6B - Site Review #LUR2001-00030, Holiday Drive In Theater, 4650 BroadwayCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: October 11, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: October 3, 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of a request for Site Review LCTR2001-00030 to develop 324
dwelling units and 55,164 square feet of non-residential uses at the vacant Holiday Drive-In
Theater site located at 4650 North Broadway; and, Use Review Li7R2001-00051 for art or craft
studio space, professional and technical offices, in the Studio Mews project area; and, Use
Review LUR2001-00057 for adult education facilities and vocational schools, art or craft studio
space, govemmental facilities and broadcasting and recording facilities, in the Naropa University
project area. This application requires amendment of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan
with regard to the alignment of certain streets.
Applicant: Cindy Brown, Co-Executive Director Boulder Housing Partners
Owner : Boulder Housing Partners
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Peter Pollock, Director, Planning and Devalopment Services
Bob Cole, Director, Land Use Review
Mike Randall, Planner, Case Manager
OVERVIEW:
The applicant is requesting consideration of a Site and Use Review plan for the redevelopment
of the vacant Holiday Drive-In Theater site, located north of Yarmouth Avenue, west of US36,
east of Broadway and south of Lee,Hill Drive (see Vicinity Map, Attachment B). The plan
includes the proposed location and type of affordable housing, market-rate housing, a
neighborhood park and public rights of way. The plan also includes non-residential uses such
as small personal service, restaurant, offices and art studios, and classrooms, some of which
reyuire approval through the Use Review process. Total required parking for atl proposed uses
has been met, but certain parts of the development will have reductions of 2 to 20%.
Staff finds this request to be consistent with the Development Guidelines of the North Boulder
Subcommunity Plan and with the Site and Use Review Criteria and is recommending that the
Board approve this request with conditions.
5:\PLAN\PB-ITGMSVvI EMOS\mr4650Broud.wpA ~ /
AGENDA ITEM N~ Pn e t
STATISTICS:
Application:
Project Name:
Location:
Size of Tract:
Dedicated right of way:
Dedicated parks:
Net developable area:
Site and Use Review
Holiday Drive-In Theater Redevelopment
4650 North Broadway
27.29 acres
8.31 acres
1.74 acres
17.24 acres
Zoning: MU-D (Mixed Use-Developing) 3.34 acres
Residential Use = 35 units
Non-residential= 34,164 sf
MXR-D (Mixed Density Residential-Developing) 23.95 acres
Residentiai Use = 289 units
Non-residential= 21,000 sf
BVCP designation: Mixed Use Residential and Medium Density Residential
Density Bonuses: MU-D: 0.07 FAR increase for residential development
MXR-D: Density bonus of 10 du/ac (total 20du/ac) for
providing a minimum of 35% affordable housing.
Parking: 523 on-site parking spaces are provided exceeding the required 503 spaces.
However, because of distribution and need, reductions of 2% - 20% are
indicated for some areas of the development. All streets provide curb side
parking.
Setback Variations: A significant design element throughout the project is the placement of
buildings very close to the sidewalk. Several variations are proposed which
will reduce the £ront and side yard distance between the streets and
buildings, generally these are:
Within the MU-D: A reduction of front yard from 15' to 3' for commercial
buildings near Broadway; and, a reduction from 15' to 8' for the residential
townhomes.
Within the MXR-D: A reduction of residential front yards from 15' to a
S:\PLAN\PB-ITEM S\M EM OS\mr4650Broad. wpd
AGENDA ITF.M ~ Paee 2
minimum of 6' ranging to 11'; a reduction of the front yard along Lee Hill
Road to 2' for the "flex space" classrooms.
Use Review: Two project areas of the development require approval of proposed uses:
Studio Mews - art and craft studios, and office
Naropa University - adult education and vocational schools, art and craft
studios, governmental facilities, and broadcasting studio.
Amendment to the
Right of Way Plan: The proposed alignments and connections of the proposed plan differ in
several respects from the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan and an
amendment is necessary for approval.
BACKGROUND
The North Boulder Subcommunity Plan, adopted in 1995 following an extensive public process,
outlines the City's goals and objectives for the area including this site. The Yarmouth North Area
Development Guidelines are attached as Attachment C. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
land use designation of the property is Mixed Use and Medium Density ResidentiaL The zoning is
Mixed Use-Developing and Mixed Density Residential-Developing. The property was acquired by
the Housing Authority (now called Boulder Housing Partners) for the express purpose of providing
a significant quantity of affordable housing opportunities.
In 1999 Boulder Housing Partners submitted a Concept Plan which was reviewed by the Board (see
Attachment D for comments). The Concept Plan depicted densities and uses which were not
consistent with zoning but which were determined to be consistent with the goals of the B VCP. In
arder to preserve the integrity and purposes of the proposal, several changes to the Land Use
Regulations were recommended by the Planning Board were approved by the City Council earlier
this year including a density bonus of up to 10 du/ac based on higher proportions of affordability.
The Holiday Drive-In Theatre Redevelopment Plan responds to the comments of staffand the Board
and is in compliance with the current code requiremants.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The main component of this proposal is housing, specifically an iutegrated plan of market rate and
affordable housing, with some non-residential uses. The applicant has prepared a complete
description of each element of the proposal:
SiteReview/UseReview (Planning Board Package, September 25, 2001), (8 %z x 11 booklet)
relates to all Site and Use Review criteria. (Please note that Sheet A2 is the `Block Plan"
and is a quick reference to Block #'s referred to in the documents and in this
memorandum.)
S:\PLAN\PB-ITEM S\M EM OS\mr4650Broad.wpd ~ /
ACENDA ITEM H~/~Paee 3
Site Review Submittal, (August 6, 2001, 24 x 36 plan sheets) relate to the details and layout
of the proposal.
Development Standards and Guidelines (September 26, 2001, ll x 17 booklet) relates to
the internal design, architecture, and themes of the development to be utilized by the
applicant to guide and analyze the specific design and construction proposals of builders.
(Note: These do not replace the adopted standards of the City of Boulder.)
KEY ISSUES
Are the objectives of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan being met with this proposal?
a. Neighborhood Park and greenway
b. Neighborhood scale and orientation to the street
c. Live/wark vertically and horizontally mixed officehesidential
d. Residential scale office buildings
e. Mixed density residential connected to the Park
2. Does the design conform to the Site Review criteria?
a. Open space
b. Landscaping
c. Circulation
d. Parking
e. Building design and compatibility
f. Solar access
Do the proposed non-residential uses conform to the Use Review criteria?
a. Consistent with the purpose of the MXR-D zone
b. Provides a service, transition, or fulfills a policy
c. Are compatible with nearby properties
d. Will not impact infrastructure
e. Will not change the predominant character of the area.
ANALYSIS
Major development themes:
The Site Plan includes an impressive display of traditionally designed, tree-lined streets, combined
with a vision of a human scale, close knit community featuring accessible greenways, front porches
pulled close to the street, walkable alleys, gardens, and a significant live and work neighborhood
environment. Specifically,theplanincorporatestheobjectivesoftheNorthBoulderSubcommunity
Plan (see Attachment D) by creating a very walkable neighborhood with a variety of appropriately
located housing types. The plan reinvents the traditionai alley and creates an opportunity for small
S:~PLAN~PB-ITEM S~M EMOS\mr4G508road.wpd `~
AGENDA ITEM #CKJPaee 4
studio and alley housing. The site is tightly packed with a significant amount of housing and non-
residential uses, but leaves room for a 1.7 acre park, community gardens, linear greenway along US
36 with bicycle path, and a pedestrian link through the middle.
As stated in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan "The intent for Yarmouth North is for:
• A neighborhood park and linear greenway as important neighborhood shapers and design
features ofthe area.
• Blocks with a neighbarhood scale and buildings oriented toward the street (use of alleys
wherever possible; no garages facing the street).
• Live/work units in a vertically and horizontally mixed configuration of office and residential
uses along Broadway, 13th, 14th, and Yarmouth.
• Live/work units in residential-scale office buildings, with pedestrian -interest windows, and
front doors facing the street.
• Mixed-density residential units in the remainder of the area with strong connections to the
park and the proposed Village Center."
The mixed-density residential area referred to here was what the MXR-D zoning is meant to
implement. It is also meant to "provide affordable and diverse housing, with a wide range of
dwelling types for a wide range of incomes." The MXR-D zoning district incorporates these
concepts of providing mixed-density, diverse housing types oriented toward the street. The
recommended short walkable blocks and connections to the park and village center have been
implemented in this plan.
Housing:
The Housing Authority and the City have a Memorandum of Understanding that specifies 35% of
the units will be permanently affordable. To receive the maximum MXR-D density bonus, 40% of
the units must be permanently affordable. They are proposing 289 units with 118 affordable (41 %)
on the MXR-D portion of the site, or 20 units/acre, the maximum allowable density permitted.
Within the MU-D portion of the site 35 dwellings are proposed, 19 affordable (54%). The total
number of permanently affordable units is 137 or 42%.
Boulder Housing Partners is working closely with the City Housing Division to meet the higher
HUD goal of 51% affordable to low income households. There is an ongoing review of this
requirement to determine how best to achieve this at the Drive In Theatre site. It is important to note
that Boulder Housing Partners serves very low and low income households. In contrast, private
sector developers serve low and middle income households with their permanent]y affordable
housing.
5:\PLANV'B-ITEMSVvI EM OS\mr4650Broad.wpd /~
AGENDA ITEM q~~ Paee 5
A wide variety of housing types are proposed including detached and attached homes, co-housing,
student/faculty housing for Naropa, and mixed use studio or office with residences. A mixture of
at least five different dwelling types is required in the MXR-D zone with no one type exceeding 50%
of the total. The proposed dwellings meet this requirement by providing:
• housing ~'or students, singles, £amilies
• detached, duplex, triplex, and attached row housing
• co-housing (some shared common facilities, including kitchen)
Non-Residential Uses:
The applicant proposes nonresidential uses that are permitted in the MU-D zoning district. The plan
proposes maximizing the commercia] potential ofthe MU-D portion of the site by creating a straight
50% residential / 50% non-residential mix of uses. These include office, personal service and
restaurant totaling 34,164 s£ The applicant also requests that nonresidential uses permitted by Use
Review in the MXR-D zoning district be approved at the same time as the Site Review. The uses
proposed include classroom space, professional offices and in the Naropa portion of the project, and
arts/crafts studios and professional offices in the "Studio Mews" portion of the projects. All Use
Review Criteria have been met (see Attachment G).
Parking:
The applicant is proposing a variety of parking solutions, including individual garages, parking
courts, and shared parking, with residential uses having designated spaces wherever possible.
Overall the proposal contains more than the total required parking, however, on certain blocks
parking will be reduced from 2% to 20%:
Parking: Provided Required
Entire project 523 503 + 4%
Blocks 3& 4 40 44 - 9%
Block 13 48 51 - 6%
Block 15 45 44 - 2%
Block 17 45 56 -20%
All other Blocks 372 308 +21%
Throughout the project the streets have been designed far on-street parking. The reductions are
generally located in mixed use areas where there is some shared parking between residential and
nonresidential uses. The largest reduction is for the co-housing project to be located on Block 17,
the applicant indicates that the reduction is justified because co-housing typically has a low vehicle
per household ratio, the development may include a car-sharing component, and the site is
surrounded by on-street parking. In all areas bus service is convenient with primary routes running
on Lee Hiil Road and Broadway.
S:V'LAN\PB-ITEM S\M EMOS\mr4G50Broad.wpd . /
~ ACENDA ITEM N(O~Pnec 6
Density:
The proposed residential density is within the zoning district thresholds in the MU-D (Mixed-Use
Developing) portion of the site, and that allowed in the MXR-D (Mixed Density Residential-
Developing) portion. ,
In the MU-D district density is calculated in terms of floor area not dwelling units. The maximum
FAR is 0.6:1 or 61,188 square feet oftotal floor area. Section 9-3.2-19(b)(4) sets forth the following
criteria for a FAR bonus of 0.07:
A) The added floor area is for residentia] use and residential is at least 50%.
B) At least 35% of the units are permanently affordable.
Both of the criteria have been met: The added area of 7,139 square feet is for residential, and
residential comprises 50°/o of all floor area = 34,164 sf. This area has been divided into 35 dwellings
of which 19 units (54%) are designated permanently affordable.
In the MXR-D zoned area, the density is limiYed to 10 dwelling units per net developable acre, but
may be increased to 20du/ac with an approved density bonus. Section 9-3.2-22(c) provides that a
bonus may be granted if the following criteria are met:
(1) The plan is part of a Site Review
(4) A bonus of up to 10 du/ac if at least 40% of all units are designated as permanently
affordable.
Both of these criteria have been met: The plan is part of a Site Review, and 42% of all units are
permanentlyaffordable. Thetotaldensitywithintheproposedplanis20dulac,totalnetdevelopable
acreage is 14.45, therefore the total number of dwellings is 20 x 14.45 = 289du.
Park land Dedication
The N.B.S.P. depicts a public park within the project site. Although there is no City requirement to
dedicate park land, the applicant has asked the Parks Department to waive parks fees associated with
the market rate units (permanently affordable units have an automatic waiver) in return far the
dedication of the park land. During previous reviews of the proposed park, the Parks Department
had determined that the size should be two acres in order to properly serve the projected population
of the surrounding planned and existing community.
However, due to changes in street design and location and the desire of the applicant to maintain the
greatest possible number of dwellings (in order to support their goal of providing permanently
affordable units), the overall size of the park has been reduced to 1.74 acres. The park may be
further reduced due to stormwater drainage and water quality facilities being located within the park
area. Even so, the Parks Department has expressed continued interest in the smaller park provided
that the drainage facilities do not reduce the usable area within the park to a significant degree.
S:\PLANIPB-ITEMSIW EMOS\mr4650Broad,wp~ ~ /~n
AGENDA ITEM fWL) Peec 7
The Parks Department has piaced considerable performance criteria on the park land dedication.
These criteria are expressed in the Land Use Review and Comments dated August 24, 2001, and as
Conditions of Approval far this Site Review.
Zoning Bulk Standards: reduced Setbacks
A major component of the project design is that buildings will be permitted to be placed in close
proximity to the front lot line and near the sidewalk. The applicant states that this will create
"walkable streets." The required front yard setback for the MU-D and MXR-D zones is 15 feet. The
proposed setbacks range from 2 feet along Lee Hill Road for the non-residential uses (classrooms,
office, etc. per Use Review), 3 feet for the commercial uses fronting on Broadway and Yellow Pine
and 7 to I S feet for most residential uses in the project. ,
A reduced setback is also proposed for garages, however, no garage is accessible directly from the
street (no curb cuts for driveways), all are accessed from shared parking areas or alleys. Placing the
side of some garages close to the street provides screening of the parking lots. Because there are
very few driveways in the project, there is a great deai of curb side parking.
Traffic and Transportation Demand Management
It is expected that due to the primarily residential nature of the development and the emphasis on
alternative transportation options available that the vehicular traffic generated by this site will be
easily handled by the existing surrounding streets and the on-site streets proposed by this plan. No
widening other than that on Broadway stipulated by the NOBO plan is required. Signalization of the
Yarmouth and Broadway intersection will not be warranted by traffic specifically generated by this
development, however it is expected with the build out of sites along Yarmouth that this intersection
may eventually require signalization.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies for this development include:
1) Two transit stops
2) Neighborhood EcoPass program for residents
3) Eco-passes for on-site employees
4) Bicycle/pedestrian paths as shown on the North Boulder Subcommunity (NOBO) Plan
5) Connections within the site to the bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure along Broadway,
Yarmouth, Lee Hill Road and US 36
These TDM strategies are appropriate for this site to address the objectives ofthe NOBO plan, which
include diverting single passenger vehicle trips to othermodes. The SKIP and RTD 204 transit routes
directly serve this site. The transit stop improvements will make these routes more user-friendly, and
Eco-passes will the regular use of these routes easy and inexpensive. The bike and pedestrian
improvements will not only consist oF a piece of a new corridor, it will also connect this site to the
S:\PLAN\PB-[TEMS\MEMOS\mr4650Broad.wpd - /p
AGENDA ITEM iNOC,Paee S
extensive bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that is already in place surrounding the site.
Amendment to the Right-of-way Plan
~
The planned configuration of streets within the North Boulder Subcommunity were determined by
the prior adoption of the Right-of-way Plan. The planned grid system of streets was intended to
provide extensive connectivity between the various parts of the neighborhood plan. However, to
actually implement the grid on the subject site there were a number of impediments (primarily
ownership) to aligning streets precisely as depicted in the Right-of-way Plan. The applicant and staff
have worked together to conform the site plan as closely as possible. Changes to the adopted Right-
of-way Plan require approval of the Planning Board (see Attachment E). The following
amendments to the Right-of-way Plan were determined to be feasible:
• Yaupon is unable to continue through to Broadway
• Yellowpine will provide the connection to Broadway
• The dedicated public park will be bordered by a circular drive (reminiscent of the
former drive-in theater).
• North-south streets will connect to the existing network of streets but only 14'h will
provide a direct connection between Yarmouth and Lee Hill Road.
• There is more emphasis on a`diagonal' pedestrian connection between the park,
"Studio Mews," and the community gardens necessitating some revision of the north-
south grid.
The staff has determined that the requested amendments are consistent with the goals and intent of
the North Boulder SubcommunityPlan, provide good connectivitywithin the proposed development
and with the existing network of streets, and that the proposed development provides strong
pedestrian and bike oonnections and alleys throughout as requirad in the N.B.S.P. Development
Guidelines.
Site Review Criteria
Tl~e staff has completed an analysis of the Site Review Criteria and determined that the proposed
project meets or exceeds the critaria. Please refer to Attachment F.
Use Review Criteria
The Studio Mews project is situated in the heart of the development and it is intended that the
residences be combined with art and craft studios or professional/technical offices. The buildings
are arranged along a pedestrian paseo creating a varywalkable environment between the public park
and the community gardens. It is anticipated that the project will attract a creative community of
artists, sculptors, architects, etc., and mature into a very eclectic and unique neighborhood. The staff
S:\P LAN\PB-ITEM S~N( EMOS\mr4G508road.wpd /
AGENDA ITEM WO~Poee 9
has completed an analysis ofthe Use Review Criteria and determined that the proposed proj ect meets
the criteria. Please refer to Attachment G.
The Naropa University project is situated along the south side of Lee Hil] Road. It is at the edge
of the road that the project proposes "flex space" which may be use for adult education facilities and
vocational schools, office, art or craft studio space, governmental facilities and broadcasting and
recording facilities. The 68 residential units are intended for the faculty and students of the
University. The residences are arranged in nine buildings and each building will have a flex space
of 750 to 1000 square feet.
It is the intention of the applicant to provide a uniyue living arrangement for the faculty and students
ofNaropa University and to incorporate this population with the other residential components of the
site including singles, family, studios, mixed use, and co-housing. It is expected that the use will
have very little impact on the development and possibly will bring classes, studios, fitness, and other
opportunities to the individuals and families of the entire project. However, there is little or no
information on the operating characteristics ofthe space on which to measure impacts. For example
it is tiuknown how much usage will come from the other campus locations, other community use,
hours. There is no information at all concerning the types of governmental use or broadcasting
studio. The applicant has not provided specific information about the number of persons utilizing
the space or of the anticipated travel patterns of the users.
The Use Review Criteria (refer to Attachment H) have not been completely satisfied. It is necessary
that the applicant submit additional information regarding the operational characteristics of the
proposed uses on which to base possible impacts or mitigation ofimpacts on the adjacent residential
area.
Development Review Committee comments
Based on the latest revisions, DRC comments were issued to the applicant on August 24, 2001 (see
Attachment I). ~
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
The owners of all property located within 600 feet were notified by mail of the applications and the
property was posted with signs. The Planning Board agenda was published in the Daily Camera.
Very little written public comment has been received (see Attachment J).
The applicant conducted an extensive public input campaign beginning in September,1998. Boulder
Housing Partners went to great lengths to find out how the project could be a success far the
neighborhood as well as the applicant and the city as a whole. On March 13, 2001, an Open House
was conducted by Boulder Housing Partners giving the public an opportunity to see and comment
on the site and plan and building character for the Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopment. A
newsletter is sent semi-monthly describing the progress of the project, the latest issue was sent out
prior to this hearing.
S:\PLANV'B dTEMSVvt EM OS\mr4G50Broad. wpd /p
AGENDA ITEM H///C'paee 10
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The following proposals are consistent with the objectives ofthe North Boulder Subcommunity Plan
and conforms to the Site,and Use Review criteria. Staffrecommends that the Planning Board adopt
this memorandum as findings of fact and approve:
1) Site Review LUR2001-00030 with the requested setback reductions, distribution of
parking, 0.07 FAR bonus in the MU-D, density bonus of 10 du/ac in the MXR-D;
and,
2) Use Review LUR2001-00051; and,
3) Right-of-way alignments as indicated on the site plan,
in accordance with the Recommended Conditions of Approval indicated in Attachment A.
The staff has informed the applicant of the need for additional information for the proposed Naropa
University Use Review (LUR2001-00057) and requests that the hearing on this matter be continued.
Approvad By:
eter Pollock, Director
Planning and Development Services
S:\PLAN\PH-ITEM SN~IBMOS\mr4650Broad.wpd ~~p
AGEIVDA ITF.M #~CJPaec l l
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Recommended Conditions of Approval
Attachment B: ' Vicinity Map
Attachment C: North Boulder Subcommunity Plan - Yarmouth North Area
Attachment D: 1499 Planning Board Concept Review Comments
Attachment E: Amendment Process for North Boulder Subcommunity Right-of-
way Plan
Attachment F: Site Review Criteria
Attachment G: Use Review Criteria - Studio Mews
Attachment H: Use Review Criteria - Naropa University
Attachment I: Development Review Committee comments, dated August 24,
2001
Attachment J: Correspondence
Attachment K: Applicant's Submittal:
- Site Review Resubmittal (August 6`~, 2001), (8 '/z x 11 booklet)
relates to all Site Review criteria.
- Site Review Plans, (August 6, 2001, 24 x 36 plan sheets) relate
to the details and layout of the proposal.
- Development Standards and Guidelines (May 21, 2001), (11 x
17 booklet) relates to the internal architecture and theme of the
development.
S:\PLAN\PB-ITEM SVNEMOS\mr4650Broacl.wpd .
~ AGENDA 1TEM # Pa e 12
ATTACHMENT A
Recommended Conditions of Approval
LUR2001-00030
Description: SITE AND USE REVIEW: Proposed mixed use development on 27
acres including: 324 units (137 permanently affordable); 55,164 square
feet of non-residential (personal service, office, classrooms, studios,
etc); and a 1.7 acre park.
The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans dated August 6, 2001, and with the Land Use
Review Results and Comments dated August 24, 2001, on file in the City of Boulder
Planning Department except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. For Use Reviews LUR2001-00051 and LUR2001-00057, the Applicant shall be
responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved
plans dated August 15, 2001, and September 17, 2001, respectively, and on file in the
City of Boulder Planning Department.
3. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the uses approved through the Use Review,
except pursuant to Subsection 9-4-9(g), B.R.C. 1981.
4. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall subdivide the property in
accordance with Chapter 9-5, B.R.C. 1981. Additional requirements not presently
identified may be required during the subdivision process.
5. Priar to application for a building permit the Applicant shall submit the following items,
subject to tha review and approval of the City Manager, for Technical Document
Review:
a. Final site plan for each phase of the project.
b. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with
the intant of this approval. The architectural intent shown on the approved plans
and in the written statement is acceptable, but is primarily intended to indicate an
acceptabie quality of development. Planning staff will review plans to assure a
comparable level of quality, but architectural style may vary.
c. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and
proposed; type and quality of non-]iving landscaping materials; any site grading
proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this
approval and the City's landscaping requiremants.
Ap~nd9lbmt ~'~ Pegei_/3 -
d. A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units,
showing compliance with Section 9-3.3-17, B.R.C. 1981.
6. Prior to application for a building permit the Applicant shall submit the following items,
subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works, for Technical
Document Review:
a. Fina] engineering plans and reports meeting all requirements of the Design and
Construction Standards (DCS) and Boulder Revised Code, 1981, and the Land
Use Review Results and Comments dated August 24, 2001. If elements of the
approved Land Use Review preclude the development of plans meeting these
requirements, the applicant shall be required to modify the Land Use Review
approval through the appropriate city review process. The Construction Plan set
shall include the following plan sheets and reports:
i. A Final Utility Report.
ii. Utility Plans and Profiles.
iii. 3tormwater Plans and Profiles including an Erosion Control Plan.
iv. A Final Stormwater Report.
v. Street Plans and Profiles.
vi. A maintenance plan for all proposed stormwater quality features.
b. Prior to building permit application, the Applicant shall obtain the necessary
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Access Permit for access onto
North Broadway.
a The Applicant shall convey drainage in an historical manner and which does not
adversely affect adjacent properties.
The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance of all stormwater quality facilities
located in the public right-of-way, unless an altemative agreement in approved by the
City Manager. The applicant shall remove facilities at their own expense if so requested
by the City Manager.
8. Prior to application far building permits the Applicant shall submit the following for the
review and approval of the Public Works Department:
a. A detailed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that demonstrates a
practicable and beneficial shift away from single occupant vehicle use through the
use of transportation demand management techniques, including an ongoing
neighbarhood transit pass program for residents of the development.
Agenda I~em t ~~ Page # /'~
b. A financial security to guarantee the initial operation of the RTD transit pass
program for the benefit of all employees within the development. The guarantee
shall be in an amount not to exceed $11,000 to cover program operations for no
less than three yeazs for each unit or building constructed. The Applicant shall
pay any amount above the amount provided in the guarantees required to ensure
operation of the RTD transit pass program for the benefit of all employees within
the development for three yeazs.
9. Prior to requesting a final inspection on any building permit, the Applicant shall
construct two bus shelters each consisting of a concrete pad, shelter, trash can, bike rack,
and bench. The location of these shelters, and maintenance arrangements, shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works.
10. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City in fee,
parkland located at 14th Street and Yellow Pine Avenue, at no cost, and on terms and of a
size and location acceptable to the City Manager. Prior to approval of the Final
Subdivision Plat and dedication of the parkland the Applicant shall submit for the review
and approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation the following:
a. One (1) additional set of all drawings that include storxnwater detention and
stormwater quality facilities located on property to be dedicated to the city Parks
and Recreation Department. No stormwater improvements shall be located in the
Park unless designed in accordance with the Land Use Review and Comments
dated August 24, 2001, approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
b. The Applicant shall submit a plan that addresses all routine and long term
maintenance of stormwater quality facilities located on any public property
dedicated to the City as part of the approval.
1 L If stormwater improvements are approved to be located in the Park, the Applicant shall be
responsible for all:
a. Routine and long term maintenance of stormwater detention and stormwater
quality facilities located in the park. Maintenanca and restoration shall be
performed in a manner acceptable to the Director of Parks and Recreation.
b. Construction costs related to stormwater facilities and any additional park
development costs which may result from the concurrent use of the park area as a
stormwater facility.
c. Any damage to park elements due to the presence of the stormwater features
including replacement, repair or re-construction, and language to this effect must
be included in the covenants received by each future owner within the
development.
Agendaltemt ~~, Page~ ~•~.__
HOLIDAY DRIVE IN THEATRE REDEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT B
/ \ 1" = 1200'
~~~~
N
MapLink
Clty of Boulder GIS
TLe informaion depaud on Jus iwp ie
procided m RnPlucil repreeein~ion only.
Th<Gp~ o( Baulder prorida no avramp~~
evwe~ud o. implird, n m iM umnv).
and/orcoinplemnesso(ihr mlormauon
onnined h~rcan
~- a
~
~
w
Q
(~
~
~
~
Y~rmoutl~ NorIL Land Usc Concept 3'ru•~irnritle Nnrtlr Arerr
7'his are~ is bordered by US 3(, Yarmouth,
Lce I lill Rd. and 13roadw~~y. A suhst.uvial
l.ee I lill lioud
amount of !he nrea is currently zoncd
I'ransitional 13usiness llevelopiug (ff3-U); tl~e
t~~, parcels a~ 1'annaulh and I3roadway, which
'f6 wiil hecume part of ~he Village Cculer, tu'e
.: ;,~,o zonud Induslrial (I-C). While itjrge portions
of the area are vucant, existing uses include..
, _ some inclustrial uses, the National Guard
\. ~ I ~ I rnnuuuw
y~ ;~ Armory (planned ti~r rclocatiou), a gas sta-
<~ ~ m tion, scvcrul residential slruclures and thc nuw
_ _ _ ~ _
_ ab~ndoned and vacant 35-acre drive-in Ihe-
^ Mixed-denvty K'~1 Itciad.Ollicq ItniJeniiul
ItcsiAcmiul ~:d IRllagc('anc~)
~ un~~a u~,~a.~n~ei r.,,~i~«<~~w,y
~ <s, ~~
%his dinbrnni suntntm'izes d~c conrniuuily dca~igii iufeut (u' ll~e
Yt~rnrntuL Nor'N+ rvau. 7be sotuhtveoY corr~ei• rJ die rven
(includiqg UrontArnY fn I ad~ SYree( nord~ ~ f}irirnnruG) is paiY
ojdie pmExued Vi!luge Cenler (ree p1 hJ.
ater. "Phe xrea is within walking distnnce of
Ihe lidure Viliage Cenler and l6e US 3(, and
13roadw;ry transil con~idors. I[ is slrltegically
laaded lo li~ster closer conncclions among
home, work, shopping and recrcalion. II'
designed well, with honsing and ol7ices oF
wixed dansities and types, a highcr share of
Iravel 6y allernalive modes coulJ be achicved
~ ~~r «~nnm~ur ~voroi ne~gnaornnan u~ iu~me<7ia~eq~ i~orlp <J U~e pi~oynsed 1 i!laga Cc~uer. %he l3~h Srree~ Grevcle/
pedestrinn corridor sAould ex(ei~d ~hrougi~ ~he V'ilingc CwVer tu this iir.igi~Anrlmnd. A neigbborGnod Jxu~k s1iould be
/ocmed in t{~e ceirtrn( prml ~f d~ir aren. aud a/inenr lnndsa~ye Gu(fer siioidJ er~enJ alnng US 36 !o eon~inere !he
gn(e~vny concepl fi~om lhe nor~h envnnce ~01/ic Ci1~e
~Zl
N.P.S.P. P.e~~ri~~tcriAitgttst2001
~
~3
y
~
~
z
~
ATTACHMENT D
MEMORANDUM
October 20, 1999
TO: Cindy Brown, Applicant
FROM: Margaret Doherty, Case Manager
SUBJECT: Drive-In Theater Concept Plan Planning Board Summary
This memorandum shall act as a summary of the Planning Board's comments regarding your
application for Concept Plan as presented to the Development Review Committee and at the
Planning Board public hearing held October 7, 1999. Following is a suminary of Planning
Boazd's comments, in no particular order:
Prepare a transportation analysis for the site so that a decision can be made regazding
parking reductions and increased densiry, develop innovative ways to restrict the number
of cars for some of the uses, and consider a road surface that would be more permeabla.
- Any uses presently not allowed in the MU-D zone permitted on this site should be
allowed wherever land is zoned MiJ-D to provide fairness and consistency. Interested in
limiting the floor area of each use. If the costs of allowing more non-residential uses,
such as more jobs and traffic, are too high, then maybe we would not support them, but if
the affordability rewards are high enough, then maybe ...
~ Provide more market units to subsidize the affordable housing units rather than more
commercial development.
~ Provide some flexibility for appropriate small-scale shops for the immediate community.
Restrictin; the size of the commercial development on the site for a community use
would not conflict with the planned nearby Village Center.
~ Review the difference in costs of creating living and commercial space side by side rather
than above and below. Focus on users of the space to ensure that more traffic is.not
brought into the site than is necessary.
~ Consider a deed restriction on the residential units that requires owners to work in the
City of Boulder. If increased density is allowed, the deed restriction would ensure an
extraordinary benefit to the community by limiting traffic impacts.
~ Ensure that the applicant provides Ecopasses for the neighborhood and open space
requirements/proposed and addresses any impacts this neighborhood will have on the
schools.
~ Consider noise abatement for the project along Broadway.
Agenda I-em # ~ ~ Page ~ ~
~
j ATTACHMENT E
AMENbMEVT PROCESS FOR NOR'I`H BOUT_.1_~FR SL~3COMM 1NIT~'
$IGHT-OF-W.qY PLAN
1. Amendmenc to the Norrh Boulder Right-of-Way Plan (shown in the Vor~h Boulder
Subcommuniry Plan and Ordinance # 574i7 is required for:
A. DeIetion of any sffeet, or portion thereof, or in~rsection on rhe PIan.
B. Addition of any str~e:s not c:eace3 as part of a subdivision or annexarion.
C. Relocation of:oadwaqs more than SO fe:t in any direc:ion.
D. Deie:ion oi arv c:aii or oedestrian connecrion.
E. Re!ocation of c~ail and pedestrian routes if connecrion poinu a:e chanQed.
F. Relocarion or reconn;urauon of any inte:secson unless such reioca~ion is parc
oi rhe movemeac of a roadway Iess rhan ~0 feet that is dece.~nined, pursuant to
4. A. be:ow, not to consticute an amendment.
G. Esrablishmeat oi de:ined roadway systems where concepcual road Iocadons are
now depic:ed uniess estabiished pursuant to B. above.
H. ReroutinQ of Four.nile Canyon and Wonderiand Creek drai~ges oche: than as
shown in the Plan.
I. Relocation oi ~oadways rhat have the eiiect of changine rhe basic incent of che
Plan or modi"rying r.he Plan's goals.
2. Addirion of bike paths and pedesman connections, which aze not inconsistent with rhe
Plan s~oals and intent as idenufed in the tiorth Boulde: Subcommuniry Plan. shall noc
be considered ameadmears co the Plan.
3. If stafi decemunes rhat a Plan amendmeat is required, applicant has rhe oopominiry to
appeal the dece.Rnination to the Policy Resolution Grouo (PRG), to modiiy the
proposal, or to proceed wirh an amendmeat request. To request an amendment, rhe
applicant submiu a lese: co the city requesting a Plan amendmenc. •
Agenda Ilem i~ Page #/ v
~ ,.
4. If the applicant appeals staff's decerminarion that a Plan amendment is required, the
PRG would discuss, debate, and determine if the proposal is consistent with the Plan or
if an amendment to the Plan is required. Then,
A. If the PRG finds the proposal is consistent with the Plan, and no amendment is
required, no Planning Board or Ciry Council review is required.
B. If the PRG finds ~at Plan amendment is required, the staff develops written
findings in suoport or opposirion to the proposed amendmea[ based upon c~e
goals and inteat as listed in the Norch Boulder Subcommuniry Pian, and
forwards its commeau to Planning Board for review, as described in 6. below.
5. Ameadne^.u to the Plan will be considered by the Plannin; Board at a nouced public
hea::a; and the Board wul make a decision, subject to call-ap b;r u`:e C:ry Council.
Ameadmeau to the Plan ~ust still be consisient with rhe Plan's intent and eoals as
ideati~ied in the North Boulder Subcommuniry Plan. ~
o. Srafr will prepare a repor and desc:iprion oi the Plannin~ Board acrion and sead it to
Ciry Council in Council's weekly non-agenda iniormauon packec. Council will decide
wne:ae: co place the item on iu a,enda. If Council does not, the Plannin; Board
decsion will be considered final.
Agenda 16em # ~ ~ Page # ~L
ATTACHMENT F
SITE REVIEW
General Criteria
No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that:
Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan:
X The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed Holiday Drive In Redevelopment Plan is consistent and puts
in place a development as envisioned by the BVCP, specifically the North Boulder
Subcommunity Plan. The Holiday Plan includes a high ratio of affordable housing,
mixed use thaf is balanced with the communify, and open space.
X The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density
associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use
designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within
a 300 foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the
Boulder Valiey Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the
site shall not exceed the lesser of:
(i) the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
(ii) the maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or
varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk
Requirements," B.R.C. 1981.
Site Desiqn: It utilizes site design techniques which enhance the quality of the
project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will
consider the following factors:
A. Open space, including without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and
playgrounds:
X 1. Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional;
Alfhough the open on private residenfial lots is small, the site plan
provides extensive open space throughout fhe development with a formal park,
community gardens, and other amenities.
X 2. Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit;
Private open space is provided for every dwelling in the proposal.
X 3. The project provides for the preservation of natural features,
including without limitation healthy long-lived trees, terrain, and
drainage areas; The site has no natural features or healthy trees.
l~qenda Ibem 3 l~~ Page H~!
X 4. The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the
project and from surrounding development;
There is only a small amount of adjacent development which is
within the range of density as that proposed on-site. The public park area is designed
to be of benefit to residents both in the surrounding community and on-site.
X 5. If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
To the exfent fhat such links are depicted in the N.B.S.P. all are
provided including the trail along US 36 and on street paths.
B. Landscapinq:
X 1. The project provides for a variety of plant and hard surface
materials, and the selection of materials provides a variety of colors
and contrasts; As proposed the project will feature landscaping
materials unique within each phase of development. There will be
heavy emphasis on streetscape since many builidings will have
minimal setback. Materials will be subject to Technical Document
Review prior to issuance of Building Permits.
X 2. The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in
excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2 and 9-
3.3-3, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements," and
"Landscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and
The "Sfandards and Guidelines" for Site Design as defined in the
applicanf's plan indicate thaf amounts of plant materials "exceed
the city landscape standards by 20%. ". The quantity of materials
will be subject to Technical Documenf Revie.w prior to issuance of
Building Permits.
X 3. The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-
of-way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to
enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the
development of an attractive site plan.
As proposed the projecf will feafure landscaping maferials with a
heavy emphasis on streetscape since many buildings will have
minimal setback. Materials will be subject to Technical Document
Review prior to issuance of Building Permits.
C. Circulation, including without limitation the transportation system that serves the
property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the
developer or not:
X 1. High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between
streets and the project is provided; The streef network emphasizes
connectedness within the communify buf the streefs are two-lane
with curb side parking and short lengths along each block. This
Agenda Item A ~~ Page # ~..._
design is nof conducive fo high speeds but rafher a more low speed
and neighborly local/ped/bike type of environment.
X 2. Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized;
All streets are fully accessible by all modes of tra~c and pedestrian
ways are formed throughout the community to encourage walking
or biking. Streets are narrow enough to discourage high speeds
along short blocks.
X 3. Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the
project and between the project and existing and proposed
transportation systems are provided, including without limitation
streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails;
All streets are fully accessible by all modes of traffic and pedesfrian
ways are formed throughouf the community to encourage walking
or biking.
X 4. On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes
of transportation, where applicable;
The development is required to facilitate all modes and has good
connections to Bus/Bike and Ped.
X 5. The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized;
The street sysfem proposed is in accordance with the guidelines of
fhe North Boulder Subcommunity Plan and takes the form of a grid
paftern of short blocks. This pattern is more conducive to
pedestrian access and creates a more intimate streetscape.
X 6. The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including
without limitation automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and
provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise
and exhaust; and
All streets are fully accessible by all modes of traffic and pedestrian
ways are formed throughout the community to encourage walking
or biking.
X 7. City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is
facilitated.
All standards have been met.
D. Parkina:
X 1. The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures
to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian
movements from vehicular movements;
Because the blocks are small, development within each block
features very small parking areas which generally meet the
Agend9ltem B ~O~ Page # ~_L
minimum requirement. Ample street curbside parking facilitates
convenience and a more urban feel to fhe community.
X 2. The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and
uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking
needs of the project;
Because the blocks are small, development within each block
features very smaii parking areas.
X 3. Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact
on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and
The projecYs guidelines provide for a minimum of light pollution with
light fixtures proporfional to the size of the parking area and height
of surrounding buildings.
X 4. Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in
excess of the requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area
Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981.
All parking areas will be landscaped to the maximum area and
materials possible within the scope of fhe project's guidelines.
E. Buildinq Desiqn, Livabilitv, and Relationship to the Existinq or Proposed
Surroundinq Area:
X 1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are
compatible with the existing character of the area or the character
established by an adopted plan for the area;
The plan fully complies with the character envisioned by fhe
adopted North Boulder Subcommunity Plan
X 2. The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of
existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of
approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area;
Height complies with that permitted by the zoning disfricts, The
heighf of new buildings within the project will have no impact on
surrounding buildings.
X 3. The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of
views from adjacent properties;
The orientation of new buildings within the project will have no
impact on surrounding buildings.
X 4. If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made
compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping,
signs, and lighting;
Agendaf~mE ~O~ Page#.~
There is no discernable character within the area, existing
developmenf will be compatible wifh the proposed designs of new
buildings.
X 5. Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate
architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian
scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians.
The developmenf will rely heavily on a strong streetscape, very
shallow setbacks and unique architecture quality to create an active
street environment for pedestrians.
X 6. To the extent practical, the project provides public
amenities and planned public facilities; All amenities
described in the NBSP have been provided in the
proposed plan including: public park (1.7 acres), bike
route and "Gateway" along US36, community gardens,
and a very high ratio of affordable housing.
X 7. For residential projects, the project assists the community in
producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family,
townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot
sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; There is a very
~ wide variety of housing types and affordability proposed. Although
predominantly traditional family housing (atfached and detached),
the project also includes co-housing, sfudenbfaculty housing, mixed
use (residential over commercial) and other opportunities for unique
housing needs.
X 8. .For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between
buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources
through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; The greatesf
source of noise is from off-site, US36. The plan responds to this
with a unique design of "carriage units over garages" arranged
along a 70 feet setback from the edge of the highway r-o-w (as
required in the NBSP). Additional development along Lee Hill Road
will also eliminafe noise from the highway. Internally fhe projecf
centers along a pedestrian mall (within the Studio Mews) and is
fully protected from street noise. In general the project will nof
generate excessive noise wifhin the sife.
X 9. A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy
conservation, safety, and aesthetics;
Agenda Item # ~~ Page N ~s
X 10. The project incorporates the natural environment into the design
and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
Since there are no significant natural features on-site the project
implements a cenfral pedesfrian core which extends between a
public park and a community garden area.
X 11. Cut and fill are minimized on the site, and the design of
buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land.
F. Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum
potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all
applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots,
open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential
for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following
solar siting criteria:
The property is zoned MU-D and MXR-D and is designafed
as Area ll in the Solar Ordinance "to protect solar access
principally for rooftops. "
X 1. Placement of Open Space and Streets. Open space areas are
located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by
other buildings within the development or from buildings on
adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and
constraints mayjustify deviations from this criterion.
X 2. Lot Lavout and Building Sitinq. Lots are oriented and buildings are
sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal
building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is
unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings
are sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the
south for better owner control of shading.
Most of the lofs are oriented in a North/South configuration. All lots
are planned for minimal setback from streets whether on the north
or south side. Because none of fhe buildings will exceed permitted
height all rooftops have opportunity for solar access. Outside the
perimefer of the project site no adjacent properties will be impacted
beyond the Area ll limits. Within the project
X 3. Buildinq Form. The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize
utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access
protection and solar siting requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Solar
Access," B.R.C. 1981.
Agenda Item # ~~ Page H ~
X 4. Landscapinq. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on
adjacent buildings are minimized.
Agende Item A~~ Page k:~'~
ATTACHMENT G
USE REVIEW - Holiday Drive In, Studio Mews
(art and craft studios, professional and technical office)
Criteria
Y 1. The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set
forth in Section 9-2-1, "Zoning Districts Established," BRC, 1981, except in
the case of a non-conforming use; Zoning District:
The MXl7-D zone envisions a variety of residentia! types wifh
"complimentary uses" permitted. The proposed uses are consistent with
this intenf.
Y 2. The use either:
Y (A) Provides a direct service or convenience to or
reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood;
By providing opporfunities for work related to the residenfial use the
project will limif trips, and add inferest and vigor to the communify.
Y (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher
intensity and lower intensity uses;
By providing the pedestrian environmenf within the studio mews and the
mixed use component the project creates an interesting and compatible
transition between uses in the new neighborhood.
Y (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as
expressed in the BVCP, including without limitation, historic
preservation, moderate income housing, residential and non-
residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living
arrangements for special populations; or
As envisioned by fhe policies of fhe North Boulder Subcommunity Plan the
mixed use component will create opportunities for artists and other
professionals, become a catalyst for neighborhood creativity and idenfity.
Y 3. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed development or change to an existing development are such
that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative
impact on the use of the nearby properties;
The proposed uses are unique to the development and are not adjacent fo
otherproperties. The mixture of use is specified as a desirable
characteristic of development in the MXR-D zone.
Agenda Item A ~ ~ Page # ~
Y 4. As compared to development permitted under Section 9-3.1-1,
"Permitted Uses of Land," BRC 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the
existing level of impact of a non-conforming use, the proposed
development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the
surrounding area, including without limitation, water, wastewater, and
storm drainage utilities and streets.
The new development will accommodate the proposed uses without
impacting surrounding infrastructure. The mixed uses will more efficiently
utilize the new streets and utilities and possibly reduce outside frips.
Y 5. The use will not change the predominant character of the
surrounding area.
The proposed uses are intended to complimenf the new development by
providing a core area with both diverse homes and a vifal daytime use.
Adjacent developmenf in the area is predominately residential with some
commercial and indusfrial. The proposal will not change or detract from
fhis mix.
Agenda I~m # ~~ Page # .,.~'~_
ATTACHMENT H
USE REVIEW - NAROPA UNIVERSITY CLASSROOMS
(Adult education facilities and vocational schools; offices, professional and technical; art
or craft studio space no larger than 2000 square feet in size; governmental facilities;
and, broadcasting and recording facilities)
Criteria
X 1. The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set
forth in Section 9-2-1, "Zoning Districts Established," BRC, 1981, except in
the case of a non-conforming use; Zoning District:
The requested uses are consistent with the MXR-D zoning district Uses of
Land.
X 2. The use either:
X (A) Provides a direct service or convenience to or
reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood;
The specific location of the nonresidential space is arranged along and
parallel with Lee Hill Road. This is to reduce road noise impacts from US
36 into the Holiday development. The classroom use is in direct
conjuncfion and provides a convenience to fhe faculty and studenfs who
are expected fo reSide in the same buildings.
X (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher
intensity and lower intensity uses;
All of the area north of Lee Hill Road is zoned and used for industrial use,
the arrangement of the classroom space along the south side of Lee Hill
provides a buffer befween the industrial and residential uses.
X (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as
expressed in the BVCP, including without limitation, historic
preservation, moderate income housing, reSidential and non-
residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living
arrangements for special populations.
It is the intention of the applicanf to provide a unique living arrangement
for the faculty and students of Naropa Universify and to incorporate this
population with the other residential components of the site including
singles, family, sfudios, mixed use, and co-housing.
X 3. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed development or change to an existing development are such
that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative
impact on the use of the nearby properties;
W'rthin the Naropa component of the Holiday developmenf proposal there
is approximately 60, 000 square feet of residential (68 dwellings) and an
Agenda Item # ~~ Page # , ~D
additional 6,500-7,000 sf of non-residential space (split into spaces of 750
to 1000 sf each) for classrooms, office, etc. The non-residenfial space is
arranged primarily on the north side of the development along Lee Hill
Road. It is expecfed fhat the use will have very liftle impact on the
development and possibly will bring classes, sfudios, fitness, and other
opportunities to the individuals and families of the entire projecf.
Howeve'r, there is little or no informafion on fhe operating characterisfics of
the space on which to measure impacts. For example it is unknown how
much usage will come from the other campus locations, other community
use, hours. There is no information at all concerning the types of
governmental use or broadcasting studio.
X 4. As compared to development permitted under Section 9-3.1-1,
"Permitted Uses of Land," BRC 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the
existing level of impact of a non-conforming use, the proposed
development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the
surrounding area, including without limitation, water, wastewater, and
storm drainage utilities and streets.
The infrastructure of the new development will nof impact the surrounding
area.
X 5. The use wiil not change the predominant character of the
surrounding area.
The location of the classroom space is arranged on the soufh side of Lee
Hill Road. The north side of Lee Hill is predominately industrial in
character. The character of the new development is primarily residential.
Informational Comments
The Use Review Criteria have not been completely satisfied. It is necessary that the
applicant submit additional information regarding the operational characteristics of the
proposed uses on which to base possible impacts or mitigation of impacts on the
adjacent residential area.
Agenda Item R~Page # ~~/
ATTACHMENT I
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: August 24, 2001
CASE MANAGER: Mike Randall (303) 441-4919
PROJECT NAME: HOLIDAY DRIVE IN THEATER REDEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: 4650 N BROADWAY
COORDINATES: N09W06
REVIEW TYPE: Site Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00030
APPLICANT: BOULDER HOUSING AUTHORITY, COEXEC DIR CINDY BROWN
DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW: Proposed mixed use development on 27 acres including: 332 units (42°/,
permanently affordable); 55,600 square feet of non-residential (retail, office,
classrooms, daycare, etc); and a 2-acre park.
REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Reductions in required setbacks and
parking.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Application will meet criteria if the conditions listed below are met; disposition of approval will be issued (or staff
recommendation of approval) if applicant accepts these conditions.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circulation
1. W here is the emergency access shown on the plans7 The written statement references the site plan for "Garden
Crossing" which is not this application. (Melissa Rickson - CAO)
2. The buildings located along US 36 require that the accesses from Yellow Pine and Zamia accommodate emergency
vehicle access. The fire department standard for access is 20 feet wide and must be applied to all accesses serving
these buildings. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
3. Sheet L1 shows trees that are located within sight triangles for intersections throughout the site. The landscape plans
must show the sight triangles for all intersections of streets, alleys and driveways and trees must be located outside of
these areas. The sight triangle criteria are outlined in section 9-3.3-5(c) of the City of Boulder Revised Code (1981).
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
4. The bike path paralleling US 36 is shown somewhat differently between the grading plan and the landscape plans.
The straighter alignment shown on the grading plan is acceptable and needs to be reflected on the landscape plans.
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
Drainage
1. The grading plan shows the alley connecting Yaupon to Easy Rider Lane as draining across the alley, Alleys are
required to drain along the length of the alley, typically to the center of the pavement. The grading plan is required to
show how this alley will drain in this manner and how this runoff will be directed to the on-site detention ponds.
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
2. The current submittal appears to include two different drainage scenarios. The Preliminary Drainage Report
prepared by Carter & Burgess, inc. proposes what appears to be an "Extended Detention Basin" consistent with
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Standards. The wriften materials provided by Barrett Studio Architects
show the alternative solutions proposed by the applicant in recent meetings with city staff.
Based on the two different concepts presented, it is not entirely clear which proposal the applicant is seeking
conceptual approval for. Given the proposed combination of park, sireet, and stormwater management uses, there
Address: 4650 N BROADWAY -~
Agends Ilem A ~ Page # ~~ ~
are potential issues with both proposals. In order to ensure that adequate parks, transportation, and stormwater
facilities are provided for future residents of the neighborhood, the following conditions of approval will apply:
a) Final construction plans submitted through the city's Technical Document Review process will be subject to
review and approval by the Parks and Recreation Department. The applicant should note that (3) three sets of
engineering drawings and reports will be required instead of (2) as specified in the city application materials so
that a copy is available for the Parks and Recreation Department.
b) Unless an alternative agreement beiween the applicant and the Parks and Recreation Department is reached,
the applicant will be responsible for all routine and long term maintenance of stormwater facilities located on the
park site. The applicant will be responsible for conducting maintenance in a manner acceptable to the Parks
and Recreation Department and for restoring disturbed areas to their previous condition.
c) Unless an alternative agreement between the applicant and the Parks and Recreation Department is reached,
the applicant will be responsible for all additional park development costs (special landscaping, etc.) created by
the concurrent use of this facility for drainage purposes.
d) Unless an alternative agreement between the applicant and the Public Works Department is reached, the
applicant will be responsible for maintenance of all water quality facilities located in the public right-of-way. Jeff
Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
3. The applicant is advised that use of city park and right-of-way facilities for stormwater purposes is generally not
desirable and has been prohibited on past projects. Because of the unique opportunity afforded by the E.P.A.
grant to develop alternative water quality designs on this site, staff is willing to consider an exception specific to
this project. The applicant is advised that if final plans and specifications cannot be developed which meet the
city requirements and adequately address the needs of the Parks & Recreation Department, a Minor Moditication
or Site Review Amendment will be required possibly resulting in a significant loss of units on the site. Jeff Arthur,
Public Works, 441-4418.
4. Deve{opment Review staff is continuing to work with the applicant and the city's Transportation Projects division
regarding future drainage facilities in Yarmouth Avenue. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required
to contribute a pro rata share towards any stormwater improvements constructed in Yarmouth Avenue by the city
or another developer. In the event that improvements have not been designed and/or constructed at the time that
they become necessary to serve the Holiday Drive-In Site, the applicant will be required to design and/or
construct improvements. In the event that applicant designs or constructs improvements on Yarmouth Avenue,
they will eligible to establish a reimbursement agreement to recover costs from other benefitting properties. Jeff
Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
5. As indicated previously, any Silver Lake Ditch shares are required to be sold to the city prior to Final Plat
approval. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
6. No additional geotechnical information was provided with the resubmittal. As indicated previously, discharge of
groundwater to accommodate subsurface structures continues to be a problem throughout the city. Final
drainage design must take into account any necessary groundwater discharge. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-
4418.
Engineering
Prior to approval of a Final Subdivision Plat and/or any application for building permits, the applicant is required to
complete the city's Technical Document Review process and obtain approval of the construction documents listed
below.
a) Final Utility Report
b) Utility Plan & Profiles
c) Final Stormwater Plan and Report
d) Erosion Control Plan
e) Street Plan & Profiles
f) A maintenance plan for all stormwater facilities to be maintained by the applicant.
The applicant is advised that this process has three week review tracks similar to the Land Use Review process and
may take a significant amount of time depending on how quickly the applicant is able to develop plans meeting city
requirements. The applicant should plan their construction schedule accordingly and advise other developers with
Address: 4650 N BROADWAY
Agentlaitem#~PageH ~~ ~
interest in the project of this requirements to avoid premature mobilization of construction crews. Please refer to the
city's Design and Construction Standards for complete submittal requirements. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
2. Engineering plans and reports submitted in support of Land Use Review applications are reviewed only for
conceptual conformance with city standards. Final engineering plans and reports submitted for Technical Document
Review shall meet all requirements of the Design and Construction Standards (DCS) and Boulder Revised Code,
1981. If elements of the approved Land Use Review preclude the development of plans meeting these
requirements, the applicant shall be required to modify the Land Use Review approval through the appropriate city
review process. Jeff Arthur, ~Public Works, 441-4418.
3. The Preliminary Subdivision Plat for this project was received on a later review track than the Site Review submittal
and has not been reviewed at this time. The level of engineering design to support a Preliminary Plat is greater than
what is required for Site Review. Review of the Preliminary Plat may result in additional comments which could
impact the Site Review. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
Fire Protection
Prior to building permit issuance, applicant must submit utility plan reflecting location of fire hydrants and fire protection
service lines, consistent with city standards. Adrian Hise, 303-4413350.
Inclusionary Zoning and Residential Growth Management
1. Blocks 14 and 15 have dwelling units described as "flex" units, without an indication of what is meant by that term.
Permanently affordable units that may not actually be residential units at all times may not be counted toward the total
permanently affordable housing requirement. Prior to application for building permits, please clarify what is meant by a
"flex" dwelling unit.
2. Prior to application for building permit, a construction phasing plan must be submitted and covenants to secure the
permanent affordability of the proposed units must be signed and recorded. Proposed pricing for a majority of the
permanently affordable units is too high for 3rtl quarter pricing. If Applicant is planning to apply for building permits this
year, proposed pricing for most of the permanently affordable units will need to be adjusted downward.
3. In order for formerly labeled carriage units in Block 18 to be priced using singte family pricing, Applicant must
demonstrate that fhe homeowner dues will be significanily less for these units relative to the attached units in the project
prior to the drafting of covenants for these units.
4. In order to accept the proposed permanently affordable rental units as counting towards the total permanently
affordable unit requirement, Applicant must provide documentation that confirms the owner of these units as a non-profit
corporation whose primary mission is to provide affordable housing and execute an agency agreement to that effect prior
to application for building permits. The City cannot require nor enforce permanently affordable rental housing owned by
the private sector or non-profit entities without an affordable housing emphasis.
Landscaping
No additional comments. Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272.
2. It does not appear that the amount of landscaping shown can be installed while maintaining the required 10-foot
separation between trees and underground utilities. Final landscaping will need to address utility separation
requirements. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
Legai Documents
W ho in the City Attorney's office has been reviewing the draft ~etter agreement? Neither Alan Boles nor David Gehr have
seen any documents fitting this description. (Melissa Rickson - CAO)
Miscellaneous
1. The subdivision needs to be approved prior to obtaining building permits. (Melissa Rickson - CAO)
2. Please provide a list of the users on this MU-D site. " "
Parking
Address: 4650 N BROADWAY Agenda Item R ~O~ Page N 93
1. The area northeast of Easy Rider Lane, south of Zamia Drive, and west of 16'" Street has 10 foot wide parking lot
access drives. The drideways into the parking lots must be a minimum of 18 feet wide where no adjacent parking is
located for two-way traffic. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
2. Dead-end parking is located in the area southwest of Easy Rider Lane that is served by access easements. This
dead-end parking must have one space a the end of the parking isles designated as "no-parking" for vehicle turn-
around. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
3. In the area where the access easements meet the alleys southwest of Easy Rider Lane, the path of an SU-30 turning
template must be accommodated. The configuration shown on the plan in this area does not meet this requirement.
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
4. The driveway access located on the west side of 14`h Street across from Yaupon scales to 10 feet wide. This access
must be a minimum of 18 feet wide to accommodate two-way traffic. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
5. The parking spaces along the alleys southwest of Easy Rider Lane require 24 feet of backing distance. The backing
distance on these plans scale to only 20 feet. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
6. The parking spaces along the alley north of Zamia between 14'" and 15'h Streets require 24 feet of backing distance.
The backing distance on these plans scale to only 20 feet. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
7. The parking spaces along the alley within the Northern Lights area require 24 feet of backing distance. The backing
distance on these plans scale to only 20 feet. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
8. W ithin the North Boulder Co-housing area there is a turn-around spot shown at the end of four parking spots. A turn
around spot is not required unless there are more than seven parking spots, therefore unless these deferred spots are
used for parking, the turn-around space is not required. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
Utilities
1. The revised Utility Plan showing utility services is generally not adequate to meet the intent of the plan requirements.
The plan indicates that actual locations of services may vary to accommodate landscaping and future plans. The
intent of requiring services to be shown is so that the effect of utility services on landscaping can be evaluated. The
services are not drawn with the required 10-foot separation between water and sewer. This combined with the 10-foot
separation requirement between trees and services could significantly impair the applicant's ability to landscape the
site. Yellow Pine Avenue from 13`h to 14`h , Holiday Drive, and the eastern portion of Zamia Avenue appear to be the
most problematic. This issue will need to be resolved through preliminary plat review to ensure that each lot can be
served while still meeting city landscape requiremerits. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
2. W ith the exception of the above comment, the utility plan is generally sufficient to meet the requirements of Site ,
Review. However, the applicant is advised that in order to support the Preliminary Plat, which was not submitted
concurrently, significantly more detail is required. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
3. The Utility Plan submitted in support of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat will need to show location of existing and
proposed structures per city standards. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
4. A final version of the Utility Report sealed by a licensed professional engineer is required to be submitted at the time of
Technical Document Review submittal. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
5. Staff is continuing to evaluate the water and sewer demand estimates included in the Utility Report and will contact the
applicant if any issues are identified. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
6. The Utility Plan shows several 6-inch diameter water mains. The city's minimum standard for mains is 8-inch
diameter. Please note that fire hydrant runs with no service connections are not considered mains and may be 6-inch
diameter. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
7. The Utility Plan shows service for structures near 13'" and Yellow Pine being taken from water lines internal to the
blocks. This is generally not desirable as it limits accessibility of ineters. Meters should be located along public
streets unless there is a significant issue that prevents this. Additional detail will be required through the Preliminary
Subdivision Plat process. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
Address: 4650 N BROADWAY Agenda Item R~'~ Page #~~:Z__
8. Fire hydrants are required at all intersections, terminuses, and as necessary to meet spacing requirements specified in
the city's Design and Construction Standards. The utility plan provided needs additional hydrants. At Preliminary Plat,
the applicant is required to provide a Utility Plan meeting all city standards. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
Parks and Recreation
The Parks and Recreation Department has agreed to consider the use of the public park site for storm water detention
and water quality features. The current site review documents do not include sufficient information to allow us to
determine whether or not fhe proposed detention and sand based filtration systems will be compatible with park functions.
The plans as submitted are an improvement over the original proposal. However, based on a meeting between the project
design team and staff, we expect that there will be additional changes as the detailed engineering plans are developed.
Specifically, the innovative water quality features to be funded by an EPA grant are addressed conceptually in the project
narrative but not in the drainage plans. Consequently, the Parks and Recreation will require the opportunity to review and
approve the final drainage plans. Approval of the final drainage plans by the Parks and Recreation Department with
respect to the impacts on the park design will be a condition of approval for the site plan.
The following information must be provided when the engineering plans are submitted:
• the exact location, dimensions and grades of storm water detention areas
• the depth and duration of standing water in the detention areas for two year, ten year and 100 year storm events, as
well as the depth associated with water quality capture volumes for the same events
• projections of the number of occasions during a typical one-year period that standing water is expected to occur on the
park site and the water depth, location and duration of these occurrences
• based on data on rainfall events from the past five years, project the number of daylight hours per year that any portion
of the park would be unavailable for use
• the exact location and dimensions of sand filtration systems or other water quality features
• the projected maintenance schedules and requirements for detention areas and water quality features, in particular the
frequency with which sand filtration systems must be cleaned out and replaced
• design details of the water quality features
• the percentage of water quality functions being provided in the park versus elsewhere on the site
Criteria which will be used to assess whether the detention and filtration features are compatible with park uses include:
• pedestrian access will be possible from at least one location from each of the surrounding three streets
• at least one of these access paths must be able to meet ADA requirements
• the site can accommodate a minimum of 30,000 contiguous square feet of multi-purpose open grass turf
• the overall grade of the open turf area must not exceed 3%
• the site can accommodate a children's play area of a minimum of 10,000 contiguous square feet in size
• the children's play area can be separated from the nearest streets by a minimum of 40 feet
• the children's play area will permit the placement of traditional play structures and the use of safety surfacing (not sand
or gravel)
• the site will allow for the placement of site furniture to include benches and picnic tables
• the site will allow for ample landscaping to include trees and shrub beds which will not be adversely affected by storm
water detention and will not require removal for sand filtration system maintenance
• public use of the open turf area, children's play area and path system must not be restricted due to standing water or
soggy conditions attributable to the storm water detention and water quality features for more than 5% of daylight
hours during a typical year
• the sand filtration system will not require concrete curbing in locations incompatible with safety, access or continuity of
uses on the site
Due to the concerns regarding maintenance and liability issues related to the detention areas in the park and the potential
reduction in the useable area of the park, the Parks and Recreation Department will likely not accept the entire property as
the park site. The agreement between the Housing Authority and the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the site
dedication will need to be reviewed in light of this decision.
In addition the Parks and Recreation Department will require that the dedication agreement address the following:
• construction costs for storm water detention and water quality features shall be the responsibility of the developer(s)
• maintenance of storm water detention areas and water quality features will be the responsibility of the Homeowners
Association(s) and language to this effect must be included in the covenants received by each owner
• any excess park development costs necessary to accommodate the detention or filtration features in the park will be
reimbursed by the developer(s)
Address: 4650 N BROADWAY Agenda Item #~~ Page # u~
• any damage to park elements due to the presence of the storm water detention or water quality features shall be the
responsibility of the HOA, including replacement, repair or re-construction, and language to this effect must be
included in the covenants received by each owner
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
AccesslCircuiation
1. The following is a summary of the Transportation Demand Management strategies for this development:
• RTD Eco-Passes for residents and employees within the site
• A minimum of two transit stops with locations to be determined at time of Technical Document Review
• Construction of bicycle/pedestrian paths and connections to those paths
• Mixed-use and livelwork elements of the site design
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
2. CDOT staff has expressed concern regarding plans to create on-street parking and lower speeds on Broadway
consistent with these development plans and the North Boulder Subcommunity (NOBO) plan. Discussions between
city and CDOT staffs will continue to determine how to implement a"main street" concept for Broadway. Steve
Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
3. As discussed on August 20, 2001 in conversations with Tess Jones, CDOT Region 4 Access Coordinator, the Yellow
Pine access will be permitted to be constructed without physical constraints to turning movements, however it wili need
to be signed to restrict exiting left-turning movements. A CDOT Access Permit will be required for this access and will
need to reflect this restriction. In the future, this restriction could be dropped depending on the outcome of the issues
related to comment 2 in this section. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
4. The concept of permeable parking surfaces on streets is one that staff is open to. Design elements as shown on the
drawing provided raise some concerns however. Trip hazards where pedestrian activity would be anticipated, such as
the curb between the streetscape and that on-street parking, are unacceptable. The elements of a proposal for
altering materials used in street design must function substantially like the city's traditional standards for traffic,
bicycles and pedestrians. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
Drainage
1. The "Tree Lawn Grass Filter" typical section appears to create a trip hazard at the slotted curb between the tree
lawn and parking area. This detail will need to further refined during final design to eliminate this hazard. Jeff Arthur,
Public Works, 441-4418.
2. The written materials provided reference modification of the 204 bus route to provide service to the site. As
indicated in previous discussions, the city will not be able to provide snow removal services on streets with
alternative paving materials. The applicant will need to coordinate with RTD to.determine snow removal needs and
prepare final plans accordingly. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
3. As indicated previously, the applicant is responsible for obtaining approval from the Silver Lake Ditch Company for
any modifications to their lateral which crosses the site. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4A18.
4. The preliminary grading and drainage plans provided appear to show most of the proposed inlets on continuous
grades and not under sump conditions. It also appears that the 100-year storm will need to be conveyed via inlets
and pipes to reach detention ponds for much of the project. The applicant may want to consider other grading
options to minimize inlet and pipe sizes on the site. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
5. It is not clear from the preliminary drainage plan how runoff from areas south of Yellow Pine Avenue will be
conveyed to detention facilities. Final design will require additional detail. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
6. A number of the basin splits on the preliminary drainage plans do not appear to be consistent with the underlying
contours. Additionai detail will be required on the final plans to clarify this issue. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-
4418.
7. Unless the series of detention ponds along U.S. 36 can be connected in a manner that continously maintains equal
water surtace elevations in each pond, routing calculations will be required. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
Address: 4650 N BROADWAY
Agenda Item R~~ Page H_s1_L_
8. The preliminary plans show a Type R inlet located between the two sidewalk ramps at the corner of 17'h Street and
Yellow Pine Avenue. It is not clear whether there will actually be enough room at this location to accommodate an
inlet. In addition, the applicant is advised that the associated access manhole cannot be located in the sidewalk.
Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418.
Engineering
The permeable on-street parking will not be approved as part of this review. However, a preliminary review has been
conducted. The concrete curb between the streetscape and the pavers is a trip hazard that would be inconsistent with
other streets throughout the city. The streetscape area must be at the same level as the top of the curb. This would not
permit drainage to be carried across the streetscape area. It would be recommended that a standard curb be constructed
between the on-street pavers and the streetscape to carry runoff that would not be absorbed into the pavers. This runoff
could be collected at sumps as needed. Further discussion would be needed to determ'rne the appropriate des'rgn for th'ts
concept. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
Inclusionary Zoning and Residential Growth Management
1. Please note that mortgage interest rates for the 3`~ quarter were higher than those for the 2"d quarter;
subsequently 3rd quarter prices are lower than those of the 2nd quarter. Applicant is advised to consider that this trend may
continue into the 4`" quarter.
2. Please note that the only difference between attached and detached prices is the amount of the assumed
homeowner association dues, where those for attached units are assumed to be $125 versus $80 for detached units.
Permanently affordable units that are substantially larger than 1200 square feet still need to meet the average and
maximum prices for the size category of 1051 square feet and larger. Currently, there is no provision to allow larger units
to exceed the given average and maximum prices for the size category of 1051 square feet and larger, however, this may
be addressed during the planned revisions to inclusionary zoning scheduled for later this year.
3. Submission of a construction phasing plan prior to the Planning Board's consideration of the ApplicanPs Site
Review is recommended given the size of the development.
Landscaping
Please note the following requirements for the final landscaping plan which must be included with the Technical Document
Review submittal. (The final landscape plan must include plantings in all right-of-ways, parking lots, and private lots,
excluding single family lots.)
Plan drawing at a scale of 1"= 10', 1"= 20', or 1"= 30', to include:
• Standard title block including scale, north arrow, and date
• Location of property lines and adjacent streets (with street names identified).
• Zoning and use of adjacent properties.
• Existing and proposed locations of all:
- Building footprints of structures
- Sidewalks and curb cuts
- Parking lots including layout of parking spaces, interior perimeter parking lot plantings, bike paths and
pedestrian walkways, drive aisles and curb islands.
- Utilities and easements, including fire hydrants, water meters, & height and location of overhead lines.
• 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 and irrigation specifications
• Final irrigation plan indicating type and locations or irrigation and of plant groupings by water requirements.
• Layout and location of all landscaped areas including:
- planting strips along all streets
- parking lot screening
- interior parking lot landscaping
- perimeter site landscaping or screening
- all other landscaped areas
• Botanical and common names and sizes of all plant material and ground cover.
• Locations of all proposed plant material, shown at size they will be within 5 years of initial planting, and appropriately
spaced.
Address: 4650 N BROADWAY ->
Agenda I~m ~ ~ ~ Page k ~"~ ~
Proposed planting of all ground surfaces. Grass surfaces must be identified as sod or seed with the blend or mix
specified.
Location, size, and species name of any plant materials proposed for removal.
Location, design, height and materials of other landscape improvements, such as:
- earth berms
- retaining walls
- fences
- waterfeatures
- outdoor furnishings and artwork
- trash enclosures
- lights
- paved areas and! or walkways
- tree grates and planters
• Location and treatment of any proposed detention ponds.
• Location and dimensions of site distance triangles at all intersections of streets and curb cuts.
Summary graphic and chart with calculafions to include:
• Graphic drawing with locations and dimensions of all required landscaped areas. Include dimensions and total area
for each requirement. For example, each interior parking lot island should include dimensions and total square
footage, and the total square footage of all interior parking lot islands should be calculated.
• Total lot size (in square feet).
• Total parking lot size, including all drives and driveways (in square feet).
• Total parking lot interior landscaped area required and total provided (square feet).
• Total number of parking stalls provided, total number required by code.
• Total amount of perimeter landscaping provided, total required by code (square feet).
• Total number of street trees required and the total provided.
• Total quantity of plant material required and the total provided.
IV. NEXT STEPS
The application has been tentatively scheduled for October 4, 2001. Please provide 15 new copies (with requested
corrections) of site plan, design documents, and project description.
If approved by the Planning Board there will be a 30 day appeal/call-up period for the City Council. Following the call-up
period (or hearing by the City Council) submit final Technical Documents.
Address: 4650 N BROAOW AY Agenda Item A~Page N~
ATTACHMENT J
Mike Randall - North Boulder Development and Planning
From: "Michael Conroy" <ConroyMD@msn.com>
To: "BiIlCowern" <cowernb@ci.boulder.co,us>, "camera"
<openforumCalthedailycamera.com>, "Council" <council@ci.boulder.co.us>,
"Me_at_STK" <conromd@louisvilie.stortek.com>, "MikeRandall"
<randallm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 3/21/2001 9:41 PM
Subject: North Boulder Development and Planning
I applaud the Boulder Planning 8oard's recent decision to not rezone
undeveloped land parcels near the Pleasantview Soccer Fields and south of
the East Boulder Rec. Center. I hope this decision is the beginning of a
trend to reverse the recent movement by the city to rezone undeveloped
parcels as high density. The cost of affordable, high density housing to
current citizens is high. Higher density housing leads to increased traffic
on neighborhood streets, a greater strain on already overcrowded schools,
and an unfair tax burden on current homeowners who pay a higher proportion
of property taxes than owners of "affordable" houses with property
valuations that are artificially capped.
As a resident of 19th Street north of Iris, I fear the impact of the
decision to substantially increase the number of residences allowed at the
Drive-in site at 28th Street and Broadway. This section of 19th Street is a
neighborhood road with two public schools within blocks of each other.
However, due to the lack of traffic calming devices between Iris to the
south and Yarmouth to the north, the traffic flow on 19th usually exceeds
the speed limit by 10 mph or more. The amount of traffic on 19th Street will increase
significantly with the proposed development's nearly 400 residences.
Given the current condition of this road and the increased building in the area I'm concerned for
the
children that use 19th Street to walk to school. There is currently nothing
more than poorly marked crosswalks and frequently ignored school speed limit
zones by each of the two schools. I would also expect enroliment at
Crestview and Centennial schools to increase by greater than 10% over their
current levels of 540 and 690 students respectively due to the development
of the Drive-in site alone. I am not confident that these schools can absorb large
numbers of new students and continue to provide quality education.
Development of many of the vacant parceis in Boulder will happen in time.
hope the city does the right thing for its current citizens and limits the
amount of new building on undeveloped parcels while improving the
infrastructure to handle the inevitable increase in population.
M. Conroy
Boulder
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http_//explorer.ms.n_..com
Ayenda Item #.f.¢.~_Psge q yU
file://C:\W INDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00004.HTM 3/28/2001
_ .
•~~i~~~~~l~~~~~~l~~S~~~~~••~~~~~~~~f~i~~~~~•
Table of Contents
- Introductory letter from Boulder Housing Partners
Formerly Housing Autharity of the City of Boulder
- Design Team
- Development Team
- Master Site Plan (A1)
- Written Statements
Overall Site Plan
Individual Projects
- Block Plan & Building Program (A2)
- Use Diagram (A3)
- Statement Regarding Buffer Plan
Copy of letter to Planning Staff dated March 23, 2001
- Buffer Section
- Unit Count per Developer's Project
- Density Calculations
- Open Space and Parking Analysis
- Setback Variations
- Typical Street Section at Residential Block
- Holiday Park Preliminary Concept Written Statement
- Holiday Park Preliminary Concept Sections
- Holiday Park Preliminary Concept Plan
- Use Review Written Statements
r
~
•
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
•
~
Boulder
Housing~ ~~
Partners W ~~
e Hanring.LitGm~ip'sirirr IlG(
September 26, 2001
Dear City Staff and Planning Board members:
;, n ,,o,~~i~,.:: • 1,,~~.~ , „ .~~, .
' ' 1'
P6on~:~;i~„ ._i'~ ~.~~~ ;~,~: ,
Fo,II,.~ t~~~..:_:~,_ -.,~~,. ~ ,.
Boulder Housing Partners (formerly the Housing Authority of the City of Boulder) is
pleased to submit our request to the Planning Board for Site and Use Review approval for
the redevelopment of the Holiday Drive In Theater site.
The Housing Authority purchased the site, in partnership with the City of Boulder, in
1997. Since that time, the Housing Authority staff, along with master site planners
Barrett Studio Architects, has engaged the community, civic leaders, and elected and
appointed officials of the City to design a project that integrates many community
interests and goals. The site plan reflects the ideas heard in the extensive public process
conducted over the past four years. It also incorporates our work with potential
development partners, and the recently approved changes that allow additional units in
the MXR-D portion of the site, with the goal of increasing the number of affordable units
on the site. We believe that this plan implements the vision for new neighborhoods
expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the North Boulder
Subcommunity Plan.
The Holiday Drive In Theater site will be a mixed use, mixed income neighborhood,
focused around a new two-acre city park. Tha new neighborhood will be enlivened by
small neighborhood scale businesses, a pedestrian walkway and community gardens.
The non-residential uses in the MU-D zone, near Broadway at the "front door" of the site
are planned to include a bakery and restaurant, barber shop, and other personal service
businesses. The proposed non-residential uses in the MXR-D zone, considered in our use
review submittals, include artists' studios located along the pedestrian walkway in an
area called the Studio Mews and dance and arts studios associated with Naropa
University along the northern edge of the site. We are working on some ideas for a
community center near the park, which we will submit for use review in the future.
In conjunction with the residential units on the site, these community-oriented uses, will
add diversity and vitality, as envisioned in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. We
believe that the Holiday Drive In Theater development will set a standard of thoughtful
design, to be considered by other property owners in the area, as they proceed with their
own redevelopments efforts.
IJ
uvvoaruiirr
•
~
~
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
We envision a neighborhood with 324 new units; about 137 or 42% to be permanently
affordable. We continue to seek partnerships and grant funds that would allow us to
reach 50% of the units as permanently affordable. We anticipate about 60 to 100 of the
units will be for rent, a portion will be owned and managed by the Housing Authority.
We also anticipate providing some units to households at 20% of the Area Median
income, which means rents as low at $228 a month. The remaining units will be for sale
and will include both permanently affordable and market rate homes. A wide variety of
unit types will be provided, including single family and duplexes, condos, townhouses,
and live/work units. The high level of affordability is achievable due to increases in
allowable units supported by the Planning Board and City Council and the on-going
cooperation of the City in the funding and planning approval phases of the project. The
mix of incomes, household sizes and occupations within the development will help to
assure the creation of a lively, diverse, and active community.
Key design principles of the development are livability, affordability, and sustainability.
Livability means amenities such as the park, the community gardens, the pedestrian
walkway and local business such as a bakery and restaurant,
Affordability means rents and sales prices that remain affordable over time and quality
building systems that reduce costs of utilities and maintenance over the life of the
buildings,
Sustainability includes pioneering work being carried out with relation to storm water,
energy conservation, and air quality measures under a grant from the EPA. Through the
EPA grant, a documentary is being made that will feature the innovative approaches
undertaken in the development of the site.
Over the past two years, we have conducted an extensive process to identify potential
development partners for the site. The partners selected reflect not-for-profit, as well as
for-profit organizations. The development offers opportunities for non-profit office space,
as weil as transitional and special needs housing. By working with severat local
organizations and developers, a variety of housing type and design will be provided,
adding richness to this development. Our partners include:
*Affordable Housing Alliance
*Coburn Development
*Co-Housing with Habitat for Humanity
*Mental Health Center
*Naropa University
*Peak Properties
*Wolff/Lyon Architects.
We have successfully worked with City staff to resolve many of the issues identified in
the site review process, regarding street designs and drainage. We continue to work with
the Parks Department to address the optimal design of the park to allow for the maximum
amount of useable park area and to accommodate some innovative water quality
measures. The park has the potential to be a beautifui multi-use space and a
demonstration of advanced storm water techniques.
We commit to work towards satisfaction of the conditions of approval set forth by the
City staff in comments of August 28, 2001 with regard to criteria for the park and all
otherissues.
As we look to the future, we hope to develop a"movies in the park" program and restorc
the Holiday Drive In sign, capturing the history of the site. We anticipate that there will
be weekly artists and garden markets on the site.
The Holiday Drive In has the potential to provide opportunities to live/work/learn and
play on the site. At 27 acres, the site is among the last large parcels to be developed. We
believe it is a rare opportunity in Boulder's history to demonstrate Boulder's commitment
to affordable housing and livable communities. We appreciate the on-going support of
the City for this project and look forward to working with you to create a great new
neighborhood in Boulder.
Sincerely, ~ ^ ~A,
/~
/ ~~ ~.r
Cindy Brown
Co-Executive Director, Development
Design Team
~'~`' ` ''''''~~~ The Housing Authority of the City oi Boulder has served the com-
~~~~~~~ munity since 1966. The Authority owns and manages more than 1200
~' ~ units of housing in Boulder. The Authority adds to the stock of affordable
Housing Aukhoriky of the Cky of Baulder housing by developing new units and acquiring existing units. The
Holiday Drive In site is owned by the Authority, which will oversee the
master site planning phase of the project. The Authority will coordinate
the development ot the site, acting as partner on some aspects and
offering some portions of the site to community organizations, including
not-for-profit and for-profit groups.
ry
;t j:i
~
Barrett Studio Architects was hired by the Housing Authority to lead
th
t
l
i
ff
t
d
di
t
th
d
i
t
Thi
~; e mas
er p
ann
ng e
or
an
coor
na
e
e
es
gn
s process
eam.
~. included an inventory of resources, program development, and interac-
tive public process, concept design, site design, planning and develop-
ment of design standards and guidelines.
lARHETT STUDIO architec[s
S T Q ~ ~ ~
Studio 2 Design, Inc., is a Boulder-based urban design and landscape
architecture firm. Their role on the Design Team included streetscape
character and design, participation in the public meetings, and input into
the overall design and planning for the project.
U E S I G N
UNIXWf µSHICNI
4B/NpPIXI
YIO.WI~Ef'@AF
eam, maAro ~tld
mpN.uaruM~~uo
Carter ~~ Burgess Carter Burgess has provided civil engineering services to the design
Corter & Burgess inc. team.
Y16 tfith SUeet, Suite I]00
Denver. Coloratlo 80202
Development Team
Coburn Development, Inc.
Coburn Development will design and develop Blocks 3&4 in the
MU-D zone, a mixed use project including offices and residences.
They will also design and develop Block 5 and Block 13, row
houses on the park, as well as Biocks 9, 12, and 14 that will be
primarily single family residential streets. Finally, they will develop
Block 15, the Studio Mews, with the designs for the individual
buildings coming from an architectural collaborative.
Wolff/Lyon Architects
Wolff/Lyon Architects will design and develop the gateway into
our neighborhood, the mixed use Biocks 1& 2. They will also
work with the Affordable Housing Alliance to provide 14 permanent
affordable duplexes on Block 16. Working with Naropa University,
they will provide housing and flex space on Blocks 7, 8, 10, 11
and 19.
Peak Properties, Inc.
Peak Properties will develop Block 18, providing townhouses and
carriage units around a pocket park.
Wonderland Development
Wonderland Development will create a co-housing community on
Block 17, with the help of Habitat for Humanity, their partner in
this community.
At the time of submittal, we are continuing to work with potential part-
ners for Block 6. Those partners are a community center, a day
care center, and non-profit office space users such as Emergency
Family Assistance Association.
~
~
`
~
A-----------
~
~
~
~ ~
~
~ I
r
~
~ ^
! ~ o
I~
~ Q
r
~ ~
~ ~_
~ 0
~
~ i~
~ ~ o C7
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~. '' ~r ;~~i
:~~~ ,
• t.
0
~ ~'~`~~i
• ~^i%7'~;~ .~~~~
-6^ „'-
~ _.~ `
~
~ MAST]
~ 'masterp~enf
~ ~
09,:I.1N11
~ (IN.q4.IX1~ -
THl
FOR 1'1
.
~~
2. Site Design
Overview of Master Site Plan
The Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopment is an opportunity to bring into form the
many qualities and patterns that have been defined in the North Boulder Subcommunity
Plan. ~t is a chance to integrate affordable and market rate housing in diverse housing
types. It is an opportunity to create a significant new neighborhood in Boulder that
speaks to our unique time and place.
To these ends, the Holiday redevelopment is seen as a garden village at the site of the
Holiday Drive In Theatre. In searching for an appropriate, elegant density, the overall
plan was structured as a series of compact, pedestrian scaled spaces, streets and
paths, that create public living rooms and passageways, giving shape to the heart of the
neighborhood. As "great room" to the community, the park, or village green, finds its
form from the historic shape and location of the Drive In. As a central "people place", the
park is extended by a sequence of connectors, or passageways that organize ihe
pedestrian spine of the neighborhood. These special linear "rooms", such as the "entry
hall" along Yellow Pine through the mixed use area, and the "studio mews" that connects
to the community gardens and linear park along US36, offer opportunities for strolling,
chance meetings, play, discovery, and ease of pedestrian movement. The intersecting
grid of walkable tree lined residential streets feed into this pedestrian spine to complete
a walkable system. It is a neighborhood comfortable for the pedestrian and bicyclist.
The permeable street grid offers connectivity within as well as from without. Small
blocks and buildings oriented toward the street, with alleys and small clustered parking
pockets behind buildings reinforce the neo-traditional planning order of the
neighborhood. The redevelopment of the old Holiday Theatre provides affordable and
diverse housing and workspaces with a wide range of dwelling types for a wide range of
incomes. Housing and work places vary in size and include attached and detached
houses, apartment buildings, IoRs, mixed use, and carriage units.
A OPEN SPACE
A-1 Usable open space is provided in a variety of configurations. The open space
link from the park along the pedestrian way to the community gardens and the
landscaped linear park along US36 provides walkable paths. These paths ailow for a
variety of landscaped spaces, which can be shared by all. Pocket parks in association
Holiday Drive In Theahe Redevelopment - Site Plan Review Submittnl May 21, 200I
with individual projects occurring at AHA, along 16`" St., Co-Housing, and at Peak
Properties development along US36 provide relief and gathering areas.
A-2 Each detached residential unit has access to private open space in the form of
gardens, courtyards, balconies, and/or roof top gardens.
A-3 The project is designed with consideration of view corridors to the Flatirons and
Dakota Ridge, enhancing solar access, and as a response to the edge city condition we
find at the north end of Boulder. There are no long-lived trees, significant plant
communities, or species habitat to be impacted by this neighborhood.
A-4 By placing the City Park on the edge of our project, we have provided relief not
only to our project but also to the density of the Yarmouth North area. Our pocket parks
sprinkled throughout the neighborhood provide relief at a smaller scale.
A-5 Our open space provided along US36 as a gateway into Boulder acts as the first
element of a linear park envisioned for the western edge of US36. This linear park acts
as a sound buffer to the interior of the neighborhood to the west.
A-6 Our open space is linked to two area-wide systems - the city parks and the bike
path along US36 which will link to the existing bike path systems.
B LANDSCAPING
B-1 The project provides for aesthetic enhancement through a variety of street trees,
often lining either side of the sidewalk, through a variety of species of piantings and trees
throughout the neighborhood, and a variety of hardscapes providing numerous
pedestrian connections. As is stated in our Standards and Guidelines we will utilize
native plants that require less water (xeriscape).
B-2 There exist no important native species, plant communities, or threatened
species or habitat which would be impacted by the development of this neighborhood.
We are integrating the plan into the natural environment by enhancing view corridors,
siting buildings and open space to take full advantage of solar access, lighting to
minimize impacts to surrounding areas and using energy efficient and resource
conservative building systems and practices. We are also working with the Sustainable
Futures Society on an EPA grant to implement micro-managed storm water strategies
and bio-swales to recharge the water table.
Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopment - Site Plan Review Submittal May 21, 2001
B-3 The project provides for plant material in excess of city standards within our site
design Standards and Guidelines, which require we exceed the city standards by 20%.
B-4 The setbacks, yards and open space along the R.O.W. are designed to create
attractive, useable streetscapes. We are proposing a variance to the bulk requirement
of a 15'-0" front yard setback to a minimum front yard setback of 7'-0" in most of the
neighborhood. We believe this is a good urban response to ihe street in that 7'-0" allows
for a garden along with the porch in front of the house, yet still allows for the second row
of street trees to be planted where the porch returns to the building. This rhythm of
trees, porches and buildings will contribute to an overall attractive site plan. See our
Building Summaries on each site plan and in the Standards and Guidelines for specific
proposed variances to the bulk requirements.
C CIRCULATION
C-1 We are discouraging high speeds along streets with narrow drive lanes (see
street section in the Standards and Guidelines), parailel parking, designated pedestrian
crossings, and an interconnected street grid based on the North Boulder Subcommunity
Plan.
C-2 Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized by alley fed parking which reduces
the amount of curb cuts. Detached sidewalks and parallel parking are planned, which
provide a buffer for the pedestrian from traffic.
C-3 Safe and convenie~t connections to transit are being made with a proposed bus
stop in the park at the east end of Yellow Pine for RTD's 204 route and a proposed bus
stop for the Skip route along Broadway. Connections to the existing bike path are being
made along US36 in the linear park. Auto and pedestrian connections are being made
through the grid of streets which interconnect with the existing fabric of the city.
C-4 Alternatives to the single occupant vehicle abound. We are proposing
connecting to two bus lines, an existing bike path system, and we are providing 5'-0"
wide detached sidewalks for a pedestrian friendly environment. The neighborhood was
designed with walkability in mind. Shops, places to work, places to recreate and places
to grow food are all within walking distance from the houses.
C-5 Travel demand management techniques which are being employed in this project
include a system of sidewalks, off street paths and low volume streets which promote
pedestrian and bicycle travel. The interconnected nature of ihis system will promote
bicycle travel to and from the neighborhood to the rest of the city. Automobile trip
Holiday Drive In Thentre Redevelopment - Site Plan Review Submittal May 21, 2001
making will also be reduced by the proximity of work and play opportunities within the
neighborhood. A car sharing program is also being proposed along with an ecopass
program which will be instituted on the site.
C-6 On-site bus stops and bicycle storage facilities, along with a proposed car
sharing program help link us to alternative modes of transportation.
C-7 The amount of land devoted to the street system has been minimized while
keeping to the intent of the street system adopted through the North Boulder
Subcommunity Plan.
C-8 The project has been designed for the type of traffic expected with the traffic
projections within 5% of that previously anticipated for this site. The design also
enhances the bicycle and pedesirian experience by integrating pathways and linkages
throughout the site. A layering of landscape from the street to the houses and a
landscape buffer from US36 has minimized impacts from noise and exhaust.
C-9 The city design and construction standards for Rights of Way have been varied
where appropriate through an iterative process including both planning staff and the
department of Transportation. We have met with the fire department and have satisfied
the requirement of SU-30 turning radii, where appropriate. See our proposed street
sections in the Standards and Guidelines.
D PARKING
D-1 Parking is provided off alleys and in internal, screened parking courts, minimizing
the interaction between pedestrians and automobiles.
D-2 With doubled loaded alleys and doubled loaded parking courts, where
appropriate, the projecYs design makes an efficient use of land dedicated to parking.
D-3 Parking areas are screened from the street and adjacent properties through the
use of landscaping, buildings, walls, and/or garages. As is stated in our Standards and
Guidelines, lighting fixture heights will be proportional to the parking lot, follow the city's
illumination standards, and avoid abrupt lighting changes across property lines.
D-4 Landscaping within or near parking areas to provide shade will exceed city
standards by 20% (see Standards and Guidelines).
Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopment - Site Plan Review Submittal May 21, 2001
E BUILDING DESIGN, LIVABILITY, AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE EXISTING OR
PROPOSED SURROUNDING AREA.
E-1 The buitding height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are consistent
with the goals and intent of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan.
E-2 The height of all proposed buildings is consistent with the height of existing
buildings of similar type in the Yarmouth North neighborhood.
E-3 The orientation of the buildings along the streets and within the blocks minimizes
shadows cast on other buildings and maximizes solar access. In addition, the stepping
back of buildings on the south side of the street will also minimize shadows cast. The
views of the Flatirons and Dakota Ridge have been enhanced through careful site
design.
E-4 The character of this area is emerging, We believe this project to be consistent
with recent projects in this area but will also contribute to the overall impression of the
Yarmouth North neighborhood once completed.
E-5 The rhythm and pattern established within this site plan provides for a varied
environment at the pedestrian level, creating the fabric for a human scaled architecture.
Primary entries which face the street, porches, baiconies, architectural massing and
detailing all contribute to the pedestrian experience.
E-6 The project provides public amenities in the form of a city park, a radial
pedestrian path which connects the park with community gardens, and a linear park
along US36 as part of a gateway into the city of Boulder. As well, a community center or
day care center is being proposed as a component to a building adjacent to the park.
E-7 The project assists the community in providing a diverse building program
including single family houses, townhouses, apartments, rowhouses, mixed use
buildings, and carriage houses. These are provided on lots of differing sizes resulting in
for sale prices across the market spectrum while also providing over 40% of the housing
as permanently affordable.
E-8 Noise is minimized between units and buildings through sound attenuating
construction systems and materials. Noise is minimized from US36 with the combination
of a landscaped buffer and wall along the eastern edge of the project. We continue to
work with LSA, a sound engineering firm, to explore the sound design possibilities for
interior and exterior wall construction.
Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopment - Si[e Plan Review Submi[[al May 21, 2001
E-9 The lighting plan as outlined in the Standards and Guidelines requires sufficient
lighting to provide for defensible space, while avoiding glare and impact to adjacent
properties. We are working with Sustainable Futures Society on an EPA grant to
implement the most efficient lighting package for the housing across the site based on
building type.
E-10 We are integrating the neighborhood into the natural environment by enhancing
view corridors, siting buildings and open space to take full advantage of solar access,
lighting to minimize impacts to surrounding areas and using energy efficient and
resource conservative building systems and practices. We are also working with the
Sustainable Futures Society on an EPA grant to implement micro-managed storm water
strategies and bio-swales to recharge the water table.
E-11 Cut and fill are to be balanced across the site with the cut from grading and
basements being placed along US36 as part of our landscaped linear park, which acts
as a sound buffer from the highway. Given the relatively flat nature of the site, the
potential effects of erosion, slope instability, and landslide are negligible.
F SOLAR SITING AND CONSTRUCTION
F-1 The street configuration, placement of lot lines and placement and orientation of
open space have been designed to maximize solar access. As can been seen in the
master site plan, all individual developer's projects have been sited to take full
advantage of the sun while minimizing shading. The park and smailer pocket parks have
been designed to open up the site to solar access.
F-2 Lots and buildings have been sited to maximize solar access and minimize
shading. Two projects in particular, by Peak Properties and the Co-housing project have
been designed to maximize both passive and active solar systems.
F-3 The Standards and Guidelines dictate that, if appropriate, buildings to the south
of other buildings will step back at the second or third story to minimize shading of the
street or buildings to the north. All buildings shall adhere to the solar access code.
F-4 The general landscape section of our Standards and Guidelines insures that
shading from landscape will be minimized.
G POLES ABOVE PERMITTED HEIGHT - NA
Holiday Drivc In Theu[re Retlevelopment - Si[e Plan Review Submi[[a! MAy 21, 2001
NORTHERN LIGHTS
The A£fordable Housing Alliance (AHA) at Yhe Drive-In
Northern Lights is the second project to be sponsored and developed by AHA and is
presently in the design phase witl~ groundbreaking anticipated in the early spring of 2002.
The project will provide fourteen deed-restricted units in two- and three-bedroom
duplexes and one-bedroom carriage units. The homes will be arranged to address both the
common green space and the adjacent streets. Principal design goals for Northern Lights
are the following:
• Homes are arranged so that there are ample opportunities for neighborly
interaction and public 1ife.
•:• Sweat equity is a major component of the building process, with each family
contributing 300 hours to the construction of the community.
•.• Porches and small private yards are key components of each home's design.
:~ Home sizes are varied to create a community of diverse residents.
• Household sizes range from one to five persons with one-, two-, and three-
bedroom homes.
:• Some units may have opportunities for studio/work space.
• All homes are deed-restricted, with the financial ability of each household
establishing the price. Homes are priced to allow families earning between 50%
and 80% of the area median income (AMI) to become homeowners. (See chart
based on 2000 AMI figures at right.)
Family Size lncome Range
1 $25,900 - $41,440
2 $29,600 - $47,360
3 $33,300 - $53,280
4 $37,000 - $59,200
5 $39,950 - $63,920
~
~
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
MAIN STREET NORTH
Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center at the Drive-In Site
Main Street North is a proposed mixed-use block to be built at the principal entrance to
the new neighborhood at the site of the former Drive-In Theater in North Boulder.
Buildings and uses are ananged to create a lively setting along Broadway and Yellow
Pine. Prospective tenants include a bakery/cafe, a restaurant, small retail shops, oftices,
and residences. Well-defined common areas will provide places for cafe seating and
outdoor gathering. The proposed architecture blends a traditional Main Street 2-story
scale with dramatic residential volumes to create an exciting streetscape.
Potential office and retail spaces can range in size from as small as 750 sq. fr. to as large
as 4000 sq. fr. Fourteen residential units will be available for sale, with nine 2-bedroom
and five 1-bedroom units planned. Five units will be priced for homeowners earning less
than 67.8% of the area median income (AMI) and will be deed-restricted. Some
accessible units will also be provided.
All feature an exciting contemporary design with adjacent outdoor terraces or yards.
Ample parking will be provided with spaces underground, behind buildings, and in
single-car garages if desired.
Construction is planned to begin in early 2002. Please contact us at (303) 447-2786 to
learn more about this exciting new mixed-use project.
~
•
•
~
•
•
•
•
•
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
~
~
~
Holiday Drive In
Written Statement - For Site Review Submittal
March 28, 200]
Blocks 9 and 12 - Zamia Street
Zamia Street is designed to be primarily a single family residential street. The sheet is comprised of mosdy
single family dwellings on narrow lots with multifamily (duplex and Triplex) buildings at the ends. All
6uildings have front porches facing the street and parking is off alleys at the tear of the lots. This allows
for a positive pedestrian environment that encourages interaction between neighbors.
Btock 15 - Studio Mews
The Studio Mews is a unique area. The block is organized around a pedestrian way which leads to and
from the park and the community gardens. Alon~ this path are primarily two story buildings which ~vill be
designed to open up on to the pedestrian way. These buildings will be mostly residential with some studio
uses mixed in. It is our hope that this area will be populated by artists. With this in mind the buildings will
be an eclectic mix designed relativety simply with the hopes that artists will add their own individual
touches.
The outside edges of the Mews block are designed to better reflect the residential character surrounding
them. These are primarily multi-family buildings with front porches facing the streets. Parkine is located
behind the building in small lots allowing for building frontage on the streets and the pedestrian way.
Block 14 - Easy Rider
Easy Rider is a short street on the southwest side of the Studio Mews. This will be a narrow street with
parking on one side. The buildings are pulled up close to the street to create an intimate s[reetscape. The
south side of Easy Rider contains smafl duplexes. Each unit will have a porch facin~ either the street or the
pedestrian way.
Block 13 - Row Houses on the Park
These Row Houses wilt face the park with front porches. These porches may have two or even three
stories to take full advantage of views to the park and to the Flatirons beyond. The buildings contain a mix
of units ranging from 750 s.f. to 1600 s.f. The buildings will be primarity 3 stories wi[h sin~le and two
level units. We have split the buildings inro 6 sections allowing for easy access to and from the parking at
the rear and to allow residents across the alley to get to the park, on to public transportation, and to
commercial uses along Broadway.
PLANNERS • DESIGNERS • 6UILDERS
1711 PL.ARL STREET, THIRD FLOOR • BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 •(303) 442-3351 • FAX (303) 447-3933
2ll ET.K AVT3[VUE • B O. BOX 901 • CRESTED BUTTF„ COLORADO 81224 •(970) 349-]366 • FAX (970) 349-1369
Blocks 3,4 and 5- the MU-D Section
Commercial buildings anchor the corner of 13°i and Yellow Pine. These buildings will be designed to fit
retail-likc uses on the ground floor and office uscs on the second floor. With this in mind the walls on thc
ground floor will be more open while the sccond floor will have more punched openings. As you move
toward the park, the street becomes more residential in character with the buildings stepping back from thc
street allowing for some green space and front porohes. These building will be two-story townhouses with
some flats mixed in along the park.
Parking for all uses is behind the buildings small lots. The parking lots are broken up with landscaping
islands and garages. Pedestrian pa[hs connect the parking areas [o the streets and to the front of Ihe
buildings
i~
1,~ ~ ~•
~~ ~
~~
B A R R E i T 5 T U D 1 O a r c h i t e c t s
Garden Crossing at the Holiday Drive In
Redevelopment
For Peak Properties and Development Company
Written statement for Site Plan Submittal - May 21, 2001
The townhouses and carriage houses on this site are bordered by 17'h St to the
west, Yellow Pine Ave, to the south, and US36 to the east. US36 posed the greatest
design challenge due to the noise and volume of traffic associated with the highway.
The design solution, arrived at after many iterations influenced by planning staff, the
design team, and LSA sound engineers is described in the Buffer section of this
submittal.
The remainder of the atypically shaped site was organized around two main
concepts - orienting as many of the buildings as the site would allow for maximum
solar access and creating a connection through the site from the Community Gardens
to a pocket park within. The majority of the townhouses have a southerly aspect
while maintaining a welcoming relationship across a porch to the street. The carriage
houses all have a southerly aspect while providing private outdoor space and
creating a strong, visually interesting edge to the neighborhood.
The Community Gardens are brought into the site to blur that defining line
between private development and public amenity. The gardens are then connected
to an internal pocket park by a distinct paving pattern along the drive. This path
meanders across the pocket park to connect to the neighborhood via a system of
sidewaiks to the south. The design intent is to create a sense of community identity
by integrating the houses within a landscape of gardens and parks, both the pocket
park and the linear park along US36.
Archi[ec[ure Community/llrban Design Interiors
~944 ~oth S[reet Boulder, Colorado 8o3oz
phona 903~449•~iy1
~~• 303~449•93~0
email bsa~barrettstudlo.com
wab www.barrettstudio.com
Memorandum
Project: Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopment
Block 17
North Boulder Cohousing
From: Bryan Bowen
CC: Wonderland Hill Development Company
Date: 20 September 2001
Re: Project Narrative
~
JIM LOGAN
A R C H I T E C T 5
North Boulder Cohousing is a group of households interested in living together in a community as a part of the
Holiday Drive-In Redevelopment Project. Wonderland Hill Development Company has been selected to assist thcm
in the process. Currendy, there are 36 member houscholds.
The variances we have requested are directly linked to the Cohousing community mission and environmental design
goals. In order to maximize usable outdoor open space the build-to line has been pulled toward thc right of way,
allowing space for porches, window wells, street trees, and landscaping along [he street face. Lnwns fron[ing [hc
street havc been minimized and replaced with smaller spaces for flower and shrub beds. This project is a
demonstration level, low energy consumption community. Passive solar perfonnance and ability ro dayligh[ spaces
are cri[icaL The smaller setbacks allow us to achieve optimal solar aceess for each of the sou[h facing buildings by
maximizing the distance be[ween the rows of sou[h facing buildings to maintain as much solar acccss as possible.
We are reques[ing a 20% parking variance in off street parking based on the following fac[s:
1) A survey of the members of the community shows [hat they own only 1.2 cars per houschold.
2) One of the members of the community created a car-sharing program, which has been ndopted by thc
group.
3) Access to mass transit is direct.
4) Duc to the small number of curb cuts there is abundant on sVeet parking.
The site plan that is submitted has becn devcloped in conjunction with the community through an interac[ivc
process. They have reviewed it and agreed that it advnnces their goals and community mission statement.
IdSi YARMOUTII AVG. STE I14 • POULDHR. CO N070d . tel 7113.4J9.7174 •/u~ 303.i17.17%I
~
~
~
~ >
~ . ~~.~,
~
~
a
~
~ ;~~
~ , ~~~h
a
~ . ; ~~~~~~'-
~
~ o
~
~ j;.;~,
a
. F
/
~ I
~ ~
. ~~~~
• '%"`m~ ~A":;;',t::i.ti~'r~'?,``
~ a~
~ ~
~
~ I
•
•
~
i
•
•
~
i
~ ~r ~~
~ I ~ ~~ ~
n. H"~n,,;., .
vl
~ m~~~
~ ';,iY~~~l i ~
~ ! -.~~ ~_ .
~
~
i
~
THE HOLIDAY DRIVE IN THEATRE REDEVELOPMENT
FOR THE AOUSING AIJTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BOULDER
BLOCK PLAN ! BUILDING PROCRAM
~PInY=1W/u2.INSJ3.01 NOPTH
nn a ~
iI31L'.~1~
, , r ~~~...
KEY LEGEND:
~ Right of Way 0 Gabmm as tead developer. desi;ned by a~chitecturai collaborative
~ Wo1ff/Lyon 0 NaropaUniversi~yw/WoIf€/Lyon
~ Coburn 0 C'o - Kousing (Wonderland)
~ Independent Developer 0 Peak Properties
~ Affordable Housin~ Afliance w/ Wolff! Ly on
~
~~ ~ ~
Nousfny A~Mimdy e1lhc CNy vl ~ouldor
.,
,lj~~
>> 1
~,
BRAAETT STUDIO ar~hllecls
r
~III~
A2
~ -
~
a
*
~
' '~
~
~ ?.
•
~
~ ~~
~ ,~ ~~ ~,.,
~
~
~
0
~
~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~ 's~~- ,;~,~~ti':
~
. ~
. ~
• I
~
~
f
~
•
~
~
~ a
. !- ~
i i ;~~ ~
~-
~tiw - ..
~ ~'°'~~~.i
~ ~ ~i;~
~ir,., ti ~ ,
~~
f - _ u_
~
~
A
~
Couunumty Gacdens
Resto~ed Holiday Dnve In Muquis
KEY LEGEND:
~ Right of Way
. O~ces ! Shop / Community Buildin;s
~ Community Gardens and Pedestria~ Way
THE HOLIDAY DRIVE IN THEATRE REDEVELOPMENT
FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BOULDER
US~ DIAGRAM
UeaPlni"=t0o'Ni.tlps.is.o~ NORTH
~. a~~ ~
ui.7L"_fNl~
i~; ~~ ~
Nau~ng Aukhadfp dthe Cit~ d Bauida
~~~~~~ . .. ~ ~r ~~~~~ ~~
~ Single Family and -uplex
~ Attatched Housing
~ Mixed Use
6uffe~~ from U.S. 36
.,
.1~~i
,~ Y
/~
~~
-^III^ ~iii ^i~nun
6ANRFiT SiUD10 aechiteets
~~
;1 j ~i
,~ ~
1,
8 A R R E T T S T U D 1 O a r c h i t e c t s
Mike Randall
Plunning Department
City of Boulder
Dear Mr. Randall,
March 23, 2001
Please find enclosed our revised site plan for lot 113 and the buffer at the Holiday Drive In
Redevelopment. You will see changes from our last plan which are a result of staff's input
along with the desires of Peak Properties, the building developer and the Housing Authority,
the site developer. We believe our proposal addresses all the concerns discussed with staff and
satisfies [he needs of both the site and building developer.
As shown, our buffer design has the following characteristics:
• Carriages houses and garages that undulate along the 70'-0" buffer line which enlivens the
edge along U.S. 36. The corner of each uni[ encroaches a maximum of 10'-0" at the tip.
These units encroach 1323 square feet into the buffer but the space between each unit
provides for an additional 2220 square feet of buffer giving the buffer ~ net gain of 897
square feet of space.
• The carriage houses and garages provide meaningful sound attenua[ion for the residences
beyond since they are two stories and can block sound from reaching into the
neighborhood.
• The entry to each unit lies in the landscaped space between two units rising to a private
deck facing south.
• We are able to berm into the carriage houses and garages reducing the visual impuct from
and to U.S. 36 (see our elevation and section) while providing a landscape buffer that rolls
along at a variety of elevations, providing opportunities For different plantings. The berm
itself will rise and fall along [he rear wall of the units creating visual interest at the edge of
the linear park.
• The design of the carriage houses themselves locate the service portion of the house
(bathrooms, closets, kitchen) to the northeast and open up the living por[ions including the
bedroom to the southwest, capturing sun and views while internally mi[igating the sound.
The materials chosen for this house design will also keep sound attenua[ion foremost in
mind. See our carriage house floor plan.
• We have configured the majority of our detention ponding to flow along the R.O.W. on
U.S.36, acting much like a shallow, wide swale. This configuration a(lows us to wind the
Architec[ure Community/Urban ~esign In[eriors
1944 zoth Street Boulder, Colorado 8o3oa
Pnon• 3a3~449~»4~
~~i 3a3•449•93~0
•mdl 65a~barretts[udio.com
web www.6arrettstudio.com
bike path through a planted area we see as an orchard of fruit trees, flowers, ~nd shrubs (see
our site plan and section).
• The community gardens and thc restored Holiday Drive In sign remuin as in[egral
contributions to the gateway to Boulder.
• This plan creates a connection between the community gardens and a vest pocke[ park by
bringing "fingers" of the gardens into lot 113, connecting to a walkable alley with paving
which indicates a path as well as iden[ifying the entry to each carriage uni[, ending at [he
park to the south. Allowing some of the unit count to reside along the buffer's edge has
created the opportunity for increased open space within lot 113 which we believe will
significantly enhance the livability of this part of the neighborhood.
• Currently the shoulder for U.S. 36 is between 20'-0" and 40'-0" from the buffer line (see
plan and section). This is an area that will help "buffer" as well.
I look forward to discussing this further with you and planning staff.
Thank you for your consideration,
George Watt, Architect
Projecl Manager for Ihe Housing Au[horitq's Holiday Drive In Redevelopmenl
Cc Cindy Brown, Housing Autho~ity of the City of Bouldar
Bob Walker, Peak Properties
~ -~ ~ ;
,
.
1roWNFIouiE ~t~~N D~tvE
C~ UN~T GP DENS ~p>t~l OETG~'r~orl '~b~~
pFx.~ y
I
"(o'-o" b~FF6f~-
mm,~ ~,~i{w~"'4x.r~U,~„~.n..,,. r~~,~~~mn~m~n~~.
S~ax,o6'(~ uS 3~
~ 1 t• ~ 1. 1 1 i f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~~ ~ ' I I. ~. ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~. • ~~ ~
~~~~~ ~~ ~ I II ~III II~ o~
~a~.. i
(
.'
I~~u~ wi~~ ~
•
•
•
i
~
~
+
~
~
~
.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
•
~
~
~
~
•
~
~
~
•
.
•
~
~
~
•
~
~
~
:
•
•
.
•
Unit Count per Developer's Project
Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopment
Submitted May 21, 2001 - Revised August 6th 2001. Revised September26th. 2001
MU-D:
. . ~- ~ . . . . .~ . .. -. . ~.. -
1&2 Woltt/ 13 ~ 2Si32~ office / personal service 8 restaurant 5
Lyon less than 1500 SF
3 Cobum 11 17 ~~ oHice / personal service 6
4 Coburn 17 ltfzt$ 3584 office / personal service 8
TOTAL MUD 35
TOTAL BUILDABLE SF:
34164 34164
68328
19
MXR-D:
: .
5 ~•
Coburn ~ .
11 . ~-
0 . .- ... . ... ~
3
6 0 9600 fecreafion/athletic lacili(y accessorv to
residential develogment
7,8,10,11,19 W/L w/
Naropa ¢$ 6500 dance / art studio / classrooms for Naropa -
flexible space ~$
9 Coburn ]1 0 ~
72 Coburn 1q 0 ,?
73 Coburn 42 0 12
14 Coburn 8 0 4
15 Coburn 35 B000 studio / prof. Oflice 17
16 AHA w/
W/L ~ 14 0 14
17 CoHousing ~4 0 ]~
18 Peak 56 0 21
TOTAL MXR-D ~
TOTAL PROJECT 324
r~
y1~~-
,•.
~~
BARRFTT STUU10 ar~hiteats
24100 1~
58264 ~
~ >i
~~~~~ ~~~
Housing AtRhoMy of the Ciky of Boulder
•
•
•
•
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
~
`
~
~
~
s
•
~
~
~
~
~
S
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
•
~
Density Calculations
Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopement
Submitted May 21 st, 2001
Revised August 6th, 2001
MU-D Zone: 145,642 S.F. (gross)
MXR-D Zone: + 7,043,119 S.F. (gross)
Entire Site = 1,188,761 S.F. (27.2902 acres)
MU-D Zone
Gross Acreage 145,642
-1324
-42,337
= f01,981
x 0.67
= 6B,327
S.F.
S.F. R.O.W. reservation
S.F. R.O.W. dedication
S.F.
FAR
S.F. Buildable squaie footage
68,327 S. F. = 61,188 S. F. (.6 FARJ + 7,139 S. F. (.07 FAR increase)
MXR-D Zone
Gross Acreage 1,043,119 S.F.
-75,960 S.F. Park dedication
-319,563 S.F. R.O.W. dedication
-78,299 S.F. Block 6 (non-residential use)
= 629,297 S.F.
/ 43,560 S.F./acre
= 14.45 acres x 20 dwelling units/acre = 289 dwelling units
i~
~~', f,
,•.
,-'
BAPRETT STU010 archl~ects
~~~~~..~ -.
~=-~
Housing Aukhoriky of 4he Ciky of Baulder
~
•
•
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
•
.
•
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
•
•
•
Open Space and Parking Analysis
Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopment
Submitted May 21, 2001 • Revised Auaust 6 2001
: .
elock 1,2 ~
,5~j~3~f ~.- ..
•. •.
$3S3~f •.- ..
. .-
1~231~t .
•. -.
¢Z .
. ~.
85 ... ~.
.
n/a
Block 3,4 ~ ~f232~/ ]~i/ 44 4Q ~L
Block5 1$344~f 2Z~1~1 ~&1~1 14 14 IId
Block 6 ]~$,~( ZZ24~~ 4~ZZ~1 24 24 n/a
elock7,8,10,11,19 1151$Q~1 17277~( ~3124_SI ~ $Z n/a
Block 9 $$$~~~ 4$~4~~ 2~1 1@ 2(2 n/a
elock 72 ~/ ¢31~ 21$5~.1 14 1$ n/a
Block 13 ~~/ 9~,5~~1 3$24Q~1 $1 4$ ftL
Block 14 1~]QZ@( 1~1 $~( 8 8 n/a
Blockl5 ¢Q5~Q~j $Q$4~j ~ 44 45 2%
Block 16 72 ¢$p~_s( ~ 17 22 n/a
Blockl7 ¢QQ@]~j ss~~,s/ ?,3~59~( ~¢ 4@ za~
Block 18 ~gj j~/ $7~`2`J...&1 61 67 n/a
TOTAL
~r
,r~~i ,
,•.
.'
B~RRETT STU010 architects
503 523
~:~..~~.`~~ ~:_~~
Housing Aukhority of 4he City of Boulder
Open Space and Parking Analysis
Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopment
Submitted May 21", 2001
Revised Auq~st 6fb. 2001
Request for Parking Reductions
On Blocks 3 and 4 a 9%a reduction is requested diee to the folloivinq:
• The mixed use nature of'the development which provides pedestrimr nccess ~o x~m~k. shoppirtg nnrl
nlav while o erir~he opportunitv to shnre parkin~ behveen die residentinl ancl non-resideiNinl
uses•
• Amole on-street parkine.
• Convenient acces.r to RTD's 204 route (the sm~ is ~lanned for the intersectiRtt pf Y~ll~tp Pit~~ nnd
14`~' St 1 and to the SK/P along Brondwav
On Block 13 a 6% reduction is reQuerted due to the following:
• Convenient access to RTD'r 204 route (the stop is planned for the intersec~ior~ of Yellow Pine mid
14"' St. l and to the SKIP along Broadwav.
• Ample on street parkinp unbroken bv curb cuts. This section of on s~reetpnrkinq direcdv in fron~
oFthe residences is not shared with other residence.r as the nnrk is neross die street which has
more convenient parking to the west nnd .roud
Oie Block 77 a 20% rerluction is requested due to the, ollowin~
• A surve~the members of the co-housing communitv shows diat theo own onlv 1.2 cnr.c per
household
• One of the members of the communitv has crented n cnr-sharing progrnm. which hns been ndopted
bv the grou~
• Access to mass transit is clirect.
• Due to the small amount o,f curb cuts dzere i.s nbundnnt on street parkin~
Setback Variations by Block
Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopment
Submitted May 27 ~' , 2001
Revised August 6`h 2001
Block 1&2 • 3'=0"for the front yard setback where 15'-0" is required.
• 3'=6"for the side yard setback along a street where 15'-0" is required.
• 3'-0"for the front yard setback to a garage where 20'-0"is required
Block 3& 4 • 3'-0" minimum to 7'-0" maximum front yard build-to-line where a 15'-0" setback is
required for otfice and personal service uses.
• 8'=0" minimum to 15'-0" maximum front yard build-to-line where a 15'-0" setback is
required for townhouses.
Block 5& 6 • 7'-0"~ minimum [0 15'-0" maximum (ront yard build-to-line where a 15'-0" front yard
setback is required.
Block 7, 8, 10, • 7'-0" front yard setback where 15'-0" is required.
11, 19 • 2'-0" front vard setback to flex soace a/ona Lee Hill Drive
Block 9,12,14 • 7'-0" minimum to 15'-0" maximum iront yard build-to-line where a 15'-0" setback is
required.
• 6'-0" side yard setback where 1' for every 2' of building height is required for
detached dwelling units.
• 10'-0" side yard setback where 1' for every 2' of building height is required for alley
houses.
• Porch encroachment up to 50% of the minimum lront yard build-to line
Block 13 • 7'-0" minimum to ~' maximum front yard build-to•line where a 15'•0" setback is
required.
Block 15 • 7'-0" minimum to 15'-0" maximum front yard build-to-line where a 15'-0" setback is
required.
• 8'=0"iront yard setback to a garage where 20'•0" is required.
• Porch encroachment uo to 50% of the minimum /ront vard build-to line
Block 16 • 6'=0"front yard selback where 15'-0" is required.
• 3'-0" side yard setback where t' for every 2' of building height is required for
carriage units.
• 3'-0" rear yard setback where 20'-0" is required for carriage units.
No te: We regard the carriage units as a principal building and use. In this regard the
maximum building height allowed would be 35'-0" (we anticipate a height for the
carriage units of ~ 25'-0")
Block 17 • 6'=0" minimum to 11'-0" maximum front yard build-to-line where a 15'-0" setback is
required.
• Porch to encroach up to 50 % of the minimum iront yard build-to-line, reducing this
line at the porch to 2'_6"irom the ROW.
• 6'-0"front yard setback to garage where 20'-0" is required.
Block 18 . i f'-6" minimum to 14'-0" maximum front yard build-to-line where a 15'-0" setback is
required.
• We are proposing an encroachment of up to 10-0" into ihe 70'-0" buffer at US36.
See Buffer section of submittal dated May 21, 2001.
• Porch encroachment ol uo to 8'-0" into the lront vard orincinle buildina build to line
~
~
~ Hotiday Drive fn Realevetopment Sfondards and Guidelines
•
•
•
•
~ Typieat street section at Residential Blocks;
~ • This streef cross section otcurs at i5th St, i6th St,17th St, Eastern Yellow Pine Avenue,
~ Holiday Drive and iyth St. The public ROW includes two lanes of travel, on street
• paralCel parking, 8'-0"' planting strip antl a 5' tletached sidewalk.
I~
~ • Issued: August 6, zaol
,
~~
~
~
~ ,'
~ _ .~ ~ " 1:.
~,
• ~ ' ' ~ ~ '~~
I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
~~a ,~ ~,
~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~
~, ~.~
• , , ; ~`
• , ` ~ !~ . .~ i / ~II
N
~ / ~ ~ ~/
I ~~
~
~ ',Y.
xp
~ ri
~ ~ '. ~~~ ~~~'
'~ ~ ~~~I
~ i.~l
,,
~~ ~
~
,
i.
l.
~ ~ ,Il
~~~ ~~~~
_ ~I~~~~', ~ ~,i~!
~ VARIES 5~_0„ , $,.a„ s~-o^ ~a~-a„
~ SETBACK SIDE PLANTING~ I ON ST. DRIVE LANE
~ WALK STRIP PARKING
~ 6Q'-0" R.Q.W.
~
,,
• ~. ;~~,
~ i'~ BARRETT STUDIO architects
„ . . ,. ,. ,..,, :, , ; . . , ,,. , . ,,.. , , ..,. .
~ Eor the MQUSing Authoriry of the City of Boulder
~
~.~~.~..~~~ ~~ ~^^ ~~~~~~.~ ~~~^ ~ ~
;r_
,
~~
~~ ~
~ ~
~
-,
~ ~t
, ,
~ ~ ~~
: ,
,
~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~~ t
.. ~ ~
~t
~,
r ~
~
~
~
j
i~;~, i
~'~k
~~t
6~-0~~ 8~.~~~
' ON ST. PLANTING
PARKING STRIP
5'-0"
SIDE
WALK
5treet Sections
;
~
~ I
VRRlES
SETBACK
NottoSca~e I
~~Y~'~~~~1~"i~'
Holiday Park- preliminary concept
Holiday Drive In Theatre Redevelopment
Submitted August 6th, 2001
While the park at the Holiday neighborhood has not yet been designed, preliminary concepts are being
explored. This is particularly impor[ant given that storm water detention and filtering are proposed for the
park location. The purpose of the preliminary concepts is to determine how park functions and s[orm
drainage functions can co-exist.
Drainage, Filtering and Grading
The drainage / filtering functions of the park are proposed for the three "corners" of the park. These areas
are graded to accept overflow storm drainage and include a sand filter below grade that will work [o clean
the water of contaminants from stree[ run-off.
Park Program
The preliminary program identified for the park includes a trse-lined walkway aiong the streets
surroanding the park; some kind of a playground that may integrate play structures with more namral play
materials (such as boulders), and an area suitable for showing neighborhood movies on summer evenings.
The layout of the park relates directly to the old drive-in theaters located on the property. Early
discussions regarding the park have always included the desire to have this feature available.
Park Concept
The main entrances to the park are located "mid-block" on each of the three sides of the park. The west
e~trance would be integrated with an RTD bus stop (for the re-routed 204) and provide a visual terminus
for Yellow Pine St.. The west entrance will nlso require a set of stairs ~nd a ramp to allow access to the
park, while the other two entrances are at-grade with the street and sidewalk. There are essentially 5
"zones" to [he park:
Streetscape
This area of the park includes a tree-lined walkway surrounding the park and linking to [he
neighborhoods adjacent to the park. The walkway and streetscape are intended to be in character
with those in the rest of the neighborhood.
The Great Lawn
The center of the park is an open, grassy area that is suitable for flexible use. It is graded at a 3%
slope, suitabla for soccer, Frisbee, eta It may have a tree-lined edge with a soft surface
(accessible) walkway under the trees to access each of the specialty areas described below.
Natural Area/ Botanic Garden
The northwest corner of the park may consist of a planting area, soft-surface puths and seating
areas in and among the vegetation planted on the sand filter. It could be a demonstration garden
of hardy native plant materials that can tolerate wet and dry conditions.
Theater Area
The southwest corner of the park is graded to create a natural grassy :~mphitheater that would
allow for casual outdoor movie even[s. The movies could be shown on a screen which is part of a
folly, echoing the drive-in theatre screen which stood on this spot for many years. A portion of
this grlssy area would also be located above one of the proposed sand filters.
Play Area
The south east corner of the park is envisioned as a play area. This could include nah~ral features
like boulders to climb on and 1 slide that is integcated into the slope. It also may include a
swingset or other traditionll play equipment. It is currendy conceived of a[ several levels so that
during a rain event, at least half of the playground would st~y dry. It also could include an exva
deep sand filter to facilita[e [he movement of water from the surface to underground.
The design of the park will naturally evolve over the next months with the continued input from [he City
Parks and Recreation staff, Public Works staff, and consuitant team members. The goal is to find a way to
integate all of the uses intended for the park and create a beautifu] and functional park for this urea in
nor[h Boulder.
The drawings which follow illustrate the concept plan for the park along with character sketches in
section. Drawings, sketches, and photos which document the stormwater and water qu~lity BMP's are
found following the park drawings.
~
~
~
~
~
~
'~
'~
'~
I~
~
~
~
~
~
i
•
~
~r
''~~~
I•
'#
~~~
I~
II ~
~I~
•
~
i
/
~
~
~
~
~
M ~.
~,;;,
~ ,~.
~~
~ ~
~
f~~f T~ s~ ~1 .
Section Thraugh Rlay Zone, Facing Sauth
Not to Scale
ETT STUDIO archi
' ~, ~
~~
~
~ .: , ~F ~
~
~ ,;~~ ~~
~
~
. . . . . . . _. .
. . +~ik ~f
. . .ii'•
. .
. v" ~, iJ ~'~
& ~.
'"Y S ^
. '
- -. . .
~ .
' ~ ';~ .
i ~ +
~
.
. . ..
~I,,/~, ~.
. ¢
~ ~ yn~
' k ~ ~X,+E
~£~ S '~'~
.,.
. ~ ~ ~
.. .,:G1C~!~... __ .
;
~ r .~rt".., ''
~.W
..k .`. ~ „~W' n.f-
v y
~ ~
'~ ~ . .
' . . ~
~ ?~t "^, ~
'(~' ~4FO ~:;'.
s
~
. . ...
~ :~ l
~
~ .
4~ e t
~y~ ~
`
~ ~
~f v
i ¢~, ~~ ~ '
1
S
~n~~{~~ ~~ '~
~v`
~ ~~ _
' ..
~"w~~,',~q~ .~ ~l . .l
QY '~ ~' *NY tl~v~ ~: ~ ~
~.~i. F
I . .
Y
,~ i~s~' f+ '
~/ I~
.
.
A. ,
/
_t~~ P'.
V . 1,yY~
~
f
'
"-- ~~
.
-
....
.
~ .. .. .
.
.~ ...., ; siuaio
~~~~/~~I ~!'K
~ ~~ ~~l ~, o f s i s X
,1,, ,.,
Desi
Holidav Park Concept Design
August 6, 2ooi
I~I I
~I IIIIII
~
~
~
i
•
•
~
'~
I~
I~~
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
•
~
~
~
~
Gardens ovei
ra__ _~ r_"'
Bus
Main E
, Grassy Slope and Seating
~
~
i Sculpture &Theati
~
~
'~
~
IS
, Concept Plan
, Not ta Scale
i ~ '~
~. ; ~>
:
'
~ ' BARRETI
~ , ,_
~
Entry
enta( Trees araund "Great Lawn"
P(ay area over Sand filter
Berm with Naturalized Plantings
Nolidav Park Conceut Desi~n
sr¢oii
otsi~a
August 6, Zooi
III ^I II IIII~ II IIII Il I ~" ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ i ~ ~~ " ~~ ""' ~
USE REVI EW Written Statements
• STUDIO MEWS by Coburn Development
August 15, 2001
• NAROPA MIXED USE by Wotff/Lyon
September i7th, Zoos
•
•
•
~
•
•
•
•
•
~
~
~
~
~
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
•
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.
~
~
Holiday Drive In
Written Statement Narrative - For Use Review Sub~nittal
August 20, 2001
Studio Mews Art Studios
The Studio Mews is a unique area. This block within the Holiday Drive-In Mixed-Use
Redevelopment is organized around a pedestrian way [hat leads to and &om the park and the community
gardens. Along this padi are primarily two story buildings tliat will be designed to open up onto the
pedestrian way. These buildings will Ue residential and studio uses mixed together. It is our hope thzt ~his
area will be populated by artists. Wi[h this in mind the huildings will be an eclectic mix designed rela~ively
simply with the hopes that artists will add their own individua] touches. _
The outside edges oCthe Mews block are designed to better reflect the residential character
surrounding them. These are primarily multi-family buildings wiUi front porches facing the stree~s.
Parking is located behind the buildings in small lots allowing for residential frontage on the sReets and Ihe
pedestrian way.
We believe a mix of artists and residents in the Mews area will be very exciting and to ihis end we
would like to have some ln~e art studio sp~ce. We are thereCore applying for this Use Review. \Ve are
asking for a rotal of 7957 s.f. of studio space with no single space la~ger than 2000 s.f. 7'hese studios are
intended for d~e creation of artwork The studios could be used by painters, sculptors, pouers, print mnkers,
lextilc artists, weavers, etc. We would also like to allow for Professional and Technical Oftices -~vc
foresee the possiUility oC small arcf~itecture or grapl~ic design firms coming to the area.
The current plan calls for seven buildings that house studio uses. The mnjority of the b~~ildings nrc
toward the inside of the Mews, near the pathway - these studios range from S7~ s.f, to 2000 s.C Anoiher
building housing studio spaces has 2,000 s.f. on the main floor for the production of art. In this building
(#P on the plan), we would also like to have a small gallery (up to 1300 s.E) ro sell the wnres of local
artists. Building #P is located on the street so that tl~e gallery can have some s~ceet presence and easy
access to street parking. There is also a parking lot immediately adjacent to the building. In this plan all
buildings have residen[ial units above ~llowing for the possibility of true live/work. In cases where
ownership of studio space and resiclential space above is split, covenanis would restrict noise and/or hours
of operation. The shidio spaces could be occupied by single or multiple users.
We envision this area to be ~he center of vitality and diversity for the neighborhood. It is
intentionally located along the central pedeshian way in the project to foster interaction hetween those who
live and work in the area. Allowing the proposed mix of uses in the Mews area has many bcnefits for Ihe
Holiday Drive-In project and the Boulder art community. Bringing a group of artists together in one area
will foster a sense of community and creativity. Allowing Hie studio usage will enable the residents to
create and sell d~eir materials on si~e. And finally, Hiis arrangement will provide Ihe potcntial for people lo
live and work in [he same place.
Thus we are asking for a Land Use Variation allowed Uy Use Review in the MXR-D zone to allow
"Art or Craft studio spaces no Inrger than 2,000 s.f. in size" and "Professional and Technical Offices" Al
this time we would ]ike to reserve U~e right m move the exact locations of the studios wilhin block I S
because we are still in a very early stage of the development and planning stage oCthe entire [-lolfday
Drive-In project.
PLANNERS • DESIGNERS • BUILUERS
1711 PGARL STREHT, THIRP 1~LOOR • 130ULDGR, COLORADO 80302 •(303) 442-3351 • ~AX (303) 947-3933
211 CLK AVGNUE • P. O. fIOX 907 • CRTS'1'ED I3UTTE, COLORADO 81224 •(970) 349-1366 • PAX (970) 349-1369
•
~ ~
r ~, 1~~
~~
~ ,1
~
• B A R R E T T S T U D I O a r c h i t e c t s
~
~
~ Holiday Drive In Redevelopment
•
Use Review - Blocks 7,8,10,11,19
~ Proposed Developer - Naropa University
~ Written Statement
• September 17, 2001
~
i
• The Naropa-developed housing and multi-use space will be a proposed dynamic edge along Lee Hill Rd.
This block within the Holiday Drive-In Redevelopment is organized to create well-defined public realms.
~ These public realms are realized in the sheltered courtyards, a series of common open spaces designed
• to promote a sense of community within the project. The courtyards are enclosed by muHi-use space to
the north along Lee Hill Rd and by residential space to the east and west. The multi-use space forms a
~ gateway into the common open space, acting as an inviting front porch. This ilex space is small in scale
+ keeping with the adjacent residential character to the south. It is intentionally located to provide a mix of
uses as a transition between the residential apartments and the light industrial uses across Lee Hill Rd.
~ The flex space also provides a physical buffer between these apartments and the light industry.
~ There will be a stop afong the 204 bus route in the Naropa community lessening the auto impact on the
~ site. Those using this route, as well as others visiting the site, will benefit trom lectures, yoga, dance,
• music classes, etc. provided in the mixed-use buildings along Lee Hill Rd. The Naropa property provides a
• mixed-use gateway along 15'" St. from Lee Hill Rd. to the Studio Mews, a mixed-use adjacency to the
south.
• The property is proposed to be primarily multi-family housing, with roughly 60,000 sf of residential space.
~ In addition, there is proposed approximately 6,500 SF of non-residential use space along Lee Hill Road.
' This space is distributed equally among nine buildings, such that each non-residential use space is
approximately 720 SF in size, and no larger than 1,000 SF in size. The exact use of these spaces will not
~ be determined until tenants are found. Sufficient parking for any proposed use is provided in the site plan
• for the project.
~ Thus we are asking for a Land Use Variation allowed by Use Review in the MXR-D zone to allow for "Adult
• education facilities and vocational schools", "Offices, professional and technical", "Art or craft studio space
no larger than 2000 SF in size", "Governmental facilities" and "Broadcasting anq recording facilities". At
~ this time we would like to reserve the right to define the exact uses because we are still in a very early
~ stage of the development and planning stage of the entire Holiday Drive-In project.
~
~ Architecture Community/Urban Design Interiors
.
• igqy zoth Street Boulder, Colorado 8o30~
• Ohan• 303.449.ttµt
~•• 303•449•93zo
• ~man hsa~barrettstudio.com
w•b www.barre[IStudio.com
•
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Toor and Members of City Council
FROM: Ron Secrist, City Manager
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Elizabeth Hanson, Planner
DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Call Up Item: Use Review #LUR2001-00017, 9th and Canyon Civic
Building, located at the northeast corner of 9th Street and Canyon Boulevard.
Attached is the Notice of Disposition far the Use Review #LUR2001-00017, 9th and Canyon Civic
Building, located at the northeast corner of 9th Street and Canyon Boulevard.
This item went before the Planning Board on October 11, 2001, It was approved by the Planning
Board with a vote of 6-1; M. Cowles opposed.
This decision may be called up befora the City Council on or before November 10, 2001.
This item is being given to you tonight because your normal business meeting on November 6 will
not be held because of the election. There is one scheduled City Council meeting on October 23,
2001, during the 30-day call-up period.
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF DISPOSITION
You are hereby advised that on October 11, 2001 the following action was taken by the Planning
Board based on the standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9-4, B.R.C.
1981, as applied to the proposed development.
DECISION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
PROJECT NAME: 9th and Canyon Site Review: Phase 2 Civic Use Building
DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW AMENDMENT: Phase 2 of the 9th and Canyon Site
Review. The proposal includes site and architectural plans for a 55 foot
tall, 38,068 square foot civic use building (for Collage Chiidren's
Museum and the Viilage Arts Coalition, a dance coalition) on the north
side of Canyon Boulevard, east of 9th Street. Phase 1 plans - a 200
room hotel and a 656 publiclprivate parking garage - were approved by
the Planning Board on February 17, 2000. Requested variations to the
land use regulations: a height modification to 55 feet for civic use
building where 35 feet is the by-right height limit; a 33 foot tall
accessory structure where 18 feet is the by-right height limit; a
modification to the loading area requirements for the RB1-X zoning
district. (Note: A code variation for a 63 foot major street setback from
the Canyon Boulevard centerline where 78 feet is required was
approved as part of the Phase 1 plan.)
LOCATION: Northeast corner of 9th Street and Canyon Boulevard
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached Exhibit A
COOR: N03W07
APPLICANTS: Collage Children's Museum and the Village Arts Coalition
OWNERS: St. Julien Partners LLC and CAGID (Central Area General Improvement
District)
APPLICATION: Site Review, Case # LUR2001-00017
ZONING: RB1-X (Regional Business One-Redeveloping)
CASE MANAGER: Liz Hanson
This decision may be called up before the City Council on or before November 10, 2001. if no
call-up occurs, the decision is deemed final thirty days after the Planning Board's decision.
FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SEE THE FOLLOW ING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION.
IN ORDER FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS
PROJECT, A SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED MYLAR PLANS MUST BE
SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CONDITIONS AS APPROVED
SHOWN ON THE MYLAR PLANS. IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED WITHIN
SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL
AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRES.
s:\plan\pb-items\dispositions\eh9ih&canyoncivic.dis Address: 901 CANYON
Pursuant to Section 9-4-8 of the Land Use Regulations (Boulder Revised Code, 1981), the
applicant must begin and substantially complete the approved development within three years from the
date of final approval. Failure to "substantially complete" (as defined in Section 9-4-8) the development
within three years shall cause this development approval to expire.
At its public hearing on October 11, 2001 the Planning Board approved, subject to the conditions
listed below, the request with the foilowing motion:
MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved (6-1; M.
Cowles opposed) Site Review amendment #LUR2001-00017, incorporating the staff memorandum dated
October 11, 2001 (preparation date October 3, 2001) and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as
findings of fact, and using the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment A. M. Cowles opposed
the motion because he did not think that such a modern building will wear well over time and for that
reason it does not meet either of the key issues.
M. Cowles offered a friendly amendment that the applicant conduct a post-occupancy evaluation at one
year and three years to assess how well this building meets the needs of the current occupants. T.
Krueger did not accept the friendly amendment.
B. Pommer offered a friendiy amendment to. change the first sentence in Condition 3.a. to read "Final
architectural plans, including materials and colors, to ensure compliance with the intent of this approval,
compatibility with the surrounding area, and the adopted plans for the surrounding area." T. Krueger and
A. O'Hashi accepted the friendly amendment.
A. Gunter offered a friendly amendment to require that the project be sent to the Downtown Design
Advisory Board (DDAB) to find a way if possible to move the building eight to ten feet from the sidewalk. A.
O'Hashi and T. Krueger did not accept the friendly amendment.
A. Gunter then offered an amendment to the motion to require that the project be sent to the Downtown
Design Advisory Board (DDAB) to find a way if possible to move the building eight to ten feet from the
sidewalk. The motion failed for lack of a second.
M. Ruzzin offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 5 to read "The Applicant shall submit and
implement, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works as part of a technica!
document review, a Transportation Demand Management Plan that demonstrates a significant shift away
from single occupant vehicle use by employees to alternate modes through the use of practical and
beneficial transportation demand management techniques." A. O'Hashi and T. Krueger accepted the
friendly amendment.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shali be in compliance
with all approved plans dated September 26, 2001 on fife in the city of Boulder Planning
Department.
The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval for Site Review #SI-1999-12
and Use Review #UR-1999-15.
Prior to a building permit application for the civic use building, the Applicant shall submit a
Technical Document Review for the following items for the review, and subject to the approval, of
the Planning Department:
s:\plan\pb-items\dispositionsleh9lh&canyoncivic.dis _ Address: 901 CANYON
a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to ensure compliance with the
intent of this approval, compatibility with the surrounding area, and the adopted plans for
the surrounding area. Final detailing, materials, and colors are subject to planning staff
review to assure the style is consistent with this approval.
b. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and
proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed;
and any irrigation system proposed, to ensure compliance with this approval and the city's
landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the Planning
Department. Removal of any tree in the city right-of-way must also receive prior approval
of the city farester.
c. A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units,
showing compliance with Section 9-3.3-17, B.R.C. 1981.
d. A sign program to ensure compliance with the intent of this approval and the
requirements of Chapter 10-11, B.R.C. 1981.
4. Prior to a building permit application for the civic use building, all public improvements,
dedications, and agreements required as conditions of approval for Site Review #SI-1999-12 and
Use Review #UR-1999-15 must be completed and approved by the city of Boulder.
5. The Applicant shall submit and implement, subject to the review and approval of the Director of
Public Works as part of a Technical Document Review, a Transportation Demand Management
Plan that demonstrates a significant shift away from single occupant vehicle use by employees to
alternate modes through the use of practical and beneficial transportation demand management
techniques.
Approved By:
~ ~~ ~
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
s:\plan\pb-items\dispositions\eh9lh&canyoncivic.dis , Address: 901 CANYON
!.
~
~ '
E:QiIZIS •A"
'-M..:.:. DFS~P~:ON
!N ~~r ~ .
.~ :_ee: of laad r•:i:ated ia Cae Southeast 1/4 a~ the Scutheast 1/a o_
5e:=_c: 25, Townsh:p 1 Ner~h, Aar.qe 71 West c: :he 6~.: 7.M., deac_:Sed as
=01'_o:rs: Begi^~ng at the Sou.heasC eoraer cf Loc 1, 81oex 45, wEST BO~..DE+t,
r.o~.r a~ar: a: the C::y of Baulder, tecoreL'ag to rhe reeorded plat the:eof;
~::e.^.ce Westtrly alor.g the Southerly 1'~e of said 91oek 45 a d:staace c:
330.25 Eeec eo a poiae oa t~e Eascarly liae o: Niat~ Stree[ i» tke C:cy a_'
=aclder, Colorado, said Fciae he_ng Che Nar:*_nas: co^ier of eha: ce.tair.
==ac: a: :aad e~nveyed to ehe :ovn o1 8oulder !o: the p`-pone a~ a p•,:S:ic
sccceC by (n:it C1aim Deee, datad 'ueeenber 13, 1850, :~d recc_dad ~: 5co::
6- ac Page 90 e: che Houldez Couaty reeo:3s: t~er.es So~therly a1oa5 :he
Eas:esiy 1_ne o'_ sa:e N~.c`. Stvse: a~s:aace o: 160 £e_: to a~e:ac cn tAe
Wescezly excer.sian o: the Soaeherly 1:ne a'_ Hlceks a3 an3 aa, 8oclder Plac
(0::;::.a1 Towa1, nov C±:y o: eoulder, aecordir.5 eo ehe :eeorced pla: the:eof;
..ce Easterly alar.c said exteaded Soueherly liae o: said Blceks a] and a< a
dis:a^ce c= 32C.25 feet to a poia[ or. ~:~e itesterly 1!r.e o: Te:tth Stzeec
s.::eaded Souther:y, ia the C:ty af Beulde:, Colorado; theace No:the:ly
a:o^5 che said e~ccea2ed Weseesly iiae at sa'_d Teat: St:ee: a d:staace o: 160
'_e°_= more or less ta the Paiac o: Beg_ ::ae, Ah'D the BO Eoo: vide vawced
-_~_ . af :e.^.t~ S:reet !_om .he Norcherly l:ce c~ Caayon eaulevazd eo tRe
rescer?y exceasior. o: tae 5ec:herly line a_' the A..ley in said Block aa,
3ouicaz Flac, fOrig~^.a~ Towal, now Cicy a: Boulde:, aeeardcay to the reec_dec'
F1ac thezeaf as vacated by Oz3inaace No. 2165, reee:det Octeber 24, 1958 in
3ec'r. :09D 'at Page 155 as Aecep::oa No. 621067, arid G':e Sou:~esly 20 feet a:
t:e westerly~ 10 :eec o: Taze~ St:et: as vacated by Orc"_nance No. 3C10,
zeco.-ded ~ar.uary 10, :968 or. F'_lm 640 as Reee2cion No. 89]957.
r^AicC=:. I I :
A].1 of Loe 7, 81ock Sa, 80IILDEA PLAT, (Origsal Town1, nov City of Houlder,
acc~:ding ca ehe recosde3 plat tharnof, Couaty af Houlder, State of Colorado,
and ehat por:ion ai Lot B oL said iloek 44 dase:l4~d as follovs: Hegieaiag
ac ehe Southvese cerer oL said Loe ~; ehsaea Easeasly aloag the Southarly
Sour.cary at sa:.~ Zr.t 4. a G:.sta :ee oi 15 lsee: t'aenca Nerchsrly aad parallal
to ehs ttsstesly bouc'csry o! sal.d Loe •; a diat.iaee a! 140 l~at to the
Norcheriy boua'urY ef raid LeC ~; ehsaea fl~sterly aleag t!u Morthazly
beL dary o! said LoL •, a distaaes e! 25 leet eo tha Dtorthwest eoraer o!
tiaid Lot B; thanee Sour.hes2y along tha waseerly bounCary oC said LoC ~ to
'ehe Point at IIagiaaiag.
All ia L'ia Ceu=sty ~o! Boulder, State o! Celorade.
l11ACLL SZZ .
aes. s,s,s,~,s .aa ~, saelws.., aleeY as,
is Ns~4 sov9aslt~ sev a aart e! tL~ CieY e! fouSA~r.
~aaesal.aQ !e tb~ r~eosd~d alat th~s~ol~
Lfm !b~ M~~t~rlr 10 i~~t e! ~aese~a T~aeL ~tr~~0
aljeiaia0 ~aid LoL i ea ~~~~t a~ ~saawd by Osaiaaao~
lio. 3030• l~oord~S Jaeoar~ 30~ ilit, fila i~0, 7~~e~ytLea
Me. s~~ls7, Sa ~b~, CSty o! ieuid~r, CouatT o! sonld~r,
~tat• o! Coiez~do.
aa~css, xv
:.asa aar..e :s~De-e:-..y isaaaaiav tasn yeresam es eh.
i~ror~d al~~y that i~ leeat~d ia sleek ~S,
ia wtBT 3oQLDSU, aer • yart e! tL~ City o! latla~s,
~oaes6laQ ee t.L~ r~aesMl y7.at Ch~s~oli
~N~D ~:eivaiaQ ~~~ yeelL~ ~t 7~ntb ~6r~~t ~aeas~d by
ti) Osaiaase• Ite. solo, s.e.sa.a aasaaa~r io, sls~, rila
i~p, ~~e~ytioa po. ~~]l~7. ia t1-~ Citr e! swia~s,
Conaty ei soulass.. ~eat• e! Ceier~Se. aaA (ii)
osAiaaae~ 11e. iiss, s~aor6~C Ootob~r 1~, ils~ ia ~oot
1090 ~t ?a0~ 165 s~ Il~o~aeiea lle. 621067, ia eh~ City o!
seuid~r, Conatr e! SoalO~r. ~taa~ o! Coiorado.
~ Citv of Bouider Vicinitv Map
' /~~ ~ '~ j iY~` f, '
' ~PRV
. ~
~- _
.rt-: . .
~~
~ ~
''' /
. ~
~n~~i,~
~_
` _ _ _
~
, . , .
..n,~
~~„~x i / i
~ ~ . x^'~...
t' x . , --' .
~
~` ~
y~ ' ~'
y ~
/
` ~~ ~ ,-
i
--
'
!
~
,~
.
~~ / ~ '
~ ~ ~,.
,
'
,
/ ~ . ~~~! G~ gY ~
/
~~
B'~
~~ .-
~
`
~ ~ ~ ,~~ ,
~ ~
~ R~~~ M~~V
~.
`
F,
/ ~
~y"~
/ y~c , '
_ ~
,
~
;
`
_
~~ , _ - _. -
- -
~„- pE~
~ - ,.='
~.:
-
_
_.
_ ,,... ,
~
,,
, _ .
__. ,.. ,,,,
'
~ __-„
~
-. ~ S , ,. ,o:» /--- - .
.,
~ -~~ ,
, ~ ' p~Aa, / j ~ ,
.
' ~..
, , _ .,
~
,
, ~ ~ -~
`~ '
- _
~
~ : .-
~~~
1
_ .. _ .. _
-
- _,
_,
a
., ~
, ~ ~-
, ~ v
' , .
_~
, _
, ~ .
!:~ -
- ,~o ~-~ _ . _; ~-~ -
~--~
~ --
_.
0
, ,
,--
% _ _ _
- --
m _-
_ s
~
}
~ ~
~ _.
S i a. . ~/ LNUt /
;
-".
:.. _.-
~
~A ~
_
w . ~ '-~~ _~
,,/
._._
. .. 9..
~~
~ ,
\
_.- - _. ,, , . ,- ~
.~ . _ .--`
~
. __.`
_ _ '
/ Y,
~ .
-_
_
, -
,
_. . . - ' ~ ~,
'
'~, ~ ,
,
. _ ~
~
~
, _ . ~ ' ~ .,.
_ m°.. \ `~ ~~-~~'
NypN"
- _" . . " ~ -~_ " ,
.
GP
'., ~ ..._ .
-' m~ "
_
_
.
,~, `, ~ .: .
- - »w~ . ~_' . ,
.
~ ~~ -.. ._ ~ ...-_-.._-~ BLJBJECT PROPERTY: .:'.`.,
- __.- - __- __..-_
`
~ , ~
~
'
~
_
.. '- ~
.
..:.., ;~ 901 CANYON BLVD F "
~
------- _..-.:__. _ ---~- ~
~ . ~
, l~=
~ ~ %. ~'.,.r~,m~
_- ~
-'
.. . \"~. '-_-, ~~~ ~ . _ "" ' __
::
- -
~~- ' ~ '~
~
- •
-
_,.: - . [. _ _ ,
, - ' - - ; r _
~ ~ '
. _i - ~ - ~a°t` ~
. „_..-
.
__
._-!- "m°` -.- ,
, _ ~,o,'.. . ,
,--~.. 1
_~' . '`` ~
~
. .~:
_~
. , ' .
--, . ~ . .~ .
, '~~` ~'
_ /
~,
'
\
/ ~
- ,
/
. 1 \ ~,
:
.
,
,,.
x.
^ ,~
-__ . ~~'! '
~~~ , _'•/~ ,_
~ .
~ y
/i'ut~ '.
'
~
...
_- ~ ._-
% ~ ~
~
•' i
~~
-_"'__
' ~r
i -' , ~
`.-_
_- __'-'___ _~i :s ~ , . ,.' ~'. , _
. .
.'""'--- .
~
J
~:.,:,,.. .. i
.
::-' -,'.,
~ .
i .. . '
'
, ` . ,,`'
~ ~
.-. , , ' y~ ` .
/ '
~
., . _
`/ /
i - -
~
Location: 901 Canyon Blvd ~ `~~~
- ~ ~ i/
' \ .
-~
i
Sit
R
T _ ~"- .".'. . ',
ev
ew
e
Review
ype:
Project Name: St Jullen Hotei
& Civic Use Building ~~~~
ReviewNumber. LUR2001-00017 MepLlnk ~~o,a«,~~.o~s
Applicants: Collage Children's Museum N 1:3600 ~~~~
Village Arts Coalition
.,-~ °°~:,;~ ~
TM~~~~P~+b~Y
~~.
.
6