7A - Site Review Amend #LUR2001-00007, 1744 30th StreetCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: October 4, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: September 20 , 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Continuation of public hearing and consideration of Site Review Amendment #LUR2001-
00007 to change the plans for an approved Phase 2 two-story building af 1744 30th Street,
just east of the existing CompUSA store at 1740 30th Street. The proposed Phase 2 is a new
three-story, 33,900 square foot, 45 foot tall retail and office building.
Applicant/Owner: Della Cava / Tebo Development Co.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Peter Pollock, Directar of Community Design, Planning and Development
Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Division
Elizabeth Hanson, Presenter
Beverly Johnson, Planner
OVERVIEW:
The Planning Board is being asked to consider an amendment to a Site Review approved by
the Planning Department in 1998. The original Site Review included a retail store on 30th
Street (now CompUSA) and a second two-story building to the east in Phase 2. This Site
Review amendment would change the Phase 2 plans from a two-story to a three-story
buildiug. Planning Board action is required to consider the requested 45 foot building height.
The Board considered this application at its July 19, 2001 meeting and continued the item to
allow the applicant the opportunity to make changes to the proposed plans. Planning Board is
asked to consider revised plans at the continuation of the hearing at the October 4, 2001
meeting. Staff recommends approval of the Site Review Amendment, finding that the project
meets the applicable criteria.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ehcompusa3.wpd AGENDA ITEM_#7A Paee 1
STATISTICS:
Proposal: A Site Review Amendment to change the plans for the approved two-story
Phase 2 building at 1744 30th Street, just east of the existing CompUSA
store at 1740 30th Street. The proposed Phase 2 plans show a new three-
story, 33,900 square foot, 45 foot tall retail and office building. Changes to
the approved site and landscape plan are also proposed.
Requested variations to the land use regulations: a five foot side yard
setback from the north property ]ine where 12 feet is required; variations
to the city's landscape standards.
Project Name: 1744 30th Street Retai]/Office Building
Location: 1744 30th Street
Size of Tract: 45,310 square feet (1.04 acres)
Zoning: RB-E, Regional Business - Established
Comprehensive Plan: General Business
KEY ISSUES:
Is the proposed 45 foot height acceptable? Does the building present an attractive
streetscape and incorporate design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale? Is the
building design compatibie with the existing character of the surrounding area?
2. Does the project provide significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the
city's landscaping requirements? Does the plan show site design techniques which
enhance the quality of the proj ect?
JULY 19, 2001 PLANNING BOARD HEARING
Planning Board considered this site review at its July 19, 2001 meeting (A1 Gunter absent). Draft
meeting minutes are included as Attachment D. The Planning Board heard staff and applicant
presentations, opened the item for a public hearing (no one spoke) and discussed the application.
Tina Nielsen moved approval of the site review, using staff's recommended conditions and Beth
Pommer seconded the motion. During the discussion, the Board raised several concems about
the relationship of the building, parking, and landscaping, pedestrian connections, and the quality
of the landscape plan Some Board members noted that they favored the improvements to the
s:\plan\pb-items~rnemos\ehcompusa3.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7A Paee 2
landscaping plan recommended in the staff inemorandum. The merits of a three-story vs. a two-
story building were also discussed.
Based on the Board members' comments, it appeared that a 3-3 tie vote was likely. The Board
asked the applicants if they would like the Board to continue the item to a future meeting to
allow time for the applicants to consider changes to the plans. The item was continued to the
September 13, 2001 meeting (5-1 vote, Macon Cowles opposed and A1 Gunter absent). Due to
Planning Board calendar changes since the July 19, 2001 meeting, this item was rescheduled to
the October 4, 2001 meeting with the applicant's consent.
As part of the July 19, 2001 Planning Board discussion, a friendly amendment was made to add a
condition of approval related to Transportation Demand Management (TDM). A similar
condition has been incorporated in the staff recommended conditions of approval (see condition
3.c. in Attachment A).
REVISED SITE REVIEW PLANS
Since the July 29, 2001 meeting, staff has mat with the applicants and their consultants several
times to discuss the Board's comments, site and landscape plan options, and to review proposed
revised plans. The applicants have revised the site review plans (see Attachment E) to include
the following:
^ The new building is moved five feet to the east.
^ The landscaped area along the east property line is removed.
^ The landscaped islands to the west of the building are enlarged.
^ A landscaped entry plaza is added at the southwest corner of the new building.
^ A new landscape plan with revised number and type of plant species is proposed.
^ A new building entry is added at the southwest corner of the new building.
^ The number of off-street parking spaces is reduced by two (resulting parking calculation
is nine spaces in excess of the city code parking requirement).
Com~liance with Citv LandscapinQ Requirements and Site Review Criteria
Staff finds that the revised landscape plan has improved considerably from the original plan. The
applicanYs changes provide more significant and effective landscaping on the site. The new
building location five feet further to the east than shown on the originally proposed plan allows
for larger landscape beds on the west side of the building. The new landscape feature at the
southwest entrance to the building will provide a foca] point for the development. The outdoor
seating area will serve as a practical amenity for shoppers, employees, and visitors to the site. It
also helps to reinforce the pedestrian circulation system connecting the two buildings and
extending to adjacent sites.
Overall, staff finds that the revised plan goes beyond the minimum landscaping requirements and
, will substantially improve the quality and character of the commercial area. The applicants have
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa3.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7A Page 3
redistributed the required landscaping from locations that would have limited visual impact and
concentrated it at the front of the building to create significant site amenities. The revised plan
shows a mixture of trees, shrubs, and perennials with a variety of colors, forms and textures.
Attachment B, the Site Review Criteria Checklist, contains additional staff analysis of how this
revised plan meets and exceeds the site review criteria.
BACKGROUND: EXTENSION OF 1998 COMPUSA SITE REVIEW APPROVAL
According to the city's land use regulations, an applicant has three yeazs to complete construction
of a development review approval. The Planning Department can grant up to two six month
extension requests from the applicant. Planning staff issued a six month extension for the
original CompUSA Site Review, beginning February 4, 2001. This extension would have
expired on August 19, 2001, however the applicanYs July 19, 2001 Planning Board hearing for a
Site Review Amendment would have provided a new decision date for the project, thereby
making another extension unnecessary. The Planning Board's continuance of the Site Review
Amendment application on July 19, 2001 resulted in the applicant's request to the Planning
Department far a second six month extension. This extension was requested by the applicant on
August 7, 2001 and issued by Planning staff on August 24, 2001.
STAFF FINDING5 AND RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff finds that the proposed plans meet and exceed the applicable site review criteria.
Staff's findings in the July 19, 2001 stafFmemorandum to the Planning Board stated that "the
applicanYs request to add an additional floor and 13,900 square feet in building area should be
accompanied with a site plan that reflects a higher quality site design than the previous
approval". Staff finds that the current proposed plans reflect this higher quality design. The
proposed site plan incorporates features previously recommended to the applicant, including a
larger outdoor sitting area adjacent to the building and an improved landscape plan with more
attractive and useable features. The proposed entry plaza provides a destination which helps to
]ink the site's effective pedestrian connections. In addition, the movement of the building to the
east frees up more of the site plan to devote to landscaping which will provide a real relieF to the
parking area, rather than a less effective strip at the "back" of the site. Staff commends the
applicant for pursuing this approach. The result is a more favorable relationship between
building, parking, and landscaping.
As discussed in July (and in Attachment B, the Site Review Criteria Checklist), staff finds that
the proposed 45 foot building height is acceptable. The new Phase 2 building incorporates
design elements more typical of a pedestrian scale than a vehicular-oriented shopping area and is
generally compatible with the area.
Therefore, staffrecommends that Planning Board approve Land Use Review #LUR2001-00007
incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings
o£ fact, using the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment A.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ehcompusa3.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7A Paee 4
Approved By:
~~ ~
~eter Poltock, Director
Planning Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attaclunent D
Attachment E
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Revised Site Review Criteria Checklist
Staff inemorandum to Planning Board for the July
19, 2001 meeting
Excerpt of Draft July 19, 2001 Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
Applicant's Proposed Plans (Revised for
October 4, 2001 Meeting)
s:\plan\pb-items~rnemos\ehcompusa3.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7A Paee 5
ATTACHMENT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1744 30"' STREET - LUR2001-00007
1. The Applicant shalt be responsible For ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans dated September 17, 2001 and on file in the City of
Boulder Planning Department.
2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document
Review Application for the following items, and subject to the approval, of the Planning
Department:
a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with
the intent of this approval (and compatibility with the surrounding area).
b. A detailed final landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants
existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any
site grading proposed; and any imgation system proposed, to insure compliance
with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. The final landscape
plan shall reflect changes described on page five of the staff inemorandum dated
July 6, 2001, including but not limited to landscape islands (rather than a narrow
bed) along the south property line, a wider variety of plant materials, trees spaced
at 15 to 20 foot intervals, and three to four inch caliper trees). Removal of trees
must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in
City right-of-way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester.
c. A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units,
showing compliance with Section 9-33-17, B.R.C. 1981.
d. A sign program to insure compliance with the intent of this approval, the
requirements of Chapter 10-11, B.R.C. 1981, and the Boulder Valley Regional
Center Sign Guidelines.
e. A detailed parking plan showing the arrangement, locations, dimensions, and type
of parking stalls (including any areas of the site for bicycle parking or reserved for
deferred parking} to insure compliance with this approval and fhe Cify's Parking
Design Standards.
£ A digitized computer drawing of the development and the computer data used to
generate the drawing. The data must be compatible with the Boulder Urban
s:\plan\pb-items~tnemos\ehcompusa3.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7A Paee 6
Renewal Authority's (BURA) existing Autocad information on the Boulder Valley
Regional.
3. Prior to application for a building permit, the Applicant shall:
a. Submit a financial security to guarantee the initial operation of the RTD EcoPass
program for the benefit o£ all employees within the development. The guazantee
shall be in an amount not less than $12,600 to cover program operations for no
less than three years. The Applicant shall pay any amount above the amount
provided in the guarantees required to ensure operation of the RTD EcoPass
program For the benefit of all employees within the development for three years.
b. Obtain re-approval of the expired Engineering Construction Drawings approved
on July 6, 1998 (plans expire one year after approval date). Upsizing of the
previously approved six inch water line to an eight inch line will be required on
the revised plans.
c. Submit a transportation demand management plan that demonstrates a significant
shift away from single occupant vehicle use to alternate modes by on site
employees through the use of practical and beneficial transportation demand
management techniques.
4. Prior to requesting a final inspection on any building permit, the Applicant shall:
a. Construct and complete, subject to acceptance by the city, all public
improvements serving the site in conformance with the approved engineering
plans and with the City of Boulder Design Criteria and Construction Standards.
b. Install, at no cost to the city, the southwesternmost fire hydrant in conformance
with approved engineering plans and with the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa3.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7A Paee 7
ATTACHMENT B
SITE REVIEW CRITERIA CHECKLIST
(I) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency
finds that:
(1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Staff linds that the plans are consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Specifically, staff considered the BVCP policies
listed below.
Policy 2.04, Compact Land Use Pattern: The City and the County will, by
implementing the Comprehensive Plan, ensure that development will take place
in an orderly fashion which will take advantage of existing urban services and
shall avoid, insofar as possible, patterns of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered
development within the Boulder Valley. The Ciry prefers redevelopment and
infill as compared to development in an expanded Service Area, in order to
prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community.
Policy 2.20, Role of the Central Area: The Central Area shall continue as the
regional service center of the Boulder Valley for office, retail, financial,
governmental, medical, cultura~, and university activities. As such, it shall
remain the primary activity center and focal point of the Boulder Valley. The
Central Area includes distinct, interrelated activity centers such as the
Downtown Business District, the University, and the Crossroads-area regional
commercial district. A variety of land uses surrounds and connects these
activity centers.
"Policy 2.30 Design 7hat Respects Existing Charaoter: Residential,
commercial, and industrial development and redevelopment shall be
encouraged to follow sound and innovative land use planning. The goals are to
provide a livable built environment and, through the judicious use of
landscaping, materials and human scale, to respect the character of the
surrounding area.
(B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the
density of existing residential development within a three hundred foot area surrounding the
site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then
the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of:
(i) 7he density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
(ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving
or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk and Density
Standards," B.R.C. 1981.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa3.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7A Paee 8
- Not Applicable; no new residential units proposed; existing density is consistent with the
BVCP.
(2) Site Desiqn: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place
through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural
environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which
enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the
approving agency wili consider the following tactors:
(A) Oqen space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and
playgrounds:
(I) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional;
(ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residentiai unit;
(iii) The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including, without
limitation, healthy long-lived trees, terrain, significant plant communities,
threatened and endangered species and habitat, ground and surtace water,
wetlands, riparian areas, and drainage areas;
(iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from
surrounding development;
(v) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features
and natural areas; and
(vi) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
Because the proposed building is 45 feet in height, 15% of the total land area
must be provided useable open space. The applicant has provided calculations
documenting that the open space meets exceeds this requirement. Open space
areas are provided in the form of landscaped areas and walkways. The open
space area at the southwest corner of the proposed building provides a
significant amenity on the site (benches, landscaping)and will likely service as a
focal point for the project.
(B) Landscapina
(I) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard
surface materials, and the selection of materials provides for a variety of colors
and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where
appropriate;
(ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important
native species, plant communities of special concern, threatened and
endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment
into the project;
(iii) The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the
landscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2, "Landscaping and Screening
Requirements" and 9-3.3-3, "Landscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and
(iv) The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-way are
landscaped to provide attractive streets capes, to enhance architectural
features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan.
See analysis section of staff inemorandum. Proposed landscape design has
been enhanced to increase amount of plant material and provide more viable
landscaped areas. The entry plaza provides a visual and physical break in the
parking area. The landscaping proposed contributes to the development of an
attractive site plan and enhances the appearance of the property.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa3.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7A Paee 9
C. Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that
serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer
or not:
(I) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the
projectis provided;
(ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized;
(iii) Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and
between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are
provided, inciuding, without limitation, streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and
trails;
(iv) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design
techniques, land use patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and
encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single-occupant
vehicle;
(v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single-occupant
vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand
management techniques;
(vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of
transportation, where applicable;
(vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized;
(viii The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without
limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety,
separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust; and
(ix) Ciry construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated.
East-west and north-south pedestrian connections are proposed through the
parking area and help to implement fhe Crossroads East/Sunrise CenferArea
Plan. The proposed enfry plaza provides a focal point for the pedestrian paths.
Cross-access is provided fo the adjacent property to the east. Covered bicycle
parking is provided.
(D) Parkinp:
(I) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide
safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular
movements;
(ii) The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the
minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project;
(iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the
project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and
(iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the
requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C.
1981.
The existing off-street parking exceeds the minimum standards. The visual
impact of the parking area is reduced by existing pedestrian covered kiosks,
eight foot wide pedestrian paths, and landscaping.
(E) Buildinp Desian. LivabiliN, and Relationshiq to the Existinp or Proposed Surroundinq
Area:
(I) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible
with the existing character of the area or the character established by an
adopted plan for the area;
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa3.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7A Paee 10
(ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings
and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans
for the immediate area;
(iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from
adjacent properties;
(iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the
appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting;
(v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site
design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety
and convenience of pedestrians;
(vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public
facilities;
(vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety
of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family
units as weli as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units;
(viii For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings,
and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing,
landscaping, and building materials;
(ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation,
safety, and aesthetics;
(x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids,
minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
(xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to the
natural contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope
instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat
to property caused by geological hazards.
See analysis section of July 19, 2001 and October 4, 2001 staff memoranda for
discussion of building heighf and design compatibility.
(F) Solar Sitin4 and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for
utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place
streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of
solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria:
(I) Placement of Open Space and Streets: Open space areas are located
wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the
development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other
natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion.
(ii) Lot Lavout and Buildinq 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.
(iii) Buildina Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of
solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting
requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981.
(iv) Landsca~inca: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent
buildings are minimized.
The applicanf has provided a shadow analysis which indicates shading impacts
on the Crossroads East shopping center property. The proposed building siting
and additional 6uilding heighf requested will increase the shading impacts.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ehcompusa3.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7A Paee ll
Al lAl.ri1V1L~ 1V 1 ~,
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AG~+NDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 19, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: 7uly 6, 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of Land Use Review #LUR2001-00007 for a Site Review
Amendment to change the plans for an approved Phase 2 two-story building at 1744 30th
Street, just east ofthe existing CompUSA store at 1740 30th Street. The proposed Phase 2
plans show a new three-story, 33,900 squaze foot, 45 foot tall retail and office building.
ApplicanUOwner: Della Cava / Tebo Development Co.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Peter Pollock, Director of Community Design, Planning and Development
Bob Cola, Director of Project Review Division
Elizabeth Hanson, Presenter
OVERVIEW:
The Planning Board is being asked to consider an amendment to a Site Review approved by
the Planning Department in 1998. The original Site Review included approved plans for a
retai2 store on 30th Street (now CompUSA) and a second two-story building to the east in
Phase 2. This Site Review amendment would change the Phase 2 plans from a two-story to a
three-story building. Planning Board action is required to consider the requested 45 foot
building height.
STATISTICS:
Proposal: A Site Review Amendment to change the plans for the approved two-story
Phase 2 building at 1744 30th Street, just east of the existing CompUSA
store at 1740 30th Street. The proposed Phase 2 plans show a new three-
story, 33,900 square foot, 45 foot tall retail and office building. Changes to
the approved site and landscape plan are also proposed.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd
Ap~r~eal~nt aag~r~~-
: ~ Requested variations to the land use regulations: a five foot side yard
setback from the north property line where 12 feet is required; variations
to the city's landscape standards.
Project Name: 1744 30th Street Retail/Office Building
Location: 1744 30th Street
Size of Tract: 45,310 square feet (1.04 acres)
Zoning: RB-E, Regional Business - Established
Comprehensive Plan: General Business
KEY ISSUES:
Is the proposed 45 foot height acceptable? Does the building present an attractive
streetscape and incorporate design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale? Is the
building design compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area?
2. Does the project provide significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the
city's landscaping requirements? Does the plan show site design techniques which
enhance the quality of the project?
BACKGROUND:
Site Context
The project site is located in the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC), across 30`h Street from
the Crossroads Mall site (see vicinity map in Attachment C and 3-D computer context simulation
in Attachment E). The site is bordered by the Crossroads East shopping center on the north, the
Sussex One office building to the northeast, the Sunrise Center shopping center on the south, and
the City of Boulder Public Safety Building on the east. An CompUSA computer retail store is
located on the west portion of the property.
1998 Site Review
In 1997 and 1998, the city reviewed Site Review plans for the redevelopment of the former
Olympic Bowl building on 30`h Street, just south of the Crossroads East shopping center. The
approved plans (see Attachment D) show a 26,100 square foot CompUSA retail store at the
location of bowling alley (along 30'h Street), and a Phase 2 two-story retaiUoffice 20,000 square
foot building at the east edge of the property. A parking area, with east-west and north-south
pedestrian connections, was approved between the two buildings. These pedesh-ian connections
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ehcompusa2.2pd
Ap~ndAlbmt~Pe9e$ I ~
~uere a key part of the approved plan, as they helped to implement elements of the Crossroads
East Subarea Plan. Covered and lit pedestrian kiosks were constructed in the parking area.
Another key part of the plan was the cross-access drive constructed by the applicant at the
southeast corner of the property. This drive allows vehicles and pedestrians to move between
30"' and 33th Streets, with using major streets like Arapahoe or Walnut.
Crossroads East Subarea Plan
This project is located within the Crossroads East / Sunrise Center Area. The Crossroads EasU
Sunrise Center Area Plan, adopted by BURA, Planning Board and City Council in 1997, sets
forth the overall image and urban design desired for the area, as well as required pedestrian,
bicycle and vehiculaz connections and facilities. The Plan calls for the following improvements
in the vicinity of the CompUSA property:
Create an east-west transportation connection from 30`h to 33'd Streets, including sidewalks,
adjacent landscaping, street trees, special crossing treatments.
Create a north-south pedestrian spine &om Arapahoe Avenue to Walnut Street, enhanced
with landscaping, shade trees, special paving, crosswalks, signage, lighting, and furnishings.
Upgrade or replace the former Olympic Bowl building, add a new building to the east, and
reconfigure and landscape parking in the middle.
In general, the Crossroads East / Sunrise Center Area Plan encourages:
• The addition of more useable open space (mini-parks and plazas) throughout the area,
capitalizing on views to the west;
• Creating more pedestrian-oriented buildings, by using pedestrian-scale volumes and
materials, and providing clear windows;
• Enhancing pedestrian paths and azea with landscaping, lighting, furnishings, specia] paving;
• Maintaining community retail and office, adding entertainment, civic and residential (mixed)
uses.
Project Description
The applicant, Della Cava / Tebo Development Company, requests Site Review Amendment
approval to amend the Phase 2 plans for the proposed building at 1744 30`h Street, just east of the
CompUSA building. The applicanYs proposed plans are found in Attachment H. The proposed
changes from the 1998 approved plans:
Increase the building size from 20,000 to 33,900 square feet
Increase the building height from two stories to three stories and 45 feet in height
(45 feet requires Site Review approval, where 35 feet is the by-right height limit; the
proposed height exceeds the 40 feet in height which can be considered as conditional
height in the RB-E zoning district)
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ehcompusa2.2pd
p~endel~m~ 'IA pag~8 /~
New azchitectural plans, including 2"d and 3`d level decks (no architectural plans for the
Phase 2 building were approved in the 1998 Site Review)
Changes to the approved parking ]ayout (meets cunent parking requirements)
Changes to the approved landscape pian
ANALYSIS:
Staffs analysis of how this proposa] meets the Site Review criteria is presented in two formats.
A checklist and notes relating to the applicable criteria are attached as Attachments B. A
discussion of the criteria which are most relevant to this project is found below.
1. Is the proposed 45 foot height acceptable? Does the building present an attractive
streetscape and incorporate design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale? Is
the building design compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area?
Buildine Hei~
The proposed Phase 2 building would be 42 feet above finished grade, and 45 feet as
measured based on the city code definition of height. The proposed building height
would be taller than the neighboring 26 feet tall CompUSA building and 16 feet tall
Crossroads East building. The nearby Sussex One building is considerably taller, at five
stories tall. Staff finds that the proposed building height is acceptable at the requested
location, although the building wouid be consistently taller than most of the existing
surrounding buildings. It is likely that buildings above 35 feet in height will be a part of
the redevelopment of this general area, including redevelopment of the Crossroads Mall
site.
Building Desi~n
The Phase 2 building incorporates design elements more typical of a pedestrian scale than
a vehicular-oriented shopping area. The proposed elevations (see Attachment H) show
considerable amounts of glass at the first floor level, awnings, and a use of materials to
add visual interest. The applicanYs plans include a drawing showing similar design
features used in both the CompUSA building and the proposed Phase 2 building. Staff
finds the building design generally compatible with the area.
2. Does the project provide signif-cant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the
city's landscaping requirements? Does the plan show site design techniques which
enhance the quality of the project?
Landscape Plan
The Site Review Amendment plans show changes to approved site design, including
building siting, parking, pedestrian paths, and landscaping. The applicant requests
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd
Agenda 16em f~Page q /5
approval of variations to the city's current landscaping requirements, which have changed
since the 1998 Site Review. Site review criteria require that the landscaping provide for a
variety of colors and contrasts and provide a significant amount of plant material sized in
excess of the landscaping requirements. This requirement would not be met under the
proposed plan. The proposed variation would reduce the size of the interior lot landscape
beds from a minimum width of eight feet to less than five feet in most of the beds. This
reduction in the size of the beds would limit the total amount and size of plant materials
throughout the parking area and compromise the long-term size and health of the
proposed trees. Some of the proposed variations are requested to keep drive aisle
configurations consistenY in both Phase 1 and 2. For example, enlarging the proposed
landscape bed along the south property line from three feet to the required eight feet
would result in loss of a row of parking.
The applicant has indicated that the quantity of landscape material has been increased to
compensate for these dimensional deficiencies. While the landscape plan has improved
during the three sets of plans reviewed and may minimally meet the site review criteria,
staff has encouraged the applicant to explore more creative landscaping solutions to
improve the quality of the two-phased project. Several suggestions for changes to the
landscape plan aze listed below:
One example would be to use a series of landscape islands rather than the south
property line narrow bed. While this solution might remove one or two parking
spaces, the landscaping would be more likely to thrive and have a visual impact.
Another improvement may be to use a variety of plant materials throughout the
beds that will provide contrast and increase the perceived density of the
vegetation. The tree species proposed could be changed to species with canopies
that are fuller in appearance and wider than those currently proposed. However,
the small size of the beds will limit the types of plant materials available that can
thrive under these conditions.
The trees could be spaced at shorter intervals (15-20 feet) apart to provide a fuller
tree canopy.
The tree stock used for the initial.planting could include larger caliper trees than
required. (For example, deciduous trees at 3-4 inch caliper and ornamental trees
at 2-3 inch caliper.)
Site Desien
There aze aspects of the site design which further the goals of the Crossroads East /
Sunrise Center Area Plan and meet the Site Review criteria. East-west and north-south
pedestrian connections are proposed through the parking area and cross-access is
provided to the adjacent property to the east. These goals would be further attained by
site plan improvements which would better connect the building to its surrounding
context. The applicant has made efforts to avoid a"building surrounded by parking"
appearance through the use of paths, lighting, and a small pedestrian island. Staff has
s:\planlpb-items\memos\ehcompusa2.2pd
Ager~da Ibem #~Page H /!v
suggested that expanding 4he size and treatment of this island at the southwest corner of
the building might be a way to create a more useable pedestrian-oriented space. Such an
area might better connect the building to the pedestrian paths and offer a place for
employees or shoppers to sit or eat lunch.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Owners of adjacent businesses and properties at the Sussex One Building, the King Soopers at
Sunrise Center, and the Crossroads East shopping center contacted the case manager with
comments and questions about this Site Review Amendment application. Some concerns were
expressed about the availability of ample pazking spaces for the azea. The owners of Crossroads
East had concems about shading impacts (and resulting ice build-up) from the new building,
drainage impacts, and the building height.
Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property
owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10
days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff finds that the proposal minimally complies with the applicable Site Review
criteria. The applicanYs request to add an additional floor and 13,900 squaze feet in building
area should be accompanied with a site plan that reflects a higher quality site design than the
previous approval. City staff has reviewed and commented on three versions of plans and
oFfered suggestions to the applicant to improve the landscaping and pedestrian circulation to
create more meaningful amenities on the site. A more creative landscape plan could result in
more attractive and useable landscape features. A larger outdoor gathering space or sitting azea
adjacent to the building could provide relief to the parking area and building mass. These plan
modifications could be made in a final plan submittal (final landscape plan and final parking
plan) following a Site Review approval, with conditions.
Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Land Use Review #LUR2001-00007
incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Sita Review Criteria Checklist as findings
of fact, using the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment A.
Approved By:
; ',
ter ollock, re
Planning Department
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ehcompusa2.2pd
Agenda Ip~n t~Page ~ r
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachmant A: Recommended Conditiorts of Approval
Attachment B: Site Review Criteria Checklist
Attachment C: Vicinity Map
Attachment D: 1998 Site Review Plan
Attachment E: 3-D Computer Context Simulation
Attachment F: Development Review Resuits and Comments
Attachment G: Applicant's Written Statements
Attachment H: ApplicanYs Proposed Plans
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd
Ager~a IDam #.~_Page # ~_
ATTACHMENT A
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1744 30'h STREET - LUR2001-00007
The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans dated July 19, 2001 and on file in the City of
Boulder Planning Department.
2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document
Review Application for the following items, and subject to the approval, of the Planning
Department:
a. Final azchitectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with
the intent of this approval (and compatibility with the surrounding azea).
b. A detailed final landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants
existing and proposed; t}pe and quality o£non-living landscaping materials; any
site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance
with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. The final landscape
plan shall reflect changes described on page five of the staff inemorandum dated
July 6, 2001, including but.not limited to landscape islands (rather than a narrow
bed) along the south property line, a wider variety of plant materials, trees spaced
at 15 to 20 foot intervals, and three to four inch caliper trees). Removal of trees
must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in
City right-of-way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester.
c. A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units,
showing compliance with Secdon 9-33-17, B.R.C. 1981.
d. A sign program to insure compliance with the intent of this approval, the
requirements of Chapter 10-11, B.R.C. 1981, and the Boulder Valley Regional
Center Sign Guidelines.
e. A detailed parking plan showing the arrangement, locations, dimensions, and type
of parking stalls (including any areas of the site for bicycle parking or reserved for
deferred parking) to insure compliance with this approval and the City's Parking
Design Standards. ,
£ A digitized computer drawing of the development and the computer data used to
generate the drawing. The data must be compatible with the Boulder Urban
Renewal Authority's (BURA) existing Autocad information on the Boulder Valley
Regional.
s:\planlpb-itemsUnemos\ehcompusa2.2pd Agenda Ilem #~Paoe # ~ L
3: Prior to application for a bui]ding permit, the Applicant shall:
a. Submit a financial security to guarantee the initial operation of the RTD EcoPass
program £or the benefit of all employees within the development. The guarantee
shall be in an amount not less than $12,600 to cover program operations for no
less than three years. The Applicant shall pay any amount above the amount
provided in the guazantees required to ensure operation of the RTD EcoPass
program for the benefit of all employees within the development for three years.
b. Obtain re-approval of the expired Engineering Construction Drawings approved
on July 6, 1998 (plans expire one year after approval date). Upsizing of the
previously approved six inch water line to an eight inch line will be required on
the revised plans.
4. Prior to requesting a final inspection on any building permit, the Applicant shall:
a. Construct and complete, subject to acceptance by the city, all public
improvements serving the site in conformance wiYh the approved engineering
plans and with the City of Boulder Design Criteria and Construction Standards.
b. Install, at no cost to the city, the southwestemmost fire hydrant in conformance
with approved engineering plans and with the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards.
s: \plan\pb-items~nemos\ehcompusa2.2pd
Agenda ibem ~ r Pege # ~~?D
ATTACHMENT B
SITE REVIEW CRITERIA CHECKLIST
(I) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency
finds that:
(1) Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan:
(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Staff ~nds that the plans are consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Specifically, staff considered the BVCP policies
listed 6elow.
Policy 2.04, Compact Land Use Pattern: The City and the County will, by
implementing the Comprehensive Plan, ensure that development will take place
in an orderly fashion which will take advantage of existing urban services and
shall avoid, insofar as possible, patterns of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered
development within the Boulder Valley. The City prefers redevelopment and
infill as compared to deve~opment in an expanded Service Area; in order to
prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community.
Policy 2.20, Role of the Centrel Area: The Central Area shail continue as the
regional service center of the Boulder Valley for o~ce, retail, financial,
governmental, medical, culturai, and university activities. As such, it shall
remain the primary activity center and focal point of the Boulder Valley. The
Central Area includes distinct, interrelated activity centers such as the
Downtown Business District, the University, and the Crossroads-area regional
commercial district. A variety of land uses surrounds and connects these
activity centers.
"Policy 2.30 Design That Respects Existing Character: Residential,
commercial, and industrial development and redevelopment shall be
encouraged to follow sound and innovative land use planning. The goals are to
provide a livable built environment and, through the judicious use of
landscaping, materials and human scale, to respect the character of the
surrounding area.
(B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the
density of existing residential development within a three hundred foot area surrounding the
site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then
the maximum densiry permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of:
(I) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
(ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving
or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk and Density
Standards," B.R.C.1981.
s: \plan\pb-itemsUnemos\ehcompusa2.2pd
Agenda Ilem i 7~ Page #.~_
Not Applicable; no new residential units proposed; existing density is consistent with the
BVCP.
(2) Site Desian: Projects should preserve and enhance the communitys unique sense of place
through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural
environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which
enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the
approving agency will consider the following factors:
(A) Ooen space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and
playgrounds:
(I) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional;
(ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit;
(iii) The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including, without
iimitation, healthy long-lived trees, terrain, significant plant communities,
threatened and endangered species and habitat, ground and surface water,
wetlands, riparian areas, and drainage areas;
(iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from
surrounding development;
(v) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features
and natural areas; and
(vi) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or ciry-wide system.
Because the proposed building is 45 feet in height, 15% of the total land area
must be provided useable open space. The applicant has provided calculations
documenfing that the open space meets exceeds this requirement. Open space
areas are provided in the form of landscaped areas and walkways. The open
space area at the southwest corner of the proposed building provides some
amenities (bench, bicycle parking), but could be enlarged fo be more functional.
(B) Landscaoinp
(I) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard
surface materiais, and the selection of materials provides for a variety of colors
and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where
appropriate;
(ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important
native species, plant communities of special concern, threatened and
endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment
into the project;
(iii) The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the
landscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2, "Landscaping and Screening
Requirements" and 9-3.3-3, "Landscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and
(iv) The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-way are
landscaped to provide attractive streets capes, to enhance architectural
features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan.
See analysis section of staff memorandum. Proposed landscape design could
be enhanced to increase amount of plant material and provide more viable
landscaped areas. The landscaping proposed contrrbutes to the development ol
an attractive site plan and enhances fhe appearance of fhe property.
s:\planlpb-itemsUnemos\ehcompusa2.2pd
Agendalt~nA ~Page# -~r.z~.~
C. Circulation: Circulafion, including, without limitation, the transportation system that
serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer
or not.
(I) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the
projectis provided;
(ii) Potential conflicts with vehicies are minimized;
(iii) Safe and convenient connections accessibl,e to the public within the project and
between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are
provided, including, without limitation, streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and
trails;
(iv) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design
techniques, land use patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and
encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the singie-occupant
vehicle;
(v) Where practical and beneficiai, a significant shift,away from single-occupant
vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand
management techniques;
(vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of
transportation, where applicable;
(vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized;
(viii The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without
limitation, automobiles, bicycies, and pedestrians, and provides safety,
separation from living areas, and controt of noise and exhaust; and
(ix) City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated.
East-west and north-south pedestrian connections are proposed through the
parking area and help fo implement the Crossroads East/Sunrise CenterArea
Plan. Cross-access is provided fo the adjacent property to fhe east. Covered
bicycle parking is provided.
(D) Parkinq:
(I) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide
safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular
movements;
(iij The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the
minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project;
(iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the
project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and
(iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the
requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C.
1981.
The existing off-street parking meets the minimum standards. The visual impact
of the parking area is reduced by existing pedestrian covered kiosks, eight foot
wide pedestrian pafhs, and landscaping.
(E) Buildinq Desian Livability. and Relationship to the Existina or Prooosed Surroundina
Area:
(I) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration.are compatible
with the existing character of the area or the character established by an
adopted plan for the area;
s:\plan\pb-items~rnemos\ehcompusa2.2pd
Agenda ttem B~Page # ~
(ii) The height.of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings
and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans
for the immediate area;
(iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from
adjacent properties;
(iv) If the character of the area is identifiabie, the project is made compatible by the
appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting;
(v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site
design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety
and convenience of pedestrians;
(vi) To the extent practical, the project provides pubiic amenities and planned public
facilities;
(vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety
of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family
units as weil as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units;
(viii For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings,
and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing,
landscaping, and building materials;
(ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation,
safety, and aesthetics;
(x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids,
minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
(xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to the
natural contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope
instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat
to property caused by geologicai hazards.
See analysis section of staff inemorandum for discussion of building height and
design compatibility.
(F) Solar Sitina and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potentiai for
utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place
streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of
solar energy in accordance with the foilowing solar siting criteria:
(I) Placement of Ooen Space and Streets: Open space areas are located
wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the
development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other
natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion.
(ii) Lot Lavout and Buildina Sitinq: Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a
way which maximizes the solar potentiai of each principal building. Lots are
designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby
structures. W herever practicai, buildings are sited close to the north lot line to
. increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading.
(iii) Buildina Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of
solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting
requirements of Chapter 9-6, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981.
(iv) Landscaoina: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent
buildings are minimized.
The applicanf has provided a shadow analysis which indicates shading impacts
on the Crossroads East shopping center property. The proposed building siting
and additional building height requested will increase fhe shading impacts.
s:\plan\pb-itemsunemos\ehcompusa2.2pd ~~n
Agerda Item 6_L~Page ~ a`~
ATTACHMENT C
Citv of Boulder Vicini~~
Maa _~
WALNUT ST
- I ~
~ _ ,..., r._.
~
._ T' ~t ,.' ~ .." r:}
~ P~t G 4 . x..... ~
5116.1E~T PROP6RTY
7 74CI-1 744 317Tt~ STiaEET e
~~,.
L7 ~~
V
0
i:.
?°'~ ~_ .....
t ...... ~.`...
. im.i r~-
Lacation: 1740-174d Walnut Street ~ ~~~
Review Type: Site Review
Proj Name: 1744 Walnut St Retail/Office Building PdepLink ~~aaou~d..~~~
~n'irC ~ nMitinJ~w~iPiwn~4'.
Review Number: LUR2001-00007 N =~~~~~~"~.~~:~.~
Tb4~I\WM~rvtlwb.~~MS'.
-s~ ~Pd~ ~ F~ i~~a~
Applicant: Tom Tolleson 1:3600 °°""`"°`° °""""'
Ylw~n
i Agenda Ilem A r Page # a' ~
ATTACHMENT D
p? _j CROSSROADS HALL
~ F °
F~~~~t~;(p~t` ~~~30th Straet ~
9I1~~z~ ~f
f
t
t
~2} A ~ ~ - -.
~ {ti~~ n ~ '~ .. jTT:..
C ] ': . _~_ ' ~' •
i~6~!} ~ .. . ',.a ~ , ~ ~~ i..~ . . ~ ...;
[~ 4
~ ~~r K ~ ~
~;#~ N ~ ~,; ~ . .~~ . ~. ~ .
~`Q`!$~ ^' ~ ` ~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~
~~ ~ ~:~I~g ~ .
y • . e~.
}}FF~~{,~ r ~
~ b A •: ~ f h
4 m , ~ !
. 1
~ D ~~~ ppp I I
f' ' r 1 1 S ~ ~
TTT ~ I
0 o D'~~ ~~ fEp~~~ ~s ~ig
r~~ ~ n-!r
~ itn O' r F.F l~ ~:a~:
fi ~: 3 ~~tl` a a
, Ri
°-ad i ~
m d . i,
~ -
a ± ~ ~~ ,d ~ ~~ -
a ~ j=
~,a.. ; ;
~ r ~ i j=
r~ '; ~~It ~ ~ t ( ; f 1=
~
~ I
~ t j ~ v ~ { i' ;~8 .~ ~ lit ''} ~j -
;..
3~ f f ~~ ; ~ .:.
R
~ ~ ~ € ~ ~~~~ i -~ ~ -< <=
f ~ _ ~
j f .
~ t ~ .__
r =
~ f 4 \ cr +r
o P
• A' 6 (1<j • L^ ~ ~ .
ti Q~~~•
i!' i~Fi F{~ v m ~~ ° i ej-~. ~~ ~~j'~'7 Y
1 ~~
a
i t~ ~ ~~~ ~~ j !, ~Q ~ g i~ ~'
:. ~"_
:a..~ `
! ~ 1 ..._..~ f~~
~ ~ , ^~~¢ dTY OP BOULDER
~6 PIIBLIC SAFETY BLbG:
i
~
~ ~'
~
"a
~
~, ~~ I.- _ - . ==
I ~~:
C' < ( ' Ds%a•Car~a/TeborDr elapmenl CO. 1'•~ ==
d
~
~o
no
D
ZN
~ AN
~ ~
ii
~
~
°"~'
J
Agenda Item B~Page # ~..5-
ATTACHMENT E
3D Simulation View
Area East of Crossroads
- ~~
y~'i:
~~
~
Information provided by
City of Boulder
Pianning and Development
Services G1S Staff 712001
Aga~da I~em # ~~ Page ~ - x
ATTACHMENT F
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: June 18, 2001
CASE MANAGER: Liz Hanson
PROJECT NAME: 9744 30TH STREET RETAIL/OFFICE BUIlDlNG
LOCATION: 1740 30TH ST
COORDINATES; N03W03 ,
REVIEW TYPE: Site Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00007
APPLICANT: TOM TOLLESON
DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW: Amendment to an approved Site Review to change the plans for the
Phase 2 bu(Iding. Tha proposal is for a new 33,900 square foot, three-story, 45 foot tall
retail and office building to the east of the existing CompUSA store. The proposal
includes a request for an open space reduction.
REQUESTED VARIAT IONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
A five foot setback from the north tnterior lot line where 72 feet is required.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Staff finds that the application minimally meets the site review criteria. As stated in the "purpose" portion of the site review
section, the purpose of site review is to "allow flexibility and encourage innovation in land use development....and to
improve the character and quality of new development." While the staff acknowledges that the applicant has revised the
landscape and parking plan since the last revised plan, fuHher improvements are recommended to demonstrate greater
compliance with the site design criteria. For example, the current plan does not show that the "project provides significant
amounts of plant materiai sized in excess of the landscaping requirements..." Staff recommends that the applicant
carefully consider the comments below and show additional improvements in the final plan submittal.
This project has been tentatively scheduled for the July 19~" Planning Board meeting. In order for this schedule to be met,
the proposed final plan must completed and submitted to the case manager by June 25'". Fifteen copies of final plans
(folded to 9"x 12") and any final written statements must be submitted to the case manager no later than Tuesday, July 3rd
for inclusion in the Planning Board packet.
The city review team for this application is available to meet with you to discuss ihe findings, assist in resolving outstanding
issues, and discuss the next steps for the application.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circulation
1. The revised traffic impact study, sealed and signed by a Colorado Professional Engineer, is required as a condition of
this approval. This requirement from previous comments was not addressed in this submittal. Steve Durian, Pubiic
Works, 303-441-4493
2. As per previous comments, an RTD Eco-Pass program will be required as a condition of approval. This program is
required to provide passes for all employees for three consecutive years beginning at the time of occupancy of this
site. This program may be initiated either by the deveioper or by the issuance of a financial guarantee.
Landscaping
To improve the area's image and its comfort for pedestrians, the Crossroads EasU Sunrise Center Area Plan calls
for: enhancing pedestrian paths with special paving, landscaping, architectural elements, lighting; lining all streets
with generous landscaping and street trees; providing plazas and linear parks among buildings; and locating
useable open space to take advantage of views to the west. The Plan specifically calls for landscaping and other
amenities along the east-west walliway through the CompUSA site. This walkway is part of a major, new
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular corridor through the Area, which connects 33rd Street and the Crossroads Mall
property. In the last revision, the applicant widened the walkway and added street trees along the south wall of the
building, and added a bench to the adjacent parking island. These improvements should be augmented, at a
Address: 1740 30TH ST
Agenda Item 9 7R Page #~~ -
minimum, with additional ptantings aiong the south wall (perhaps in raised planters). Staff believes the Area Plan
calls for a richer treatment of this corridor, including the building entry plaza, than presently proposed. Fay
I.gnatowski, BURA, 303-441-4278.
2.
IV. NEXT STEPS
BURA invites the applicant to present the project to the BURA Board prior to the Planning Board hearing. This is a
voluntary, rather than mandatory step, and would entail review and comment only. Please contact Brad Power, BURA
Director, 303-441-3219, if you wouid like to schedule a presentation.
Address: 174030THST Agendaltem# `1~ Page# ~y-
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: May 3, 2001
CASE MANAGER: Liz Hanson
PROJECT NAME: 7744 30TH STREET RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING
~OCATION: 1740 30TH ST
COORDINATES: N03W03
REVIEW TYPE: Site Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00007
APPLICANT: TOM TOLLESON
DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW: Amendment to an approved Site Review to change the pians for the
Phase 2 building. The proposal is for a new 33,900 square foot, three-story, 45 foot tall
retail and office building to the east of the existing CompUSA store. The proposal
includes a request for an open space reduction.
REQUESTEp VARIATI ONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
A five foot setback from the north interior lot line where 12 feet is required.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the application meets the site review criteria relating to circulation
and landscaping, as discussed below. A revised site plan is required to demonstrate compliance with these criteria, city
parking and landscape requirements, and Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) Design Guidelines and Area Plan.
The applicant may choose to file a revised application to address the staff findings and comments below. Planning Board
is the decision making authority for this application. If the applicant chooses to not revise the proposed plans, staff would
recommend denial of the application. Staff will recommend approval of the project if the comments below are adequately
addressed.
The city review team for this application is available to meet with you to discuss the findings, assist in resolving outstanding
issues, and discuss the next steps for the application. Please contact your case manager to set an appointment.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
AccesslCirculation
SITE PLAN
1. The Crossroads EasU Sunrise Center Area Plan identifies the east-west connection from 30th to 33rd streets as a key
spine through the area, and cal)s for adjacent landscaping/street trees. The walkway along the south fa~ade should
be at least S feet wide and shouid be landscaped with street trees and other plant materials, to strengthen this
connection and match the walkway character to the west. Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-4278.
2. The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies Iisted in the Traffic Impact Analysis are inadequate to
serve this site. RTD Eco-passes will be required for all empioyees of this site for a minimum of three consecutive
years from the date of initial occupancy. Evidence of an Eco-pass contract fulfilling this condition or an escrow of
$9,000 will be required before issuance of a building permit for work on this site. Additionally, the eight foot wide
east/west connection outlined above will be required to serve to facilitate bike and pedestrian access to this site.
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following comments are not expected to impact the conclusions of this report, however they need to be corrected in
order to have an accurate assessment of this site's generated traffic and how this traffic impacts the critical transportation
corridors surrounding the site.
Agenda Ibm 6_~~.__Page q ~'0
1. Should any of the comments contained in these comments impact the square footage of any use on this site,
the trip generation information will need to be updated accordingly. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
2. Under the section "Trip Distribution and AssignmenY' it is stated that "24 percent of the generated traffic will
travel on Arapahoe Road to and from the east...", however Figure 3 shows this percentage directed to and
fmm the west. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
3. It is unclear from Figure 3 where the trips distributed from the east on Arapahoe access the site. From Figure
4 it appears that these trips all access the site from the 33rtl Street access. Please ciarify this distribution on
Figure 3. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
4. Under the section titled "Projected Tra~c Volumes" it is stated, "(t)he Year 2010 was chosen as a design year
since it was expected that buildout of the adjacent development would occur by this time." It appears that this
statement refers to Crossroads Mall though it is unclear. Although the future of Crossroads Mall is uncertain,
this study may have impacts on the scope of future traffic analyses for the Maii, therefore it is important to
briefly discuss any assumptions for treffic generated from the mall in this section of the report. Steve Durian,
Pubiic Works, 303-441-4493
5. The cycle lengths for ali signals analyzed in this study have AM and noon cycle lengths of 100 seconds and
PM cycle lengths of 120 seconds. Please make these corrections in the analyses. Steve Durian, Public
W orks, 303-441-4493 •
6. The intersections analyzed in the TIA have the minimum green times shown to accommodate a pedestrian
crossing time of 4.0 ft/sec. In the case of Arapahoe/33`d Street, Access/30~h Street, and WaInuU30'h Street,
the green times used in the analysis were below these minimum green times. The following are acceptable
minimum green times for these intersections:
• Arapahoel33rtl Street (for peds crossing Arapahoe): 23 seconds
• Access/30'h Street (for peds crossing 30~" Street): 18 seconds
• WaInuU30'h Street (for peds crossing 20th Street): 20 seconds
Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493
The following are corrections to the signal phasing used in the signatized analyses:
• Arapahoe/33rd Street: Eastbound left has a protected phase in addition to permitted phasing
• Arapahoe/30~h Street: Westbound left has protected phasing in addition to permitted phasing
• Access/30th Street: Westbound leg combines leftlthrough/right movements in a single lane,
northbound and southbound left have protected and permitted left turn phasing
• Walnut/30th Street: Eastbound and westbound lefts have permitted phasing, northbound and
southbound left turns and westbound right turns have protected and permitted phasing
• Pearl30'h Street: Left turn phases in all directions are protected and permitted
Please make these corrections or provide explanation as to why these phasings were selected. Steve Durian,
Public Works, 303-441-4493
Fire Protection
Applicant has addressed Fire Department concerns. No additional comments.
Landscaping
Landscape beds must be a minimum of 150 sq. ft. in size and have no dimension less than 8 ft. wide. None of the
la~dscape beds (perimeter and interior lot) in the plan for the new building and parking lot meet this requirement.
Please change the parking lot design to provide more substantiai iandscaping.
2. Plant materials must be planted in sufficient quantity to completely cover within five years of initial planting. The
plantings in both the existing and proposed landscape areas are not dense enough to meet this requirement.
Please show denser landscaping in the proposed beds and supplementary landscaping in the existing beds.
Bev Johnson,303-441-3272.
Address: 1740 30TH ST Agenda Item 9~~ Page #",1.' I
Legal Documents
Please provide a copy of the DellaCava/Tebo Development Company LLC documents. A connection needs to be made
giving Mr. Tebo authorization to appoint Mr. Della Cava since both appear to be managers. One manager can't appoint
himself or in t'~is case, the other manager, without having the authority to do so. Missy Rickson, Office of the City
Attorney, 303-441-3020.
'Miscellaneous
As a condition of approval, city approval of a uniform sign program for the Site Review (including CompUSA and the new
building) will be required. The program must comply with the City sign code and the sign guidelines in the BVRC Design
Guidelines. It appears that some of the signs shown on the architectural elevations (total height, awning signs) may not
comply. Please contact Robert Myers at 303-441-3138 for more information.
Parking
Please provide at least some of the bike parking under the shelter of the building, per the Crossroads EasUSunrise Center
Area Pfan and BVRC Design Guidefine 3.4.C. Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-4276
Site Design
The Crossroads EasU Sunrise Center Area Plan calls for enriching the Area's image and design quality by providing plazas
and linear parks among buildings, locating useable open space to take advantage of views to the west, enhancing
pedestrian paths with paving, landscaping, architectural elements, lighting, and providing generous landscaping and street
trees lining all streets (p.13). In this revision, the useable open space ("park") proposed for the parking lot has been
replaced by seven parking spaces. Staff meant to suggest in the comments moving the open space adjacent to the
building, not eliminating it. Staff suggests creating a small plaza at the main (southeast) entrance to the building; it should
incorporate the bike parking island. This will entail removing three parking spaces just east of the bike parking island and
moving the adjacent handicap space north one space. This will result in a net gain of three parking spaces, plus the plaza.
The plaza should be designed to invite use and interest and should include landscaping and furnishings, and perhaps
decorative paving, art work, and/or a shade structure. Please see BVRC Design Guidelines 3.6.B. and E.
To further strengthen the pedestrian feel of the site, provide benches and planters and consider special paving for the
walkway along the west and the south faqades of the building (Crossroads EasU Sunrise Center Area Plan p.28 and
Design Guidelines 3.3.C. and D. and 3.8.A.) Fay Ignatowski, BURA, 303-441-4278
ill. fNFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Neighborhood Comments
No additional neighborhood comments have been received. A copy of the revised plans was sent to the owners of the
Crossroads East shopping center.
IV. NEXT STEPS
BURA invites the applicant to present the project to the BURA Board prior to the Planning Board hearing. This is a
voluntary, rather than mandatory step, and would entail review and comment only. Please contact Brad Power, BURA
Director, 303-441-3219, if you would like to schedule a presentation.
This project has been tentatively scheduled for the July 19~h Planning Board meeting. In order for this schedule to be met,
revised plans would need to be filed by the June 4~" deadline and final plans completed by June 25~". Piease notify staff if
the applicant does not plan to file revisions by June 4`h, so that the application can be rescheduled for a Planning Board
meeting in September or October (there will be no Planning Board meetings in August).
Address: 1740 30TH ST Agenda liem A~~ Page #-~~
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: March 2, 2001
CASE MANAGER: Liz Hanson
PROJECT NAME: 1744 30TH STREET RETAILIOFFICE BUILDING
LOCATION: 1740 30TH ST
COORDINATES: N03W03
REVIEW TYPE: Site Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00007
APPLICANT: TOM TOLLESON
DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW: Amendment to an approved Site Review to change the plans for the
Phase 2 building. The proposal is for a new 33,900 square foot, three•story, 45 foot tall
retail and office building to the east of the existin~ CompUSA store. The proposal
includes a request for an open space reduction.
REQUESTED VARIAT IONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
A five foot setback from the north interior lot line where 12 feet is required.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Staff finds that the appiicant has not demonstrated that the application meets the site review criteria relating to building
design, circulation, and landscaping, as discussed below. More information is requested to demonstrate that the proposed
larger second building is compatible with surrounding buildings and that the site plan would provide ample parking and
landscaped areas to serve both the existing and proposed building.
The appiicant may choose to file a revised application to address the staff findings and comments below. Planning Board
is the decision making authority for this appiication.
The city review team for this application is available to meet with you to discuss the findings, assist in resolving outstanding
issues, and discuss the next steps for the application. Please contact your case manager to set an appointment.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circulation
1. The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) for the initial site review included significantly less floor space and different uses.
A revised TIA is required for this review. The following wiVV require updating as part of this sludy:
• The existing traffic will not require re-counting, however the analysis time periods need to be updated, and therefore
the existing traffic volumes need to be increased according to the traffic expansion rates used in the initial TIA.
. The Trip Generation by the site wiil need to be updated to reflect the new proposed uses.
• The intersection analyses will need to be revisited with the new traffic volumes.
. Update Traffic Demand Management strategies as needed including new Bound bus service along 30'" Street and
participation in the developer initiated employee RTD Eco-Pass program.
It is recommended that the tra~c consultant discuss these and other traffic issues with Steve Durian at 303-441-4493
before submittal of the revised TIA.
2. Please show the location of the connecting east-west pedestrian path east of the property, both on the site plan and
the context plan.
3. The north-south pedestrian connection through the parking lot is a major feature in the Crossroads EasU Sunrise
Center Area Plan. Please consider raising the level of the crosswalks, as described in BVRC Design Guideline 3.3.E.,
in order to increase safety and visibility and encourage usage ot this pedestrian spine. Fay lgnatowski, 303-441-4278.
Agenda Item # 7A Page # 3-~
Building Design
Staff has concerns about the appearance of the wall elevations at the areas of the stair towers and elevators. In contrast
to the remainder of the building, these wall areas appear rather stark. Please address.
Please submit drawings which show the elevations of the proposed building and the CompUSA and other adjacent
buiidings to demonstrate compatibility of the proposed building height. Please also address compatibiiity of building design
and materials. In particular, the applicanYs written statement and plans must address the height modification application
requirements of Section 9-4-11(g).
1. Please verify the height of the ceiling in the basement level. Melissa Rickson - City Attorney's Office
Fire Protection
1. Proposed project will require addition of at least one additional fire hydrant on-site, to meet city standard of 350-foot
spacing, and maximum of 175 foot distance to all parts of building.
2. Building to be fully protected by automatic fire sprinklers, and monitored by approved central receiving station. Adrian
Hise, 303-441-3350.
Land Uses
1. If the parking requirement for CompUSA is a number established by the approved site review, how is a lease
negotiation going to attempt to lower that requirement?
2. Please more fuliy address the height modification criteria to justify the height to 45 feet. Melissa Rickson - City
Attorney's Office
Do the overhead doors on the east elevation indicate a potential auto-related use (e.g. vehicle installation) for the site~
Please describe, as such a use may require a use review.
Does the applicant intend to lease the ground floor of the new building to a retail store(s) and the upper two levels as office
space? Is there a possibility that the ground floor will also be leased for office space?
Since the previously approved site review had a more generous parking ratio, please address how the applicant believes
the parking needs of this amended site review would be met.
Landscaping
The landscaping standards as outlined in Sections 9-3.3-2, 9-3.3-3, and 9-3.3-4 must be met for the entire
property since the redevelopment exceeds 25% of the value of the existing structure. Many of the landscape
islands in particular do not appear to meet the minimum size dimension of 8 ft. In order for staff to more
accurately review the proposed landscaping, please provide a preliminary landscape pian of the entire properly
which includes the following:
Plan drawing at a scale of 1"= 10', 1"= 20', or 1"= 30', to lnclude:
Standard title block inctuding scale, date and north arrow
Zoning and use of adjacent properties
Existing and proposed locations of alt:
- Building footprints for existing structures and building envelopes for proposed structures
- Sidewalks and curb cuts
- Parking lots including layout of parking spaces, interior and perimeter parking lot plantings, bike paths and
pedestrian walkways, drive aisles and curb Islands
- Utilitias and easements, inciuding fire hydrants, water meters, & height and location of overhead lines,
Existing Iocation, size, and type of all trees 1 1/2" caliper or greater
Planting specifications
Layout and location of ail landscaped areas including:
- planting strips along all streets
- parking lot screening
- interlor parking iot landscaping
- perimeter site landscaping or screening
Address: 1740 30TH ST
Agenda Item #~Page # *-' _
- allotherlandscaped areas
Botanical and common names and sizes of all plant material proposed preliminarily.
Locations of all proposed plant material, shown at the size they will be within 5 years of initial planting, and appropriately
spaced.
Location, size, and species name of any plant materials proposed for removal.
Proposed planting of all ground surfaces. Grass surfaces must be identified as sod or seed with the blend or mix specified.
Location and dimensions of site distance triangles at all intersections of streets and curb cuts.
Summary chart with calculations to include:
total lot size ( in square feet).
total parking lot size, including all drives and driveways (in square feet).
total number of parking stalls required and the total provided.
total interior parking lot landscaped area required and the total provided.
total perimeter parking lot Iandscaping required and total provided.
total numher of street trees required and the total provided.
total quantiry of plant material required and the total provided.
Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272.
Per BVRC Design Guideline 3.7.A. and Boulder Revised Code 9-4-11(i)(2)(B)(iii), the landscaping should exceed City
landscaping standards. Fay Ignatowski, 303-441-4278.
Legal Documents
The submitted title work is outdated. Please submit a current titie commitment or attorney's memorandum, current to
within 30 days of this application. Also, please provide authorization of the person signing all documents for this project.
Melissa Rickson - City Attorney's Office
Parking
The Crossroads EasUSunrise Center Area Pian and BVRC Design Guideline 3.4.A. call for 2 bicycle parking spaces for
every 10 car spaces. Please attempt to locate at least some of the bike parking in a sheltered location (Guideline 3.4.C.)
The City of Boulder Revised Code, 1981 requires that a number of bicycle parking spaces be provided equal to or
exceeding 10% of the total required automobile parking spaces. This site has a required parking ratio of 1:400 for this
27,400 square foot building. Therefore, the required bicycle parking is seven spaces. The landscape plan, sheet L-1,
shows only three spaces for bicycle parking.
Plan Documents
The application does not meet the requirements for a height modification of Section 9-4-11(g), including an expianation of
how the height was calculated according to the city code dafinition of height, the heights of existing a~d proposed huildings
within 100 feet, and documentation of amount of transparent materials (glass) on the ground level. If a modei or a
perspective drawing is available, these documents would be helpful.
Please add the correct scale to the site plan.
Site Design
W hile the landscaping and furnishings proposed for the southeast corner of the site are a generally supportable visual
solution to this left-over piece of land, it is unlikely to be truly useable, given that the corner is isolated and surrounded by
parking lots. Additional useable outdoor space should be provided and should be associated with the building form, per
BVRC Design Guideline 3.1.F. The areas at the main entrance and along the west facade would be logical places for
create pedestrian space. Please refer to Parts 6 and 8 of Section 3 in the Guidelines for more information on useable
open space and pedestrian furnishings.
Please demonstrate the extent to which the grade of the east and south edges of the property will meet the grade of the
abutting properties, per BVRC Design Guideiine 3.1.M. Fay lgnatowski, 303-441-4278.
On February 26~h, staff received the applicanYs open space calculations indicating that the required open space would be
met (19.6%). Including the upper level decks as required open space would required a variation from the land use
regulations. Please provide information about how these decks would be accessible and useable by the public.
Address: 7740 30TH ST h~. Pa
Agende Item A~ ge #`3 s-.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Access/Circulation
All drive accesses to be designed to accommodate fire equipment, per SU-30 template. Adrian Nise, 303-441-3350.
Building and Housing Codes
No requirements Steve Brown
Neighborhood Comments
Planning staff has received inquiries from the owners or representatives from several nearby properties or businesses
including King Soopers, Crossroads East, and Sussex One. Comments will be discussed with the applicant as they are
received.
Utilities
The applicant is advised that at the time of building permit application the following requirements will apply:
1. The applicant is required to provide an accurate existing and proposed plumbing fixture count to determine if
the existing meter and service are adequate for the proposed use.
2. Water and sanitary sewer Plant Investment Fees and service line sizing will be re-evaluated:
3. If the existing water andlor sewer service is required to be abandoned and upsized, all new service taps to
existing mains shall be made by city crews at the developer's expense. The water service must be excavated
and turned off at the corporation stop, per city standards. The sewer service must be excavated and capped
at the property line per ciry standards.
4. The applicant will be required to grant to the city any easements required to meet the needs of this
development. Grant of Easement Legal Instruments must be submitted to the City for review, approval, and
recordation, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
5. Approved fire line plans must accompany the fire sprinkler service line connection permit application.
Address; 1740 30TH ST Agende item A~~ Pege #~~
ATTACHMENT G
Written Response to City of Boulder
Site Review Comments
Retail Office Building
1744 30th Street
,.
II Citp Requirements
Access / Circulation
1. The walkway along the South Facade of the building has been
increased to 8' wide and street trees in grates ha~e been added.
2. Eco-passes for all employees of this site will be provided for
three consecutive years from the date of initial occupancy.
A revised Traf&c Impact Anatysis will be provided with this submittal.
Fire Protection
No Comments
Landscaping
The Landscape plan has been revised to show the addition of street
trees along the enlarged walkway at the South facade of the building.
The Landscaping has been densified and trees have been added to the
upper level deck area. The cobble rock mulch has been replaced with
a living ground cover in bark mulch.
Legal Documents
A copy of the DellaCa~a/Tebo Development Company Ld.C document
is being provided with this submittal
Agenda Ilem 9~~ _Page # ~~ 7
Miscellaneous
A sign program complying with City sign code and the sign
guidelines in the BVRC Design Guidelines will be provided. All
references to signs have been removed from the Elevations.
Parki.ng
Three of the seven total bike parking spaces have been moved to the
covered area at the Northwest Office Entry.
Site Design
The pla2a area at the Southwest corner of the building has been
enhanced by moving three bicycle parking spaces to the Northwest
corner of the building. This increase in available area has been
utilized by the addition of a landscape planting bed and a sandstone
bench.
Please do not hesitate to call with any questions regarding this
submittal.
Sincerely,
Tom Tollesori, Architect
Agendaltem#~Page# •3~~
Site Review Criteria
Retail Office Building
1744 30th Street
I. Boulder Vallep Comprehensive Plan
(B) There is no residential land use within 300' of the site.
II. Site Design
(A.) Open Space
1. Usable Open space on the site is arranged as a functional
system of pedestrian walks, complete with portals, which connects
the adjacent properties along both a North / South and East / West
axis. The remaining open space sen~es as landscape buffers to
screen parking areas around the perimeter and provides interior
landscaping to soften ihe impact of the main parking field. The open
space along 30th street provides a shaded pedcstrian arcade with
benches, sculpture and landscaping to provide functional waiting or
resting facilities for pedestrians.
2. There are no residential units proposed for the project
therefore no private open space is provided.
3. The current site is an urban unpaved parldng lot
completely devoid of any natural features or mature vegetation.
4. The provided open space is dispersed around the site to
provide a relief to the density within the project and provides relief to
density from surrounding development with the perimeter
landscaping.
5. There are no sensit~ve environmental features or natural
areas around the site.
6. The pedestrian walkways are linked to the city wide
sidewalk system along 30th street.
Agenda Item A~Page # ~'~
(B) Landscaping
1. The landscaping plan utilizes 11 different trees and 13
different shnibs to provide a variety of colors and contrast. The hard
surface areas utilize both scored and colored concrete and natural
hroom fuush concrete to provide a variety of finishes. ~ere is no
local native vegetat3on to preserve.
2. There is no important native plant species or threatened or
endangered plant species on the site that need to be protected.
3. Landscape and site irrigation plans have been provided
with this submittal. 4043 square feet of landscaping has been
provided in the new section of the plan. 5ection 9-3-3-2 requires a
minimum of 1 2" caliper tree + 5 five gallon shrubs for every 1500
square feet of landscaping. This would be a requirement of 3 trees
and 15 shrubs. 25 2" caliper trees and 102 five gallon shrubs have
been provided on the plan. Section 9-3-3-3 requires one street tree
for every 15-20 feet of street frontage. This would be a requirement of
flve street trees. Seven trees have been provided.
4. The usable open space along Yhe public right of way at
3~th street is landscape to provide an attractive Streetscape with
street trees, shaded pedestrian arcade, benches and sculpture.
(C) Circulation
1. High automobile speeds are discouraged by offsets
('chicanes') in the primary circulation drive.
2. Potential conflicts between between pedestrians and
vehicles are mtntmj~ed by a system of cleazly identifiable colored and
scored pedestrian crosswalks and protective bollards.
3. Safe and convenient connections which are accessible to
the public within the project have been provided in the form of
pedestrian walks, complete with portals, which connects the adjacent
properties along both a North/South and East/West axis. The
Agendaitem #~Page # '~v
driveway system also connects vehicular traffic to the adjacent
properties along both a North/South and East/West axis.
4. The pedestrian walkway system promotes alternatives to
single occupant vehicles by providing an inviting system of partially
protected walkways which are easy to access and use.
5. The primary users of the project will be customers for the
retail uses. It is inherently diffiicult to attract customers while
imposing travel demand management techniques.
6. One condition of the approval of the original site review for
CompUSA was the improvement of the existing RTD bus stop just
South of the Main entrance to the project off of 30th Street by the
Sunrise Center. These unprovements inciuded a new pad for the
bench, a new bench and sign. This bus stop is directly linked to the
pedestrian walkway system on the site and promotes the other mode
of transportation i.e. RTD.
7. The amount of land devoted to the street system is the
absolute minimum to access the parking and make the connections
to the adjacent properties.
8. The connecting driveway system is designed to
accommodate vehicular and bicycle traffic. Bicycle racks are
provided at both CompUSA and the Retail / Office building.
Pedestrian trafFic is designed to be accommodated by the pedestrian
walks, complete with portals, which connect the adjacent properties
along both a North/South and East/West axis. There are no living
areas which need to be separated and protected from noise and
exhaust.
9. All circulation installations are to be constructed within
strict accordance of City Standards and accommodate the SU-30
template for emergency vehicles.
Agenda Ilem # 7~ Page # ~-.
D. Parking
1. The project sepazates pedestrian and vehicular movements
with a system of cleariy identifiable colored and scored pedestrian
crosswalks and protectiae bollazds.
2. The Parking areas are designed with the absolute
minimum numbcr of spaces the developer needs in order to sustain a
lease with the primary tenant (CompUSA) and to lease the new
structure.
3. Parking areas are surround with perimeter landscaping to
reduce the visual impact on the project and the adjacent properties.
The lighting plan is in accordance with an approved photogrametric
plan to assure that the impact of the lighting is minunized.
4. City of Boulder parking landscaping requires for one tree
for every 20 square feet of landscaping to provide shade for the
parking areas. This would be a requirement of 20 trees. 25 trees
have been provided on ihe landscape pian.
E. Huilding Design
1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and
configuration has been reviewed by the planning staff and City
Architect (Charlie Zucker) during three separatc meetings. In their
opinion at these meetings they felt that the building height, mass,
scale, orientation and configuration were compatible with the existing
character of the area.
2. The height of the building is approximately 20% higher
than the Cross Roads East Center to the North. 20% is in general
proportion to the height of existing builciings.
3. The orientation of the building m;n;m;~.es shadows on the
property to the North by placing the long axis of the building North &
South and the short axis East & West. Immediately to the East of the
building is the pazking lot for the Public Safety Buiiding. This is the
Aganda Ilem 9~Page # ya
ip+r a r ua u.~:.~~e
only azea that the proposed building would block views of the
Flatirons and mountains to the West.
4. The proposed building will utilize the exact same
matenals, colors, landscaping and lighting as the existing CompUSA
building Lo make the building compatible with the existing CompUSA
building.
5. The existing CompUSA building provides a Streetscape
approved by the City of Boulder Planning Department in 1998. This
Streetscape utilizes a pedestrian azcade, benches walkways.
landscaping and sculpture to provide for the safety and convenience
of pedestrians.
6_ The connecting pedestrian wall;way system with
associated portals, benches, arcades, landscaping and sculpture
provides a public amenity and facility.
7. This is not a residential project so there is no need to
provide a variety of housing types.
8. This is not a residential project so there is no need to
reduce noise transmission between units.
9. An approved lighting plan with an associated
photogramrrietric plan has been provided (See sheets E-1 & PE-1).
10. There is no naturai system or environment on the site to
incorporate into the design.
11. The site is basically flat ( a 1 1/2°/a slope West to East)
therefore no cut and fill is necessary and very little grading is needed
for the project. No obvious geological hazard exists on the site.
Agenda Ilem A~Page # y~? -
F. Solar Siting and Construction
1. The open space situated to the North of the proposed
building works to some degree to minimize shading on the adjacent
lot to the North. However, due to the location of the existing cross
property vehicular connection on the South side of the property it is
impractical to increase open space on the North side of the building to
reduce shading further.
2. The building is sited close to the North property Line to
increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading.
3. The building is a non-residentia] structure with a flat roof
capable of supporting solar collectors provided at least one half of the
anticipated hot water needs of the building. The roof cunently has
unimpeded solar access.
4. The landscaping along the North properly line, once
mature, will cause only minimal shading of the parking area of the
adjacent property to the North.
G. Poles above the Permitted Height.
Proposed light poles are 25' high, LO' below the permitted height.
Sincerely,
Tom Tolleson, Architect
Agenda Item B ~~ Page # ~ ~
Written Response to City of Boulder
Site Review Comments
Retail Office Building
1744 30th Street
II City Requirements
Access / Circulation
1. An update to the existing T~affic Impact Assessment has been
provided with this resubmittal.
2. The site plans have been updated, showing the existing
sidewalk and handicap ramp at the connection on the East side of the
property.
3. The north-south pedestrian connection through the main
parking area along with the associated pedestrian portals is existing
and constructed as per Ciry pf Boulder requirements in 1998. To
rebuild this installation in order to raise it a few inches does not seem
reasonable.
Building Design
The stair tower and elevator elevations have been revised, please see
drawings.
Please see Elevation Compatibility Drawings included showing
compatibility of praposed height. The materials and colors of the new
building are intended to match the existing CompUSA building
e~ctly to create a"Center° feel for the project.
Agendaltem#~Pagek `~~=-
Itemized response to Section 9-4-11 (g)
(1) The lowest existing elevation 25' from the proposed building is
5263'-0" (See Grading and Drainage Plan). 45' above that elevation
is 5308'-0" (See Building Elevations). 5308'-0" is the proposed
height of the parapet around the building roof. Please note that most
of the building is 42' above the finished grade.
(2) RBE Zoning, (not applicable).
1/8" = 1'-0" has been submitted.
However a model of the project at
(3) RBE Zoning, (not applicable).
(4) See Attached solar shadow calculation sheets.
(5) The only building within 100 fleet of the proposed building is the
Crossroads East Building to the North. The building is
approximately 34 feet high from exIsting grade.
(6) See attached Elevation Compatibility Drawings and Building
Elevations and Site Plans to see how the project accommodates
pedestrians. These drawings show continuous pedestrian access
across the site both from North to South and East to West. The
North/South walkway includes and exiting "Covered Pedestrian
Portal" to help de$ne the pedestrian path. The pedestrian walkways
along the South and West Elevations are provided with building
facades that are 75% transparent at groun@ level. These walkways
are covered by metal canopies and awnings at the transparent
locations. Graphics and Signage are designed to be located on or
below these canopies.
(7) See sheet A-2 Overall Site Plan for open space locations. The plan
provides for an open space percentage of 18.75% (3.75% above the
required minimum of (15%). The open space seives the public
interest by providing continuous unobstructed pedestrian access
across the property in both North/South and East/West directions.
The peximeter open space is landscaped and provides a visual buffer
of the parking areas from the surrounding properties.
Agenda Item A 7~ Page # 1~
Basement ceilings shall be appro~dmately 9'.
Fire Protectioa
1. An additional Sre hydrant has been added to the Northwest corner
of the building, see site plans.
2. The building shall be fully
approved central receiving station.
sprinklered and monitored by an
I,and Uses
1. , The original pazking requirement for the CompUSA project was
set by the lease with CompUSA not the approved Site Review. TYie
City of Boulder planning department was actually opposed to the
amount of parking required by the CompUSA throughout the Site
Rev,iew Process. The final amount was a compromise beiween the
City and the Developers and CompUSA. Therefore a lease
renegotiation with CompUSA could lower the requirement and bring
the parking ratio closer to that which the City originaIly desired.
2. A 45' high building is simply what is necessary to accommodate
a three story building with leasable ceiling heights, structure,
mechanical spaces and a parapeted flat roof system. Three stories are
necessary to accommodate the square footage that the developer feels
is marketable in this location.
3. The overhead doors are provided for service access to the
ground level floor of the building. No tenants are currently leased for
the building therefore it is impossible to say at this time what possible
fizture uses may be considered.
4, It is the appl~cant's desire to lease the ground level floor of the
building to a retail tenant and the upper levels to office use. However
no tenants are currentty leased for the building therefore it is
impossible to say at this time what possible future uses may be
considered.
Agenda item # ~A Page q ~"~
5. The parking ratio has been increased to something closer to the
generous ratio of the approved site review. Please see revised site
plans.
Landscaping
Revised landscaping plans have been submitted indicating both
Existing Landscaping at the CompUSA side of the project and the
Proposed New Landscaping at the Retail / Office Building. The
landscape island is 8ft. in dimension.
A Summary Chart has also been provided.
Legal Documents
Updated title work has been provided with this resubmittal.
A letter authorizing all persons signing documents for this project has
been provided with this resubmittal.
Parking
Total number of bicycle parking has been increased to seven spaces,
see revised site plan.
Plan Documents
See page 2 of this response for an itemized response to
section 9-4-11(g)
A model has been provided with this resubmittal.
Site Plan scale has been revised to 1" = 10'-0"
Agenda Item A 7A Page #~_
Site Design
The Planning Departments comments have expressed concerns
regarcling the usablilty of the open space provided at the South East
Corner of the Building and concerns under the "Land Use" section of
these comments regarding the reduction of parking. Therefore the
unusable open space has been changed to very usable pazking.
Please note that the open space is reduced from 19.6% to 18.75%
still in surplus above the required 15%.
Also note that the open space for bicycle parking and pedestrians on
the South West corner (Main Entrance) of the building has been
increased.
The Grading and Drainage plan indicates new grades meeting
existing grades of abutting properties at all properry lines.
Upper Level Decks shall be accessed directly from the North West
Stair Tower which provides common access to multiple upper level
tenants during business hours. Therefore any pedestrian can walk
into the stair tower during business hours, up to the deck and then
directly on to the deck without crossing through leasable space.
Please note that if the decks were deleted from the open space
calculation the remaining open space would be 21,OI7 SF or 17.23%
of the total lot, still in excess of the required 15°/a minimum.
Please do not hesitate to call with any questions regarding this
submittal.
Sincerely,
Tom Tolleson, Architect
Agenda Item A~Pa~ ~ `'~9
Written Statement
Retail Office Building
1744 30th Street
The site is cuirently owned by the Della Cava/ Tebo Develogment
Company of P.O. Box T, Boulder, CO. 80306.
This application is a moclification of an approved site review for the
Comp USA project dated 2-19-98.
That approval allowed for a 20,000 SF Office Building occupying the
same footprint as the proposed bui.lding and a 26, i00 SF Comp USA
Building.
The overall site is divided by a ground lease line dividing the overall
122,140 SF site into a 76,830 SF portion on which the Comp USA
project was constructed in 1998 and a 45,310 SF portion which was
Ieased as parking to a neighboring building owner. Therefore the
20,000 SF Office builcling and its related site improvements was
never constructed. The lease expires in the fall of 2001 and the
Owner would now like to complete the project with construction
commencing in early fall of 2001.
Due to changes in the market for tenants since 1998 the Owner
would now like to reduce the taxgeted office rental space to 17,280 SF
and add 10,128 SF of ground level retail targeted for retail occupancy
for a total of 27,400 SF of leasable area. The building will also
include 6492 SF of basement storage area.
This increase in square footage necessitates a third story to the
building thereby triggering the heed for a height variance. The third
story cannot be accommodated under 35 feet. Therefore we are
asking for a ten foot variance to construct the building under 45 feet
in height.
Agenda 16am #~Page # ~_
The design of the building steps the upper levels back from the
ground level footprint creating outdoor decks on the second and third
levels to soften the visual impact of the upper levels.
The solar shadow created by the additional height falls completely
within the parking and drive areas of the neighboring site, see Overall
site plan.
The possibility of including residential units in the project was
discussed during the preapplication meeting. The Owner and
Architect strongly feel that due to the urban isolation of the site, being
blocks and blocks from any other residential uses, the site is
undesirable and unappealing as a residential use. The site is
surrounded on all sides by parking lots serving night time and 24
hour retail and police activities leaving no sense of community or
neighborhood. The Owner also strongly feels it would be extremely
difficult to lease residential units in such a setting.
Due to a current lease with the Comp USA tenant occupying the
existing building on the overall site, the parl~ng requirements are
structured for the entire site. The proposal allows for 150 total
parking spaces for 53,508 SF of leasable space creating a ratio of
spaces to square feet of roughly 1: 350. This ratio is above the City of
Boulder Requirement of 1: 400 but well below the Comp LTSA lease
requirement. The proposed ratio is based on what the Owner feels he
can achieve in renegotiating the lease with Comp USA. Any further
reduction in parking will damage the feasibility of the project.
Open space is calculated for the 45,310 SF undeveloped portion of
the site which this proposed building will occupy. 15% required
open space is 6796 square feet.
In the interim since the project was began in 1998 the City of Boulder
proposed and implemented a paved connection between this property
and the adjacent Public Service property to the East. This connection
allows for cross vehicular access between 30th street & 33rd street.
This connection also creates 640 square feet of paved surface that
would have otherwise been _ Open Space. This area represents
approxirriately 10% of the required open space by the City.
Agandaltem#.~Page# -5a-
It is therefore reasonable to request a reduction in required open
space to 5890 square feet which is 13°/o of the total square footage.
This is the amount of open space indicated in this proposal. The
proposed open space includes a mini park at the Southeast that will
include benches and a table for use by users of the property for
breaks and lunches.
The remainder of the open space provides for a perimeter buffer to
relieve densiry along with landscaped islands in the parking area to
soften the impact of the paved areas. The proposed landscaping
closely follows the plan originally approved in 1998. See Landscape
Plan.
Pedestrian and vehicular circulation on the site are virtually identical
to the original approved plan with the exception of the paved
connection to Public Safety with the City added in the interim. Site
lighting will also be the same as originally proposed.
'The design and materials of the building will reflect the materials and
colors of the Comp USA building to give the project a"Center" feel.
However the Retail/Office structure will incorporate considerable
more windows and openness due to the different nature of the use of
the building. A color model of the proposed building is available to
demonstrate how the building shall appear.
Please do not hesitate to call with any questions regarding this
submittal.
Sincerely, / f
, /
~ ,
`~
,I
Tom Tolleson; Architect
Agenda Iletn B~Page # ~~_
Updated 10/i3/00
PROJECT FACT SHEET
For Land Use Review Applications
Accurate and compiete information about a project is integral to a timely and thorough city
review. Please type or print complete answers to the items listed under the boxes
that relate to your projeet. Whiie some of this information may be included on the
project site plans or discussed in the written statement, please also enter it here. If you
choose to recreate this document, piease only inciude the items that relate to your project.
An electronic version of this document is availabie on the Web at
wvwv ci.boulder.co.us/buildinaservices.
ALL PROJECTS
Key Information
Subject property addressllocation: I-I ~' 4 ~~ "fiH STR E ET
Owner name and address: ~~= L L,L1 G A V d~ / T(-' P.~ e~ p L-' ~~ L c~ P w-t (~ ti~'
P c~. Ps oX "T" , t~o~Lbt Q- G n_ f3~3~7
Legal Description (or attach): ~~_ ~ Q Tt~la c~H t~ ~
Age of existing structures: ~ ~r
Size of site in square feet and acres. Gross: ~' S~ 3 ~~
Net (after public dedications): ~-
Current Zoning Designation: ~ ~ ~
For rezoning and annexation applications, N~
Proposed Zoning Designation:
Boulder Valley Comprehensive ~ ~ ~~
Plan Land Use Designation:
Previous Approvals (specify G ~~,p ~ S{~ 2• I~j ' ~L ~j
project name, review type):
Solar Access Area Designation (circle one): Area I Area II Area III
Does the project include the demolition of any structures?
If yes, what year was the structure built?
~ ~
Please list any requested variations to the land use regulations (spec~c variance information is
requested later in the project fact sheet):
NL'lG~l-iT VAR.LAtic.E , C~P~~.l SPAG6 ~L-'f~vcrll~N
Agenda Item A ~~ Page # ~
Please indicate with a eheckmark'rf your property is affected by any of the following:
N/etland area
Airport influence Zone
Historic landmark designation/district
Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC)
100 Year Flaod Zone
North Boulder Subcommunity Plan
CAGID parking disttict
UHGID parking district
Other local improvement district
Land Use
Please describe the proposed use(s) ot the property, including activities conducted on site, number of
seats, number ot guest rooms, number of residents, number of employees, hours of operation and any
ofher unique operating characteristics. Also, please specify which land use category(ies) in the Schedule
of Permitted Land Uses (Section 9-3.1-1) that most closely describes the proposed use:
TNL' ~17~F7~2.Tti l5 p N ~klSTfti1G P/J21~I Nrn L~T
-r~+,~fi W~~. C3'~ C~E.U l;LoPe~ ~ Nro a 2~, 4ov
H~~Tr use T3~~L~U.wc, ~'o~ R~tP1L a~D
o~"IL~ U5~'_ ,
Utilities
Are existing buildings hooked-up to city water? '"EES
Are existing buildings hooked-up to city sewer? `L cF 5
Are there city water mains adjacent the property? `C C S
Are there city sewer mains adjacent the property? `t CS
Please name a~y utiliry disiricts thaY currently serve the property:
,, . . ~ .
Agenda Ilem A 7~ Page q-5 `~
ATTACHMENT D
Gity ofBoulder
July 19, 2001
Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Page 6
T. Nielsen ofFered a friendly amendment to add Condition 4 to read "If the City Manager so orders,
the Applicant shall cease to lease out all or a portion of the 21 parking spaces which are considered
to be deferred parking spaces and proposed to be leased to off-site users."
B. Pommer offered a&iendly amendment to change the wording in Condition 1 to read "The
applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all
approved plans and the appiicanYs written statement dated May 7, 2001, on file in the city of
Boulder Planning Department, supplemented by the elevations set forth in drawing A-200 presented
at the July 19, 2001 Planning Board meeting."
T. Krueger offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 5 to read "Prior to a building permit
application, the Applicant shall submit a detailed Transportation Demand Management Plan to the
Public Works Department for review and approval that provides for a significant and practical shift
away from single occupant vehicle use for the daytime, weekday parking uses."
T. Kreuger offerad a friendly amendment to add Condition 6 to read "Tha Applicant shall consider
the feasibility of adding housing to the site as part of any future subsequent site review for the
expansion of floor area on the site."
M. Ruzzin offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 7 to read "The Applicant must submit
an executed lease with the garages located at 15th and Spruce or 15th and Pearl for 30 parking spaces
to be used on Sunday in the event there is no longer free parking in both structures on Sundays." M.
Cowles and A. O'Hashi accepted the friendly amendments.
C. Public hearing and consideration of Land Use Review #LUR2001-00007 for a
Site Review Amendment to change the plans fbr an approved Phase 2 two-story
building at 1744 30th Street, just east of the ezisting CompUSA store at 2740
30th Street. The proposed Phase 2 plans show a new three-story, 33,900 square
foot, 45 foot tall retail and office building.
L. Hanson said that this application is an amendment to the 1998 approved Site Review plans to
change the Phase II plans to build a three-story, 45-foot tall retail and office building. She said that
a key part of the approved and proposed plans are pedestrian and bicycle connections to the
Crossroads area, Sunrise Center, and to the Boulder Valley Regional Center in general and to
enhance usable open space areas on the site. She said that there are aspects of the plan that staff
believes onlyminimally meets the site review criteria (vaziations to the city's landscape requirements
and pedestrian circulation to create more meaningful amenities on the site). She described the
changes in the existing approval and the current proposal regarding the connections (widening of the
east-west sidewalk and the north-south connection). She said that the applicant did not request that
the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) review the project. She mentioned that an updated
traffic study was provided with the Site Review amendment, and staff did not think there were any
threshold boundaries and issues in terms of the change in square footage.
ApBlId9lbm #~Paga p ~
City of Boulder
July 19, 2001
Planning Boazd Minutes
Page 7
fiom Totleson, Applicant, :~5 Aspen Circle, discussed the north-south and east-west pedestrian
accesses. Ae said that much of the traffic lanes have already been established, and the widths just
barely meet within the property lines of the drive lanes and the various full and compact parking
spaces. He noted that only five feet of landscaping on both the north and south were left rather than
eight feet that are now required. He said that including more landscaping would mean eliminating
some parking spaces which is at a premium. He said that additional open space for the general public
is provided through upper-level decks and other amenities (canapies for the waikways, street trees,
and trees on the upper=level deck). He said that the overall site has almost 20 percent of open space
as opposed to the required 15 percent.
Lou Della Cava, Applicant, discussed the vested rights issue that was waived in 1997. He said that
at the time the approval was granted for the CompUSA building the second building was proposed
to be a two-story structure, and a lot of attention was given to the design of the entire site and to the
north-south and east-west connections. He said that the current three-story design adds some
aesthetic interest and decks to the buiiding, and he hopes to attract a restaurant to that additional
floor space. He described the basement storage space and stated the reason whythe original footprint
of the building was retained. Stephen Tebo, Applicant, said that it is not an option to make the
footprint of the building smaller. He said that the proposal is only a fraction of the square footage
that could potentially be ailowed on the site.
Public Participation: There was no public participation.
Return to the Board:
The Board and staff discussed the number of jobs that would be generated from the additional square
footage; the advantage of a restaurant use on the site; compatibility of the design with the
surrounding area; how the parking interfaces with the King Soopers' parking area; ways to
strengthen the pedestrian connections between the two separate sites; lack of functionality of the
pedestian shade structures; incorporation of more plant material that would help increase the
pedestrian use; parking issues from sunounding sites; concern about the ]ack of landscaping in the
plan; parking requirement for the building square footage, including the restaurant use; the basis for
the staff recommendation that the plan minimally meets the site review criteria; and the lack of
required landscaping on the site to justify the additional story on the building;
MOTION: T. Nielsen made a motion that the Planning Board approve Land Use Review
#LUR2001-00007 incorporating the staff inemorandum dated July 19, 2001 (preparation date July
6, 2001) and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, using the recommended
conditions of approval in Attachment A. B. Pommer seconded the motion.
A. O'Hashi offered a friendly amendment that prior to a building permit application, the applicant
shall submit a detailed Transportation Demand Management Plan for on-site employees to the
Director of Public Works for review and approval that provides for a practical and significant shift
away from single-occupant vehicle use. T. Nielsen and B. Pommer accepted the friendly
amendment.
pge~al~mt 'IR Page# ~ 7 -
City ~f Boulder
July 19, 2001
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
T. Krueger was concerned that the size of the building and amount of square footage allowed for
parking and landscaping do not work. He also was uncomfortable with the fact that the applicant
only minimally meets the site review criteria and cunent landscape standards. He continued by
stating that a smaller footprint, 45-foot high building may be more acceptable if it makes room for
more landscaping in order to make the parking area fee] more pedestrian friendly. M. Ruzzin said
that he was concerned that there was not a staff analysis about the impact from additional office
space and there was too much development on the site. T. Niel.sen said that she introduced the
motion because she thought that imposing this additional landscape requirement satisfies the site
review criteria. She said that she would prefer to approve the motion because otherwise the
applicants could build according to the original approval which she believes is not as good a solution
as that in the proposed amendment. B. Pommer supported the motion because she thought that the
landscaping condition meets the criteria and the building design is an advantage. A. O'Hashi said
that he would like more integration of how this amendment fits in with the entire neighborhood and
more analysis with regard to the East Crossroads and the Sunrise Center plans.
Since the Board would not be able to get a majority vote for approval, the Board made the following
motion so that the applicant could consider design modifications that might make it more acceptable
to a majority of the Board.
MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by M. Ruzzin, the Planning $oard continued this
matter to the September 13 Board meeting (5-1; M. Cowles opposed, and A. Gunter was absent).
M. Cowles could not support the motion because he does not think that the amendment meets the
site review criteria and that there is too much square footage in one space. He said that he is unlikely
to approve the 45-foot height that is requested unless the footprint of the building is reduced. He said
that he is not in favor of continuing the item to another time because tonight is the time to make a
decision on this application and allow the applicants to build the building that was approved in 1998,
and by continuing the item, the Board is giving a message to staff that they can bring site review
amendment applications that are incomplete.
D. Public hearing and consideration of Use and Site Review, LUR2001-00039, a
proposed amendment to the approved Use and Site Review oFthe North Boulder
Recreation Center adding Platform Tennis Courts to the outdoor facilities
situated on the east portion of the property and south of the surface courts,
located at 3170 North Broadway, zoned P-E (Public Established) and LR-E
(Low Density Reside-etial-Established) on 6.5 acres.
M. Randall explained that in April the Planning Board considered and approved the expansion of
the North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC); however, theplatform tennis courts were not included
in the original approval because there was no recommendation from the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board (PRAB) for a new site. He said that subsequently PRAB conducted a public hearing
on May 21 and considered alternate sites far the courts and came to the conclusion that they should
be kept at the NBRC. He said that this item is before the Board as a site review amendment to create
space at the NBRC for the platform tennis courts. He reviewed the key issues (whether the site
Apenda IDem 1 ~A Page ~ ~-
ATTACHMENT E
Written Response to City of Boulder
Plan~i~g Board Cornme~ts
Retail Office Building
1744 30th Street
General;
The following notes itemize changes that have been made to the site
plan in response to Planning Board and Planning Staff Comments
during the Planning Board Review of the project on July 19th 2001.
The changes are intended to enhance the impact of available
landscaping and create an environment more conducive to the
pedestrian experience. The intent is to encourage potential pedestrian
transit of the property by creating a more pleasing and interesting
pedestrian experience.
The devices employed to enhance pedestrian activity is a series of
nodes with places and enclosures that are routinely used by planners
to create the desired effect.
These devices are as follows:
1. Pedestrian Node with Sculpture.
This feature is located at the main entrance to the project at the
crossing of 30th Street and the East/West connection to 33rd Street.
This is an existing array of benches with low walls and landscaping
providing enclosure and protection. This node is highlighted by the
existing bronze sculpture "Self Made Man" which piques the interest
of pedestrians and announces the beginning of the walking journey
across the properiy.
2. Pedestrian Arcades.
To soften the transit along the sides of the buildings there is a series
of awnings alternating with pergolas supported by an arcade of
lighted columns. The awnings provide shade and cover while the
pergolas create an interesting series of shadow play on the walls of
the building. These walks are also interspersed with sandstone
benches to provide the weary with a place for respite.
Page 1 9/18/1
3. "Crossing Portals"
All walkways used to establish the pedestrian traverses on the project
are and shall be delineated by colored concrete with a scored pattern.
As these walkways cross the central parking field in both East/West
& North/South directions the crossings are defined with existing
"Crossing Portals". These structures establish clear points of visual
reference for the pedestrian for the location of the crossing points.
4. "Pedestrian Enclave"
To celebrate the amval to the main entrance of the retail building is
the "Pedestrian Enclave". A cluster of sandstone benches facing an
artistic arrangement of Moss Rock and landscaping is the focus of
this area. The intention of the arrangement is to promote gathering
and interaction among the patrons and employees. The benches are
surrounded by a protective low wall and landscaping beds which
provide a sense of enclosure. This area is arranged around a circular
articulated paving pattern which acts as a"Ball Bearing" to redirect
the pedestrian's focus from the journey to the arrival at the Main
Entry. An arching "Portal Feature" announces the entry and sets a
festive tone for the occasion.
5. "Tree Lined Storefront with Awnings"
To finish the journey, a glass walled retail facade tempts the passer
by with the wares af the merchants. A row of street trees in grates
work in concert with awnings to shield the pedestrian from the
elements. All this leads the walker to the Ma.in Entrance to the upper
level tenants completing the experience.
Specific Changes made to the pians to accomplish this overall
effect are as Follows:
1. Landscaping Locations and Island Sizes.
It was soon realized that there is an existing 20' green easement just
to the East side of the East property line. The existence of this
amenity mit~gated the real need for a 5' wide landscaping buffer along
the West side of the East properry line. This space was then reused to
increase the width of the North/South I,andscape island on the
Page 2 9/18/1
West side of the Building to 12' wide. This will allow for the planting
and sustaining of much larger and more significant landscaping in
these areas. Also being on the front rather than the rear of the
building the contribution of this landscaping to the project is far more
significant.
2. Landscaping Plan
A oampletely new landscape plan has been prepared by Becky
Martinek of the Landscape Architecture Firm of G.E. Enterprises Inc.
This plan has incorporated comments regarding plant and tree types
by the Planning Staff Landscape Architects. This plan is included in
this submittal.
3. Addition of the "Pedestrian Enclave"
By deleting two parking spaces for the parking field on the south
side of the building space was made for the inclusion of the
"Pedestrian Enclave". This area features a cluster of sandstone
benches arranged around a focal point of artistically arranged moss
rock accented with landscape features such as bonsai pines. These
benches are enclosed by a system of low walls (~ seating height) and
landscaping beds. A circular articulated paving pattern provides the
transition from the linear walkway system to the angled main entry of
the retail area. This entry is highlighted by an entry portal which
reflects the construction of the "Crossing Portals" but in a more
playful way.
4. Future Opportunities
Other future possibilities were discussed with the Planning staff.
These opportunities included the widening of the perimeter
planting beds through the site review process when the properties to
the North & South apply for redevelopment.
In closing I would like to point out that the comments made by the
Planning Boaxd and Planning staff have been carefully considered by
the Applicant and Architect. As you can see many new opportunities
have presented themselves as a result of these interactions. These
enhancements, however, have not been realized without significant
Page 3 9/18/1
concessions by the Applicant. Preliminary meetings with the
Planning Staff have indicated that we now have their full support for
the praject. We now ask for the support of the Planning Board.
Please do not hesitate to call with any questions regarding this
submittal.
Sincerely,/ ;
i
_ _ 6~
Tom Tolleson, Architect
Page 4 9/18/1