable
development.
City of Boulder
6 August 2001 .
Page 2
PRACTICAL AND ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
TECHNIOUES
The City is committed to improve travei modes that offer an alternative to
the automobile and to provide adequate financing for these alternatives
and the improvement and maintenance of the street network. Success ir
achieving this objective would reduce SOV mode share to 25 percent,
provide an increased range of safe and convenient transportation options
to the residents and employees in Boulder, and limit the impacts of
automobile to support the desired land use pattern and quality of life
expectations of the community.
The development proposed will help to accomplish Boulder's goals
related to transportation and reduction of SOV trip generation. The .
Gunbarrel Town Center will incorporate retail, restaurants, possibly a
specialty grocer, a health club, shops, and possibly some community
facilities such as a branch library, neighborhood activity center, and a
medical clinic. This neighborhood retail/service center is not seen as a
regional center, but a convenience location, which wiU reduce the
necessity of regional trips to Boulder or Longmont. Also, the
introduction of affordable housing into this area of the city will reduce
the in-commuting made necessary by the escalation of housing costs in
the area.
With mixed use, at least some daily tasks can be accomplished by
wall<ing, biking or by a single car trip; thus, a lower number of
automobile trips is necessary. When mixed used development is located
along high frequency transit routes, further reduction in automobile trips
can occur: According to recent studies, mixed-use environments result
in as much as 25% reduction in automobile trips per household if
necessary services are convenient and in walking distance of residences.
Links to trails and parks in the area and improved transit connections will
reinforce the pedestrian nature of this development.
PROPOSED LAND USES
The Gunbarrel City Center is proposed as a traditional urban
development with two major intersecting streets, Main Street and Marl<et
Street. These two streets intersect at a roundabout, which would have a
fountain, sculpture, or other focal point for the plazas, which encompass
the four corners of the intersection. The southwest corner is envisioned
as open space to serve as a pocket park linl<ing the main plaza with the
shopping center to the west.
Street parl<ing is convenient in front af the retail shops and restaurants
with long-term parking and additional customer parking located on the
level below Main and Market Streets, which rise towards a high point of
the developed site at the intersection. This creates "garden-level" and
\\Sta022\Docs\PROJ-NEl\2000pro~\0065~generamm~cepi0B03.doc
City of Boulder
6 August 2001
Page 3
under-buiiding parl<ing areas. Market Street is envisioned as a festival
street with accommodations for banners, lighting and power for farmer's
markets and other activities which would temporarily close the street to
through traffic.
Residential units are located above the street level businesses with
balconies and terraces overlooking the plaza and cafes with views to the
foothills to the west and rolling hilis to the east. As noted above, links to
trails and parks in the area and improved transit connections are
important components for this development. Abundant landscaping and
public amenities add to the ambiance and "sense of place" that is a
departure from the surrounding shopping center, creating a truly unique
environment.
\~Sta022~DOa\PRO1-NETUOOOproj~0065~general\roncept0803.doc
GUNBARREL
TOWN
CENTER
O'CONNOR DEVELOPMENT
6685 Gun Park Drive
Boulder, CO 80301
dated: August 6, 2001
T0: City of Boulder, Department of Community Design
PLANNING BOARD
RE: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW submittal
LOT 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Gunbarrel Square
FOR: A Proposed Multi-Use Development to be known as GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER
PROJECT NARRATIVE
This letter accompanies a complete package of documentation that constitutes our
submittal for Concept Review under the Land Use Review Process. It is intended as a
overview of the more empirical data contained elsewhere.
This parcel of land has gone through many iterations in the 20 years of its present
ownership - yet remains essentially vacant. It has been proposed as a strip mall (now to
the west), an office complex, an apartment complex [defeated in the Public Review
Process) - and now for what seems to be its ultimate use -"to maintain and e~hance the
livability, health, and vitality of the boulder Valley and its bioregion" [BVCP 2000). What we
propose is a community-oriented, pedestrian-friendly, living and working environment. The
various elements provide a synergy within the complex - and services to the community.
The scale is"relatively small, in line with the area of Gunbarrel, and predicated on a
European model hundreds of years old. Then the population lived above the greengrocer,
farrier, baker, and public house. In Vienna even today the elegant Medieval structures
continue to use the lower level shnps and services as a first level of security to the
residences above. Conversely, the continuous habitation adds security by its very
presence. Contemporary Land Use Planners have adopted this form for its practicality in
modern times. Issues of transportation, security, and the environment are well-served by
this model. The project has been aptly described as "Tuscany meets the Pearl Street Mall".
Much attention has been paid to the evolving and present 8oulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan by this organization in the preparation of this submittal. It would seem that Gunbarrel
Town Center is in line with the goals, present and future, stated therein. We are adherents
of "Smart Growth" and foster many of the precepts developed by the Urban Land Institute.
We share those mutual goals with the City of Boulder and the residents of this community.
On May 2^a, 2001 this organization met with City staff in a Pre-Application Meeting. We
sought advice with regard to Land Use Provisions in line with shared goals for Gunbarrel
specifically, and the City and County of Boulder as expressed in public policy and the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. From that meeting came the primary
recommendation that "the owner seek community input prior to placing any particular
proposal on the table".
In line with tfiat Pre-Application recommendation we held two neighborhood meetings. We
commissioned Molly Tayer to act as coordinator of neighborhood liaison subsequent to a
Formal interview process. Shortly thereafter 6,500 area homes were invited by mailed
invitation to an initial meeting on June 20~^, 2001 and later a follow-up on July 24°~ An
email address: towncenter@oconnor-group.com was established to provide a continuous
conduit for the residents - and a website, now being designed, will be implemented soon.
That input has been critical in the evolution of the space to the co~cept designs
incorporated in this submrLtal. The inrtial responses are included in this submittal - and
became the direct impetus for the use distribution as shown.
We propose no use not presently allowed by right in the present RB-D zoning: dwelling
units, restaurant(sj and taverns, offices, medical and dental, recreational or athletic
facilities, and essential goods and services to the local community. Some variances to
certain of the zoning restrict'rons are to be sought via this process in order to
accommodate the whole. They are addressed elsewhere in this submittal - and it is noted
that this particular zone district, RB-D, is unique to this particular area. Variances sought
here will have no impact elsewhere as this is the sole incidence of RB-D zoning in the City.
While it remains our intent, and mandate, to achieve 20% affordable units in the complex
- we have no further details to share at this early stage as to how it will tre accomplished
or its distribution. We continue to seek the council of the City staff with this ~egard.
The wetlands mitigation was ostensibly, and to the best of our knowledge, accomplished
several years ago, We continue to work with Alan Taylor of the City in seeking clarification
and affirmation of the earlier Corps of Engineers certification.
We fully intend to implement a complete traffic plan and study - and have met with Pu61ic
Works and Traffic Planning on a preliminary basis toward this end. We continue to search
for both Public end Private alternative modes in mitigation of potential impacts from our
development. It is here noted that the mixed-use concept does much to ameliorate
parking generation in the ability to share spaces - and the extended times of use as
apposed to single use developments.
We thank Staff and the Planning Board for their advice and consideration of this proposal
for Concept Review.
on this date.
~/ ~" \ - ~
I-i'~lflk Mclt'C2~iL1, dirHCtor of devclc7pmenC
GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT
(GUNBARREL SQUARE)
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOOKOUT ROAD AND GUNPARK DRIVE, BOULDER COLORADO
O~CONNOR DEVELOPMENT, LLC
FAURI
ARCHITECTS
Ptanni~g
Archife~:tt~x~~
~fi~£'Pf0!' ~E'S'i~fl
801 MniN SieEEi k300
~ouisauF, co sooz~
iEC 303.673.9304
Fnz: 303.673.9319
WWW.HFAPC.COM
PRELIMINARY SITE ANALYSIS - 08106/Ol
SITE AREA = 307,772 SF = 7.065 acrest (Existing Office Site = 73,975 SF = 1.698 acres, not included in summaries)
EXISTING ZONING = RB-D REGIONAL BUSINESS - DEVELOPING
Parking Summary
Proposed Parkina Areas: Potential Additional Parkin~ Areas:
120-140 Streets - (Main & Market - Private)
220-240 NE Lot (Partially Under Building)
150•170 SE Lot (Partially Under Building)
0-15 Connection Below Market Street
10-30 Employee/Service Areas
25-30 South Lot
0-50 Under Southwest Building
0-95 Under Grocery Store (for Office above)
525-800 Potential Parking Spaces (total site)
(75-85) Reqd. for Existing Office/Bank (shared)
450-720 Parking Available for Redevelopment
Floor Area Summary
20-25 Under Southwest Service Area
40-45 Under Southwest Plaza Area
40-45 Under Market Street
100-120 Under Main Street
200-235 (higher cost structured parking)
Potential Parking Outside Development:
40-60 Spaces added on Gunpark Drive
50-70 Spaces if Texaco is removed
Required Parking
Proposed Gross BuildinQ Areas:
(note: 30,000 sf exstg. offc. excluded)
30,000 SF Grocery
80,000 SF Commercial (Retail/Office Footprint)
Add for 25% Restaurant SF
10,000 SF Heahh Club (3rd level w/pool)
20,000 SF Medical Clinic w/Med./Dental Ofcs.
60,000 SF Office Above Grocery
200,000 SF Subtotal - Non-Residential
Residential Alt. 'A'
75,000 SF NE - 3 Floors Residential = 60 units
84,000 SF SE - 3 Floors Residential = 70 units
10,000 SF 8 Townhomes on Gunpark Drive
169,000 SF Subtotal - Residential Alt. `A'
369,000 SF Total - Residential and Comm. (A)
Residential Alt. 'B'(addl. affordablel
75,000 SF NE - 3 floors Residential = 84 units
84,000 SF SE - 3 Floors Residential = 84 units
10,000 SF 8 Townhomes on Gunpark Drive
169,000 SF Subtotal - Residential Alt'B'
369,000 SF Total - Residential and Comm. (B)
VA520J2V~oaAPHOf~NEi~2400p~ojA0065\general~slCesumSa.doc
;~--
i _.
~
~,.
Per Standard Parking Guidelines Per City Standards w120% Pkg. Reduction Per Current Zoni~ - Based on Height
@ 55' ht: 20°l0 open space = 61,554 SF
~5/1000 SF - Gracery
@2.5/1000 SF - Commercial
(approx. 4x comml. reqmtJ
@2.5/1000 SF - Commercial
Q2.5l1000 SF - Medical
Q2.5l1000 SF Commercial
130 units + 8 townhomes
32 units Q 1 BR
66 units Q 26R
32 units Q 3BR
8 units Q 36R
FAR = 1.20 +/-
168 units + 8 townhomes
=150 Spaces
=200 Spaces
=150 Spaces
= 25 Spaces
= 50 5paces
=150 Spaces
725 Spaces
= 32 Spaces
=100 Spaces
= 64 Spaces
= 16 Spaces
212 Spaces
937 Spaces
(36LLUs) 76 units Q 1 BR. = 76 Spaces
66 units C~3 26R. =100 Spaces
26 units C~ 36R. = 52 Spaces
8 units Q 3BR. = 16 Spaces
244 Spaces
FAR = 1.20 +/• 969 Spaces
I
1
@2.5/1000 SF - Grocery
@2.0/1000 SF - Commercial
(approx. 4x comml. reqmt.)
@2.0/1000 SF - Commercial
@2.0/1000 SF - Medical
Q2.0I1000 SF Commercial
=75 Spaces
=160 Spaces
=120 Spaces
= 20 Spaces
= 40 Spaces
=120 Spaces
535 Spaces
Compliance w(fitle 9 Land Use Variance Request
Min. Lot Area = 1,200 sf None
Off Street Parking Reqd. (see below) 20°/o Reduction
Min. Open Space per Dwelling Unit
=1,200 SF See below
Min. Front Yard Landscaped Setback = 20' None
Min. Side Yard LS. Setback (streetl = 20' None
Min. Side Yard Setback (interior) = 20' None
Min. Rear Yard Setback = 45' None
Min. Principal St. Setback = 65CL' or 25'LL None
Max. Ht. = 35', 55' by Site Review only 55' by Site Review
(note - it is assumed that there are no
internal lot lines within development)
Open Space Requirements
Plazas, Dec'KS, Park, & PedesYrian areas
as well as landscaped setbacks for non-
residential uses for entire site :
Open Space provided=approx. 40,OOOsf
20 % reduction = 26 Spaces
20 °/o reduction = 80 Spaces
20 % reduction = 51 Spaces
no reduction = 16 Spaces
173 Spaces
708 Spaces
20 °/o reduction = 61 Spaces
20 % reduction = 80 Spaces
20 % reduction = 42 Spaces
no reduction = 16 Spaces
199 Spaces
734 Spaces
I~II
Basetl on Residential Open 5pace repd.
38,400 SF
79,200 SF
38,400 SF
9,600 Sf
165,600 SF Reqd. (Alt. A) = 5A% of Site
91,200 SF
79,200 SF
31,200 SF
9,600 SF
211,200 SF Reqd. (Alt B) = 69%a of Site
- II
= 65% of reqd.
provided
= 24% of reqd.
provitled
= 19% of reqd.
provided
~
~
;i
~
., i
~ '.
I ~
J i
~ \
1 (
, ~
I
I
~
~+
i
yooKour R~
; ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~.
E.y~S ~
_ __ ~ .~`~ , + ~
~
~y~, ~ 'z,~,~ ;r.~
~ K14~1'~i~ ' ~ U~[FY~.LY'~ ,;
~l/Y}Y{ ~ ~..
~ ~ .~+Y ... ~..~.~~ . •. ~~~
~~.
~~~
~!f~
.',~astuq ~ Y
rb[u uZ
~
~ I~
~
~mn~i t ~siaRY t~w -~
~~
~,
~
~~ ~ ,~
.
k;+e'X ~ ~ ti-_._/ I
.,.
~, ~ }~-~
~
~ ?~ ~
~ I
w' ~
I '~
~.
rJ" L`/\ •
~
~~
u jc~~y
m ,
j K
~~ ~ ~
p ~
~
~
~
GUNBAKREL
TOWN CENTER
o~co~~o~ oe.~iovmem c~.
~aA~~.
~tin~
I i
"~---
. . . _.. _ .J Y-- --
- ~:.~ ~ ~ ua~ ~~~ ~ ~„
~ ,~, ,~ ~ ~w ^.
~, ;
_ ;,~ , •.
",', ! ~::~ . :, ~-TS'
~ \~ , ~ (~ ~
a \ ~ (y
.. ' ..
... , '~,.,~.
-
-e
,,~
_ ,, . , - - ~-~
~ _:
~cy~a , _-~.~.. . . ~' ,
GUNBARREL
TOWN CENTER
o•co~~,o~ oe.eioo~~rm ca.
~ Namm~fi
~ Fauei
MMecn
rr4;
GUNBARREL
TOWN CENTER
o•co,.~~. o~..~ioam~~i ca.
~>,.~.... '
~. .
~r.' ~ ~~'~ .. ...
J ~ ~ ~,
-~
~
~o
mo
~~
- rn
~~ ~
~
o ~
~
Z
~
rn
`~
-~
C
~
r
---I
rn
r
~
Z
~
~
~
t-
~
~
c
1
~
~~~~ ~~~m~~ ~~~~; ~ A ~ ~
, -~ ~~~ ~~ PKK~~ GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER a~8m= ~~ ~ ~
, ~ ~~~~~~ Q~ ~~~ 0'Connor Development Co. nw w~ • n Z
xea~~ Boulder, Colorado „,~04 ~ y ~
~
-~
~
~
~
T
rn
n
~
~
Z
.
~
~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~":; ~ D>
~ "~_
u ~ g;~~~~ ~~~~- GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER ~~~m~ ~ ~ ~ `
~ - _ ~ ~~
~ ~ ac«nor uevelopme~,c co. ~ ;`,
x~R~~- Q Badder, Colorado ;;~;; ~ ~ ~ ~!„
~ I
~ ..__J' ~ L J
~~.~~~
i'
, ~ ~S
~ W
i
Y
~
i
~
1 Cws@.k~ 3'Sf~C( ~~
`~~
-----~----
J _ i~_
~
~
~
~ 1 .
i
1 l'
r .~ ~
~ A
~ ~ ~
~" ' ' ~ ~
; ( I
-~~-or
0 I I~
~ I~
"~G~,~~y
~'c :
III
I l~
t , . .,,
. ' ' , ~~
i~ -~ N .. I l
~(b r ~~~ II
~~,1~ ~ ~ ~j ~
~
~
~~ '
- °~ N ~ ~~~w~r
~ _.. _ ~ _ i.~
~
~
~
~
~~
'~ 7~
~~
~
~~~Z ~~~~~ ~~~~e ~ yy ~ ~.
Nt p ~ ~"~~~~'t~
,~ ~ q~~F~~ R.~~~• GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER W~B=N ~ ~ .~~
~~~° ~ ~~ ~~ acor~,o- oe~+eloptt~-c comp~,ny :
R~'~~~ Q4 BW~CI'~ Colorado V;~a~ € y ~ ~,,
~
~
~
`
~n
Y'
~
S 00'14Y0' E ~ - S~1A~'
_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- z,~--r,..= ~, -----
4 f I ~~ ~
5
$
n
~
Z
~"~
rn
X
--~
~
~
'0
.~
~
~~~~ ~~g~~ ~~~_; ~ A ~ ~ s;:.
e~~>
_ ~ ~,
~ ~ ~~~[~~ ~~~~ GUNBARREL TO~WN CENTER :.$• ~ ~
g • ~~ ~ `"
RtR~~~ 9 9 a~, vColoradot Ca ::~e: ~~ ~
n
~
Z
"'~
rn
X
--~
~
~
'0
,~
~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~Ar°; d A c '~k'+t..
i~ g~~~~~ ~~~~ GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER ~~~T~ ~~ °,
~~~° y R ° ~ aComoQr_ .o,~Je~v,, JC_ompany 9p~ . ~t} ~ '"k,
~`y8~~ 9 D4M7~~W .itley S Vf ~ ..~.
n ~
~ T
"5 ~
II O
N C
O ~
l J
O
Z
n
rn
~v
-~
C
~
r
cn
~
rn
~v
r
~
Z
I
D
~o
~
~
x
r-
~
~
~
~
~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~'; ~ D' ~
m=
r~ g~~~~ w~~~- GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER ~~~"' ~ ~'°
~ A
W Y8 '^ ~ ,~ ~ `Iti
~i~~~~ QQ' ~ a ~~ ~ ca ::~e. ~ ~ ~ ,,, .
____,J ~ ~ t.....~
~
i
u
0
/~
~
O
C
tl~
n
0
Z
n
rn
'v
-~
C
~
r
\/ •
•~
~
rn
'v
r
~
Z
W
+
~
~
-~':
~ ~;
~ ~.
~ N
~~
~~
z
~
~
Gr~dl,tiiR nihM
t-
4
0
y
~
B rw
~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~; ~ ~ ~ ~
V ~~~ ,~~~g- GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER :~eT~ ~~ o
~" ~~ g~i O C0~11t-10.,1~J' ~D,,EYP.~Op1Y1CJfl_t CO. e~o~ ~~ ~
R~p~~~ 09 ~l~#{!G~ Ci~aW ~• o.~ .
~ ~ I
....---„'_./ LJ
~
-~
~~
N
Q
~
0
~
~
Vf
v
V I
rn
~v
D
Z
~
_
O
v
Z
1. I
n
rn
Z
T
~
O
~1~1
T
~ I
~ _J LJ ~ i
~ ~`
~n '"
~
.~
~
i
~ ~
,~. i
i
1 _ ~sr~, ~ sa~rcf ~+4
~ ,
~~
~.
~
~'
~'
i
4
wJ
- -s amrio• c _ sn.ex•
-------,~~ ----- -----
_
i~ri
L i II~~
s -- ~-
" r - Il
i i ~i
i i ~ ~ii
' L
~ I
~ ~ i ~~
~~ ~ ~ ' "M' N ~ ~
y ' . . ~~~~ I.I
~~N~~k 3 ~ ~ I ~
: s,r
IV~r ~ ~G' , ~', E ' -.,~' I I
• !
`~ ~~$~~
~ ~ .
~
~
~
~
~
1~
i
N ~
~~ i ~~~ ~~~~' A > ~ ~_;
po ~~`~ ,~~~- GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER ~~~m' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `';
~ ~~§~°~~ n~' ~~ ac«r~or oevebanenc compai,y ~¢
RlR~~- 9 ~ BW~Ef, Calorado r:9o; ~~ ~ ;~E~.
~
~
~
/
$..fjP.$
~ ~~L
I ~
' I 1
~ ~
I Ir
~ ~ t~
I
~ I
I
I~
a~ -
~ I '~
~ I
~ I~
~ ~
~
~ I ~
~
p I I {
_ ~ ~
n IMw°_ .
~ ~ iT+~,^+T 1 ~'X~I F~ i-11+
- _ ~. ~~:..1-~ ~
~
.:.
~
~
~~
~ 1 ~
~'~ / ~
~~ f -STOf~' p.Fi~J
~. _
n
LooKotr~ K~n .
- ~ .r .~.~. ~ ~ ~ .: ~-.. ~ .-
ews ~
~
s
s y ~ ~
~ ~
Y~ ~
i
Y ~ ~
~~ ~ `,
e
.J~~
• ~,
.
T
w
!
SITE PLAN - APARTMENTS
SC'AI F~ 1" = 120' (PRC]PC]Sm SITE PLAN 1990'S - NnT APPRnVF~]1 -~ORTH
MOLLY T.~Y E R '~
Gunbarrel Town Center
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Responses from Comment l~orms
Compiled as ofJune 22, 2001
end~
The fol~owing responses were received on the hand-out comment form provided
at the June 20 meeting. `*' indicates the number of multiple responses.
1) I would like to see the following shops and services provided in this
development:
• Gourmet food and wine
• Brew Pub ***
• Bagel shop
• Private school
• Pedestrian area ***
• Natural foods/health foods ***
• Boutiques/dress shop (like Fine Lines -Niwot) **
• Pet-oriented stores
• Expanded post office ***
• Farmers market **
************
• Small food market - size of Ideal/wild Oats/Alfalfas **********
• Nice liquor store!
• Park/play area/open space *****
• good restaurant (not fast food) with outdoor seating
• Upscale Coffee shop with evening hours ***
• Good bakery or bagel shop ***
•"upscale" fast food Iike Noodles or Pressto **
• antique shop
• Beauty shop
• toy shop for children
• good card shop **
• good flower shop **
• A Conoco station
• Good deli **
• Casual dining
• Good book store
• Good drug store
• Executive suites for home-based consultants
• Library *****
• Outdoor eat(ng spots' with good views
• Bike shop
• Boston Chicken
• Small retail
• Hardware store
• Residential lofts **
• Underground parking
• Destination for families to meet
• Health club
•(small) Interpretive Center with exhibits and touring story/history of
Gunbarrel
~ Bus stop/transit center RTD-Boulder
• Good ]apanese/Asian food open for lunch and dinner
• Italian food
• Independent video rental store (not Blockbuster)
~ Root~op bar/pub
2) The design elements that I heard about in this workshop, and that I think
should be incorporated include:
• Don't duplicate the kind of shops that are already out here.
• Pedestrian/pet friendly
~ Quaint
• Outdoor/visual amenities
• Plaza with water feature *****
^ Pedestrian walkways *****
• Underground parking **
• A traffic light at Idlewilde and Lookout
• Benches/outdoor seating ***
~ Lots of flowers/greenery **
~ Changes to King Soopers??? **
• Minimum residential
• Something that will unify this neighborhood without a huge parking lot
• Nice mixed use development **
~ Playspace/park and something to interest families **
• "Cute" shops
• Open space **
• Assure there is a good grid to create connections between the development
**
• Bike and Ped access, especially from apts. To South
• Cooperation of King Soopers is key
• Stay away from "hodge podge" design
the . Traffrc mitigation
• Multi-purpose paths **
2
• Greenway with meandering trails
• Good gathering space, gardens **
• Utilize alternative energy: solar roof generators, windpower, more...
• Make this a "green-built project
• If mixed use- put the housing above the stores and make it high-end/2 to 4
stories ***
• Not another strip mall!
~ Attention to aesthetics of all store/retail fronts
• Don't make this another car magnet!
• Good attractions for night activity as weli as day/shops open at night
3) Please be sure to consider the following impacts that I would NOT want to
experience as a result of this development:
• Increased traffic on Lookout east of the Center- BIG ISSUE ******
• Strip mall design ******
• Any uses that create a regional draw. Mr. O'Connors statement about the
Farmers Market being a regional draw worried me.
• Not being able to park in this wonderful new area
• I don't want to see industrial park design (look at where green dots are on
photos)
• Office space, warehouses, etc. ****
• Any business that requires employees to work 8-5 wiil add to the east-west
traffic problems
• Bright lights **
• Noise ***
• No apartments/condos
• Big box stores ***
• No height exceptions. Stay within what is allowed
• I assume there will need to be more traffic lights or we will not be able to get
out on Lookout Rd.
• No huge parking lot ***
• No chain stores with huge parking lot **
• No gas station **
• No fast food ***
• No Increases density
• No Increased job growth
• Need commitment that improvements will be made to improve infrastructure
• Trash concerns
• No connection from one shopping area to another
• No overcrowding of roads
• I drive into town all of the time because the Gunbarrei Center has little to
offer for food and groceries.
3
No more vacant (building/retaif) spaces
If King Soopers does not expand or improve, they will eventually lose
business and this will hurt your development.
This area sufFers from 1960-1970's planned development. Isolated "blocks in
the landscape" on the proposed site plan are a maior disappointment =
vacuous open space. No matter how pretty in plan, rarely works.
4) Please keep me informed as you proceed with the planning. I most
frequently get information about community interests from:
The Boulder Daily Camera SO mailed postcard _14_
Neighborhood newsletter _8_ Other: website/email
5) I have a specific question and would like staff to follow up with me:
^ Lana Wellington 303-530-9559 "Thank you for this meeting and future ones in
which you wil/ inform us I know that if we object to anything you wi// hear us!"
^ Mike and Diane Assenmacher 303-527-0549 - no question
o Jenny Bailey 303-527-3200 °king Soopers needs tv p/an to meet community needs
CurrenHy terrib/e.~"
^ Melton 303-581-9710 - no question
^ TimbrockCa~,webaccess.net
a J. Haugen?Hangen? 303-444-7824
^ BarbaraMaloy -nonumber '7hvnksforgiuingusthisopportunityforinput. Tob~e
continuea!.. "
^ R. Rose 303-530-7404 - no question
^ Todd Ballantine 303-530-1882 int'ona~toddballurtine.com Ballantine Environmental
Resources °Plevse call. I wou/d /ove to he/p with the enviro site p/anning and built
green concepts Myspecia/ty is inte~pretive exhibits "
o Mark A. Karpowich 303-530-9850 "I am strong/y concerned about the eristing
businesses in Gunbarrel and wonder about the community supporting new
business "
^ Jason Barteil 303-527-1946 - no question
^ Leslie Irvine 303-527-3768 - no question
GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER
O'CONNOR DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW & COMMENT
ATTACHMENT - Visual Preference Survey
20 June 2001
Note: The 5 pages attached depict (5) 24" x 36" display boards with images
of various types of commercial and residential developments and components
of urban development. These boards were displayed at the neighborhood
meeting held on 6/20/01.
Each person in attendance was asked to take a packet of red, green, and
yellow stickers, then as they viewed each iamge, they were instructed to affix
one colored sticker to each iamge to indicate their reaction to the buildings,
spaces, uses, amenities, etc. depicted in each image.
Green = Go (or positive response)
Yellow = Neutral (or no opinion)
Red = Stop (or negative response)
The full-sized boards are available for review if desired.
In general, single-use retail, office, and housing were viewed negatively, as
were auto-oriented developments (drive-thru restaurants) etc. Traditional
(historic) mixed-use and some contemporary mixed-use (retail/office/
residential) examples received higher positive ratings than multi-use
(retail/office) developments. Generally, pedestrian-oriented streetscape,
plazas, outdoor seating, and similar amenities received positive responses.