Loading...
6A - Concept Review #LUR2001-00046, McKenzie Junction, Kalmia/Diagonal/Foothills intersection CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 13, 2001 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: November 29, 2001) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Concept Review LUR2001-00046, McKenzie Junction, for a mixed use plan including 135,000 square fee[ of commercial office space and approximately 140 dwelling units in 1 I buildings on 20 acres located at the intersection of Kalmia Avenue, the Diagonal Highway, and FooYhills Parkway. (Note: This property was formerly known as the "Gateway" site.) Applicant: ASW Realty Partners, LLC Owner: Birch Mountain, LLC REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department Peter Pollock, Planning Director Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Elizabeth Hanson, Presenter Steve Durian, Public Warks Department OVERVIEW: The Planning Board is being asked to comment on the Concept Plan submitted by ASW Realty. The purpose of the Concept Pian Review and Comment is to determine the general characteristics of a development plan for the site and to ascertain whether the concept plan addresses the requirements of the city. This concept plan step is voluntary since a concept plan review was completed for this property in 1998. A site review would be the next step following the review of this concept plan. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehmckenzie 1129.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pase 1 STATISTICS: Proposal: Project Name Location Size of Tract: Zoning: A mixed use development: Total square feet: Approximately 353,000 11 buildings in three areas: residential, "flexible space" (residential and office), and office. Square feet of office: 135,000 Residential units: Approximately 140 Parking: Surface, below-grade and structured parking areas are proposed. See applicanYs proposal in Attachments F and G. Requested variations to the land use regulations: The applicant has indicated that a height modification may be requested for commercial buildings proposed for the north portion of the site; no specific building heights have been proposed. The applicant has not indicated that any parking reductions or setback variations would be requested. However, this would be determined at the time of site review application when a more detailed plan is prepared. McKenzie Junction Property bounded by Kalmia Avenue, 47`h Street, Foothills Parkway (Hwy. 157), and the Diagona] Highway (Hwy. 119) 203 acres (882,939 square feet) TB-D, Transitional Business - Developing Comprehensive Plan: Transitional Business CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT Purpose The purpose of the concept pian review step is to determine a general development plan for the site, including: • land uses and arrangement of uses • general circulation patterns and characteristics • methods of encouraging use of alternative transportation modes • areas of the site to be preserved • general architectural characteristics • special height and view corridor limitations s:\plan\pb-items~rr~emos\ehmckenziell29.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 2 environmental preservation and enhancement concepts other factors as needed to carry out the objectives of the Land Use Regulations, adopted plans, and other city requirements. Guidelines The following guidelines are provided by the land use regulation to guide the Planning Board's discussion regarding the site; additional issues may also be identified as part of the process: • Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas -- location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architacture, natural features and prominent views; • Community policy -- the review process, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies of subcommunity plans; • • Applicable criteria for a site review; • Necessary permits; • Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, trail links, and the need for a traffic study; • Environmental opportunities and constraints; + Appropriate ranges of land uses; and • The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. Staff responses to each of these guidelines have been provided in Attachment A. KEY ISSUES: Is the mixed use concept acceptable? Are residential units an appropriate use for this site? Does the concept plan demonstrate how this rather isolated site can be successfully developed into a livable neighborhood for residents and office workers? 2. Will Yhe layout of this site function with the access from the surrounding state highway system? Would this concept project a positive and attractive exterior image as a major gateway to Boulder? BACKGROUND: History This vacant 20-acre property was annexed and zoned TB-D (Transitional Business-Developing) in 1981. The previous review history for this property, formerly known as the "Gateway" site, includes an Issues Identification review in 1995 and a concept plan review in 1998 for an office and hotel development plan. A site review application in 2000 for five office buildings was not completed by the applicant (no decision issued). s:\plan\pb-items~memos\ehmckenzie t 129.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 3 In 1998, the Open Space Board of Tnistees (OSBT) was asked to consider purchase of the property because of its location as a gateway into Boulder and the fact that it is already sunounded by city of Boulder open space. The OSBT declined to purchase the property, based on its very high market price as an already annexed, business-zoned property. Airport Intluence Zone The McKenzie Junetion property is almost entirely located in Airport Influence 4. Owners of property within AIZ-4 may be required to sign an aviation easement with the city as a condition of obtaining a building permit In addition, all utilities for new development are required to be placed underground. A small portion of the south end of the property along Kalmia Avenue is located in AIZ-2. No residentiai uses are allowed in AIZ-2. The AIZ-2 area extends roughly 100 feet from the edge of Kalmia Avenue right-of-way north into the site. It appears that the proposed residential buildings are just north of the AIZ-2 boundary. Staff has asked the applicant to clearly delineate the AIZ boundaries on the concept plan. The Boulder Municipal Airport Manager, Ray Grundy, has reviewed and commented on the concept plan. His comments are attached to the city's Development Review Results and Comments in Attachment C. Historic Oil Weil ThQ McKenzie Junction property is the site of the second oldest oil field in the state of Colorado and the home to a historic oil well and pump. Attachment D, Correspondence Received, includes detailed information received from the public about the oil well, its history, and preservation issues. A historic preservation effort is underway to recognize its historic significance, and a condition of site review would be an application for landmark designation for the well. The oil well's status and preservation would be a factor in site review. The McKenzie Junction concept plan shows preservation of the well and pump and uses the well to create a focal point at the north end of the site. The landscaping and urban design of the north end will be critical to the success of preserving the historic feature. Practical issues such as access to the well and building separation requirements must also be addressed. s:\plan\pb-items~rr~emos\ehmckenzie1129.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pnee 4 ANALYSIS: 1. Is the mixed use coucept acceptable? Are residential units an appropriate use for this site? Does the concept plan demonstrate how this rather isolated site can be saccessfully developed into a livable neighborhood for residents and office workers? Mixed Use Concept The mixed use concept proposed is a change from previous development proposals for this site which showed office park or office and hotel uses. The mix of residential and office uses is supported by the Transitional Business zoning and BVCP designation which is intended to provide a transition between business and residential uses. McKenzie Junction's mixed use concept provides this transition better than an offica park or other commercial development. Also, a mixed use plan is more fauorable for a community balance of jobs and housing, although the proposed concept would likely generate more jobs than housing residents serve@. The nature of this "mix" - especially how the "flexible space" is divided between commercial and residential uses - would be examined at the time of site review. The appropriateness of this site for residential uses has been a key issue raised by the public during the concept plan review. Concerns about the lack of bicycle and pedestrian connections, safety and noisa impacts from the nearby airport, traffic noise from adjacent highways, and lack of nearby services have been raised as reasons why this site may not be "livable." While the site itself is immediately surrounded by majar roadways, the predominant use in the surrounding area is residential, rather than commercial. It seems that tha proposal for a McKenzie Junction residentiat area is less an issue of compatibility or appropriateness of land uses, but rather one of addressing the challenges of the site's location and configuration to create a desirable neighborhood. Concept Plan Site Lavout The concept plan shows building orientation, open space placament, and a general site layout which takes the first step to create a livable mixed use community. The placament of residential units, "flexible" mixed use space, and commercial office buildings on the site seems to provide a logical transition and respond to the constraints of the site, Shared open space areas are proposed to benefit residents and workers. It is not yet clear how the placement of the open space and design of the parking areas would create funetional, inward focused spaces that are protected from adjacent highways. This would be a critica] aspect of a final site design. Extensive noise mitigation and provision of new pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections would be critical to the success and livability of the mixed use plan. Also, the applicant is encouraged to provide small-scale "support" commercial uses for on-site residents and workers. Small-scale convenience goods, lunch eateries, copying, day care, or fitness uses could discourage the number of vehicular trips to and from site. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehmckenziel 129.pbm AGENAA ITEM # 6A Paee 5 2. Will the layout of this site function with the access from the surrounding state highway system? The level of traffic study provided for this concept review was intended to determine if the access location could be accommodated by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Access Code standards. CDOT has reviewed this work and given their approval for the access configuration as it relates to the traff c that would be generated by this proposal. The main access would be'/o movement, which allows all tuming movements except for left turns out of the site. The Kalmia/Diagonal Highway intersection would be restricted to right-turn only. This will prevent vehicles from accessing at this location from Independen~e Road, thereby discouraging cut-through traffic from the country roads east of the site. These issues will be revisited at time of site review to confirm that the revised traffic volumes are appropriate for these access configurations. 3. Would this concept project be a positive and attractive exterior image as a major gateway to Boulder? Related Comprehensive Plan Policies There are several BVCP policies which help describe what Boulder desires for a positive and attractive gateway image: POLICY 2.06 DESIGN OF COMMUNITY EDGES. Well defined edges for the city's boundaries are important because they support an understanding and appreciation of the city's image and create a clear sense of anival and deparnue. Natural feahues are most effec6ve as edees, but public open land, major roadwa~ or heavy hee plantine can also function as communitv edaes. As new areas are developed, the definition of a community edge shall be a desien piioritv. POLICY 2.07 DESIGN OF MAJOR ENTRPWAYS. Major entryways into the Boulder Valley shall be idenqfied, protected and enhanced in order to emphasize and preserve the natural setting and appearance of the community. Future strip commercial develo~ment shall be discoura~ed. A "Gatewav" Site Boulder is a city with many "gateways." In fact, due to recent confusion over several ]ocal sites which were now known as "gateway," the applicant was encouraged to choose a new development name for this new mixed use application. Entries to the city at North Broadway (Dakota Ridge), US Highway 36 (CU's South Campus, Table Mesa RTD Park-N-Ride), Foothills Parkway (CareerTrack) all represent very different gateways to our community. Think of building relationships to roads, adjacency to or acquisition as open space, view corridors, and land uses. The most intriguing question seems to be s:\plan\pb-items~rnemos\ehmckenziet 129.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 6 "What IS a Gateway"? Is it a striking architectural feature? Is it an "invisible" development which lets the landscape and views speak for themselves? Is the answer different for each different gateway? Concept Plan Features The McKenzie Junction site has the challenge of answering these questions for a site which has been trying to answer these questions for 20 years. The applicant.has proposed several different solutions in this concept plan. The proposed preservation of the historic oil well as means to help create a"gateway image" for this site is strongly supported as a component of the site plan. The proposed architectural styles for the commercial buildings on the north end of the site are conceptual and show the intent for a unique, strong statement. However, it is unclear how the styla shown fits in with the rest of the development or architectural styles in the community. While the sita plan shows a creative approach to consolidating and decking parking areas, many of these parking areas are located around the edge of the davelopment and may be quite visible. This concept plan seems to be using the right tools to create a"gateway image" for this site and the mixed use concept opens a wider range of solutions than is possible for a commercial development. How these tools are used and their range of success would be an important facus of a site review. The concept plan shows a devetopment which would create a well-defined edge to the city. Refining the image and appearance of that edge would be the next step, SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The McKenzie Junction mixed use plan presents a land use concept that is more favorable under Transitional Business zoning than previous development proposals for office and hotel uses. The site configuration and location presents a challenge to the applicant to create a`9ivable" site by mitigating noise impacts from airplanes and vehicles and to strengthening pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to and from the site. The conceptual vehicular access plan is acceptable. A detailed traffic study will be required at the time of site review to evaluate traffic impacts to surrounding roads and neighborhoods. Site and architectural plans submitted for site review will need to demonstrate that the plan supports BVCP policies related to community entryways and edges, including preservation of view corridors. Preservation of the historic oil well and its part as a focal point is a positive feature of the concept plan. Also, the applicant is encouraged to continue the dialogue with surrounding neighborhood residents before and during the site review process. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: City staff recaived a high level of public comment on this concept plan application. Attachment D includes letters receivad as well as summaries and excerpts of comments received by e-mail and phone. The majority of public comment expressed either opposition to the proposal or s:\plan\pb-itemslmemos\ehmckenzie1129.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pa¢e 7 .. _ _ ~. - .._ significant concerns about the size and type of development proposed. Several people expressed support for the applicant's concept, particularly in support of the proposed housing use and preservation of the historic oil well. While it is difficult to summarize such a broad range of comments, a list of frequently raised issues foilows: • Inadequate pedestrian and bicycle access to this isolated site • Noise from airplanes and surrounding highways • Unsafe location for residences, given low-flying and frequent air traffic • Unlivable site due to isolated location • Preservation of the historic oil wel] • City/Cotmty should purchase this site as open space • Development would generate more traffic on area streets and pollution • Proposal would increase the jobs/housing imbalance • Drainage and floodplain impacts • Additional housing close to the city About 35 people attended a neighborhood meeting held by the applicant on November 14, 2001. The applicanYs compilation of public comment sheets and meeting notes are attached in Attachment E. Area residents identified noise, transportation, and building height as the key concerns. Much of the meeting discussion focused on transportation and vehicular access issues, the combined impacts of McKenzie Junction with other development proposed for the area, and the city review process. At the meeting, residents of Four Mile Creek presented the applicant with a comprehensive list of questions about the proposed pian (see Attachment D). The applicant has responded to these questions in writing (included in the applicanYs written statements in Attachment F). Because of the location of the nearest residential areas and the history of a high level of public comment on development proposals for this site, written notification was mailed to all property owners within approximately a half-mile radius. Direct mailed notice was also sent to those who contacted the city during the 2000 site review. Completed public notice exceeded the required public notice for a radius of 600 feet from the subject property. Multiple signs have been posted on the property. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C: 1981 have been met or exceeded. Approved By: - ; ,.,r- i "~ ' ~ ~,~ ~ ~% ~z/~ Peter Pollock, Director Planning Department s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehmckenzie1129.pbm AGENDA -TEM # 6A Paee S ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Concept Plan Objectives Attachment B: Vicinity Map Attachment C: Development Review Results and Comments Attachment D: Correspondence Received and Summary of Public Comments Attachment E: November 14, 2001 Neighborhood Meeting: Summary of Public Comment Attachment F: ApplicanYs Written Statements Attachment G: Applicant's Proposed Plans s:\plan\pb-items\memos\ehmckenzie1129.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 9 ATTACHMENT A CONCEPT PLAN OBJECTIVES Concept Plan Guidelin'es for Review and Comment. (fj Guidelines for Review and Comment: The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identi~ed as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan. (1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; The McKenzie Junction site is vacant, with the exception of the historic oil well and pump on the north end of the property. An agricultural ditch crosses the property, as discussed in subsection (6) below. The site is bordered by city-owned open space property to the north and east. Small-scale comrnercial businesses (gas station, car rental facility) are located just to the south of the site, across Kalmia Avenue. Four roadways surround this site: 47th Street is annexed into the city and is grade-separated or has steep side-slopes from the street in the vicinity of the site. State Highway 119 (Diagonal Highway) and State Highway 157 (Foothills Parkway) lie along most of the perimeter of the site. The southern end of the site is bordered by Kalmia Avenue, which is annexed into the city and lies between Diagonal Highway and 47th Street. The nearest residential neighborhood is a very low density county residential area to the east and northeast. Neighborhoods to ffie west and northwest include Orange Orchard, Palo Park, and Four Mile Creek, with predominantly low density zoning, under county and city jurisdiction. City-owned Pleasant View Soccer Fields and the Jewish Community Center are located to the west across 47'~' Street and Foothills Parkway. There are significant mountain views from and looking across this site, particularly entering Boulder from the Diagonal Parkway/Foothills Highway. s:\plan\pb-items~memos\ehmckenziel 129.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 10 (2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plau and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; As part of the recent Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) update, the land use designation of this property was recently changed from Arterial Business to Transitional Business to make the land use designation consistent with the current TB-D zoning (adopted September 2001). Development of this vacant 20-acre site will have an impact on the city's jobs to population ratio. Under the current zoning and trends, approximately 1200 jobs are projected for this site. Staff calculations based on the concept plan development scenario indicate that the plan would generate approximately 675 jobs and 140 residential units. This concept plan would be a significant reduction in jobs in comparison to the city's current projection and would also add housing, thereby improving the city's project jobs to housing balance. However, the plan would create more workers than the amount ofhousing needed to house those workers, resulting in a net worsening of the current city-wide jobs to housing balance. A key issue would be the determination of what portion of the "flexible space" area would be used for housing. The impacts or benefits of development of the McKenzie Junction site must be evaluated in the context of the future development of area vacant properties on Kalmia Avenue and Jay Road. These properties were also the subject of recent BVCP land use designation changes and are in the early planning stages. Transportation impacts to neighborhood and local area streets, proximity to the municipal airport and flight patterns, and school dish-ict needs, are all issues which will be jointly affected by the development of multiple vacant sites in the area. In addition to BVCP Policies 2.06 and 2.07 cited in the staff inemorandum, the following BVCP policies are also important to consider in evaluating this application. Key phrases and references have been underlined. POLICY 2.01 UNIQUE COMMUNITY IDENTITY, The unique and powerful community identiry and sense of place that is recognized by the citizens of the Boulder Valley and characterized by its setting and history shall be respected by policy decision makers. POLICY 2.02 PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF COMMLTNITIES. The city and county shall shive to maintain and enhance an open land buffer that separates development in the Boulder Valley From surrounding communities and contributes to a distinct community identity for the city. s:\plan\pb-items~memos\ehmckenzie1129.pbm AGENDA ITEM #. 6A Paee 11 POLICY 2.03 COMMUNITY/REGIONAL DESIGN. The city and county support improved design of individual urban areas, rural areas and the region tluou¢]~ desien feahues such as: clear urban boundaries, open land buffers separating compact communities, vital activity centers, preservation of critical natural areas and vistas, appropriate connection of trail s stems, efficient multi-modal travel conidors, a balanced distribution of housin~ and job opnortunities, provision of diverse housine, and conservation of nhysical and social resources. POLICY Z.30 PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES. Buildings, dishicts, and sites of historical, axchitectural, archaeoloeicaL or cultural sienificance shall be identified and ~otected. The city and county will encourage preservation of such resources through incentives programs, designation of landmark buildings and districts, design review, public improvements and other tools. Protection will be required by the city when a proposed action by a public entity involves a potential important resource. Protection of important resources will also be sought bv the citv when a nroposal by the private sector involves discretionar~development review (e.e., site [eview, use revieW, rezoninel. (3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; A site review application would have to meet the city code requirements of Section 9-4-11, B.R.C., including a written statament addressing the applicable site review criteria. If the application includes requests for code variations such as parking reduction or height modification, those specific review criteria would also have to be addressed in the application. The city staff comments in Attachment C identify many technical issues and requirements that must be addressed in a site review application. This would include a complete traffic study, a TDM (Transportation Demand Management) plan, a preliminary stormwater report and plan, a preliminary utility plan and report, as well as preliminary site, landscape and architectural plans. (4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; Colorado Deparhnent of Transportation (CDOT) access permits would be required for the proposed access to and from Kalmia Avenue and the Diagonal Highway. A floodplain development permit would be required as a condition of site review. An application for landmark designation for the oil well would also be a site review condition. s:\plan\pb-irems\memos\elunckenzie1129.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 12 (5) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation -naster plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; Four primary transportation challenges that must be addressed with any proposal for development of this site: A. Access from hiQh-s~eed facilities to the low-speed environment on-site. Proposed vehicutar access to the site would be via a three-quarter movement access (left-turns out of the site restricted) and access to Kalmia which then accesses 47th Street and Diagonal Highway via a proposed right-turn only configuration. Access issues involved with this site entail design elements of the CDOT Access Code as well as coordination with city and county transportation systems. A preliminary study was conducted to determine that the layout of the site does work with the State Access Code for the level of traffic expected to be generated while still allowing improvements to the Independence (Kalmia) and Diagonai intersection. However, the amount of site generated traffic proposed is near the maximum for left-turns entering ftom the southwest without impacting these proposed improvements to the Independence Road/Diagonal intersection. Access will again need to be addressed in a fina] traff c impact analysis wifh any submittal far a site review. Non-vehicular traffic also has many challenges due to the isolated location of this site. A link to and from the north end of the site under the curved ramp connecting the state highways to the trail system would be needed to address pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. The south end of the site would need to access 47th and Diagonal pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Transit improvements would be needed on the Diagonal Highway and on Foothills Parkway. Pedestrian and bicycle access across high-speed roadways is the primary concern for site connectivity and will need to be addressed at site raview. B. Neiehborhood Cut-Throueh Traffic The site layout shown in the concept plan documents addresses cut-through traffic from Independence Road to the east by restricting movements across the Diagonal at Kalmia, thereby eliminating the possibility of vehicular movements from Independence to Kalmia. Potentiat cut-through traffic impacting the Four-Mile Creek neighborhood has also been identified as a concern to staff. A more thorough assessment of neighborhood cut-through traffic will be included in the fina] traffic impact analysis required with any site review proposal. s:\plan\pb-items\memos\ehmckenzie1129.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 13 C. Street Capacity The traffic generated from this site is expected to be small in comparison with tha existing traffic volumes on the Diagonal Highway and Foothills Parkway. The issues of concern are not the volumes generated by this site in relation to the volumes on these two highways, but instead the accessibility discussed previously in this section. Existing volumes on Jay Road and 47th Street are both low in comparison to the capacity potential of these roads. Site generated traffic will be examined with respect to the capacity of these and all roads at the time of site review. D. Intersection C~acitv The capacities of intersections in the vicinity have not been analyzed as part of this concept plan review; however, these will be analyzed at the time of site review. Intersections that are expectad to be impacted by site generated traffic include the'/o-movement access to the site, the Kalmia intersections with 47th and the Diagonal, St. Johns Street/47`h Street, Jay Road/Diagonal, Jay Road/47th Street, and the Foothills Parkway off-ramp intersection with the Diagonal Highway. (6) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, flood plain and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information wi11 be necessary; Portions of the site are located in the Four Mile Creek floodplain. The "triangular area" north of the Foothills Parkway off ramp is primarily located in the conveyance and high hazard zones, and development in these areas will be restricted in accordance with city floodplain regulations. The applicant will be required to dedicate a public flood control easement for the conveyance zone. A smal] area of the site south of the Foothills Highway off-ramp is also in the 100-year floodplain, and partially located in the high hazard and conveyance zones. The applicant has been advised that the proposed parking area on the north end of the site could be affected, as no new parking areas are allowed in the high hazard zone, and no new parking is allowed in areas where flood depths exceed 18 inches. The city's Open Space Mountain Parks Department currently runs an agricultural ditch between the adjacent Belgrove and McKenzie open space properties. This ditch crosses the McKenzie Junction site. The applicants have been requestad to relocate proposed buildings to maintain the current ditch location, reroute the ditch, or underground it. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehmckenzie1129.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paae 14 (7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; Appropriate land uses for this site are discussed in the Analysis section of the staff memorandum. (8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. The appropriateness of housing for this site is discussed in the Analysis section of the staff inemorandum. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\ehmckereie1129.pbm AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 15 ~ -- ATTACHM~NT ~ -- ` . swtwl `~e . . . . ~Y~:.,:._ _ ._ • ,J"W ..'11~T"`~. ~ .,, :~ ~ ~ ry~ f~. C E!7• ,~1~ ~, }n ~ f. *. R.~{. ~ ~~. i~+' ~t't~!~ ! ^h!M ?.~:3 r :.'f ~~ -~Y • ' • . tr5 ~~ '\ fr ' . . . -•v .,tY .. ., ..:.:d ~~ - ~ ~j~i'~. , ~.. ` f ~;.'' : ~ ~,.~ _ , _ ! t'' ~.' r MCKENZIE JUNCTION VICINITY MAP ~ Miles ~ 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 INFORMATION RE90URCEB~ PLANNING 6 DCV[LOPMENT BERVIGEH MCKENZIEJNC.M%D NOVEMBEFl 2001 ^McKenzie Jundion .,~~~ -Creek 'A ---Ditch CITY OF BOULOER _ M ATTACHMENT C ~ CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: August 30, 2001 PROJECT NAME: MCKENZIE JUNCTION LOCATION: DIAGONAL HY COORDINATES; ~ N06W02 REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review & Comment REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001•00046 APPLICANT: ASW REALTY PROPERTY, LLC DESCRIPTION: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW: A mixed use development, McKenzie Junction, including 353,000 sq. ft. of residential and commercial office space located in 11 buildings on 20 acres. The concept plan shows approximately 140, dwelling units. 135,000 sq. ft. of office space, and surface, below-grade, and structured parking. Note: Previous applications for this property have been called "Gateway,° REQUESTED VARIAT IONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Requested variations to be determined upon Site Review application. I. REVIEW FINDINGS Staff finds that the application meets the requirements for a Concept Plan Review and Comment. As compared to previous concept plan and site review applications for this property, the McKenzie Junction plans show a creative mixed use development which may better suit the community's goals and policies. One of the key issues for this project is to demonstrate that this rather isolated property surrounded by major roadways can be developed into a livable neighborhood for residents 2nd office workers. Another challenge is for the sife to project a positive and attractive exterior image as a major gateway to Boulder. Also, since development of the site will generate new vehicular trips from residents, workers, and visitors, a successful traffic mitigation program will be key to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and roads. The McKenzie Junction concept plan begins to address these key issues. The development of this property into a "neighoorhood" is explored though site design, open space placement, and a mix of land uses. Creative architectural styles are presented as examples of how the physical forms on the site may appear. An initial traffic analysis has been completed, with a full traffic study to follow. The staff comments beiow address those areas which need Further clarificaiion or exploration. For example, there are key transportation, d'rainage, utility, and flood issues to be addressed. The next review step, site review, will allow the applicant, staff and the community to more fully explore these issues. At that time, the applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with the site review criteria and address plan specifics such as circulation, parking, building design, landscaping, and open space. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS AccesslCirculation Location of the'/, Movement Site Access from State Hiqhwav 119 The following incorporate city and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) comments per discussions between Steve Durian, City of Boulder Transportation Engineer and Tess Jones, CDOT Region 4 Access Coordinator on August 20, 2001: The primary concern with the location of the'/, movement access (and the reason a traffic analy5is was requested from the applicant at this stage of review) is that the length of highway between the ramp and Kalmia Avenue along SH 119 is limited for the speed limits posted on this roadway. The location of the access must allow left-turn storage for vehicles entering the site from the west, right-turn deceleration distance for vehicles entering the site from the east, and adequate sight distance between the access and the ramp to avoid unsafe conditions for opposing movements. The following parameters were followed in staff's assessment of the traffic study and the location of required transportation elements serving this site: ~~~ l°~ FegeN~_ The traffic study prS4id'Cd only serves as a preliminary ass~'ssme~of tr2ffic generation and distribution to detertmne critical transportation elements and the location of the north-south road through the site. This was discussed in the study and is consistent staff's understanding. With a Site Review, a more thorough Traffic impact Araalysis wili be required that will address impacts to surrounding intersections, particularly 47'" and Kalmia, 47'" and Diagonal, and the interchange ramps at Foothills Parkway and Diagonal Highway. The speed limit used for the design of the left-turn lane serving the'/, movement access to the site is listed in the study as being 45 mph. The speed limit eastbound in this vicinity is actually 55 mph, and these comments reFlect that speed limit. The issue of sight distance for vehicles using the ramp to access westbound SH 119 was not addressed. An advisory speed limit of 25 mph is posted on this ramp, however due to higher speeds observed on this ramp, these comments assume that the design speed on this ramp is 35 mph. Using the information provided in the traffic study and the parameters listed above, the following elements are needed to achieve the design requirements in the CDOT Access Code: 1. The minimum sight distance for the 35-mph design speed of the ramp is 250 feet. 2. The westbound right turn deceleration lane length is a minimum of 273 feet plus 162 feet of taper. 3. The minimum eastbound left turn lane length for 55 mph and the storage length for the left turning volume stated in the traffic study is 438 feet plus 222 feet of taper length. 4. The westbound left-turn deceleration lane serving Independence Road (Kalmia) has a minimum length of 273 feet plus 162 feet of taper. The distance between the access and the ramp as shown in the plan is 330 feet. This distance is greater than the minimum distance for sight distance. The right turn deceleration lane can be designed with the taper length in excess of 330 feet located on the ramp. This would likely result in significant reconstruction of this ramp and possibly grading into the site to accommodate the extra width. The total distance from the access as shown on the plan to Independence Road is approximately 900 feet. Within this distance the left-turn deceleration lane serving the access and the westbound left turn lane serving Independence must be accommodated, however the tapers for these lanes may overlap. The length belween the access and Independence remaining after consideration of the eastbound left-turn deceleration lane length and taper for the access is 240 feet (900 ft. - 438 ft. - 222 ft.). Therefore, this distance allows less than the CDOT required.left turn length of 273 feet for the Independence left turn lane. Two possible solutions can be pursued to accommodate the requirements of the CDOT Access Code. Option 1 is to relocate the proposed access as shown on the plan to the east a minimum of 40 feet. This will lengthen the distance between the access and Independence Road and allow a standard left-turn lane length for Independence. Option 2 is to pursue a variance to the CDOT Access Code standards for the design of the Independence left-turn deceleration lane. Option 2 will require that justification for this variance be discussed in the Site Review Traffic Impact Analysis and approval by CDOT and the City of Boulder staff. In either case, the plans submitted for Site Review must show all auxiliary lanes for the access and for Independence Road. On-Site Circulation 1. As discussed in past comments for this site, the isolation of this site requires special consideration for alternative modes of transportation. As part of this, a pedestrian/bicycle connection is required from the east end of the site to the existing trail system east of the ramp. This will require that a culvert be constructed u~der the ramp. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493. 2. It is unclear from these plans whether the on-site roads will be dedicated rights-of-way or easements. If the property is subdivided and these roads will serve as access to these multiple lots, the roads will be required to be rights-of-way. All rights-of-way would be required to have a minimum width of 60 feet. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493. 3. As per previous comments for this site, required transit improvements would consist of transit stops on the northeast and southeast corners of 47~" and Kalmia and a transit stop at the main access to the site. Additional transit improvements may be required depending on the traffic impacts estimated in the Site Review Traffic impact Analysis. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493. 4. Besides those mentioned herein, consideration of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies applicable to this site will be required as p8rt of Site Review and will be critical to the functioning of this site. Steve Durian, Pubiic Works, 303-441-4493. Address: DIAGONALHY ~~~~ (D/7 pageril~ Countv of Boulder Comments - "' -~- w t) How does transi! connect into and out of the site? 2) What TDM measures are being considered if residents choose NOT to work on-site? (County Transportation staff believes the 15% TDM reduction used in the Bowers & Krager report is too high; 8% - 10% is more realistic). 3) What is the projected daytime occupany vs. resident occupancy, and what are the projected differences in vehicle trips? 4) Regional transit stops and/or (preferrably) a regional transit satellite or hub center Would be very appropriately located here and shou(d be considered. 5) The Palo Park/Orange Orchard/Four Mile Creek residents have expressed concern during the Year 2000 BVCP Major Update abouf any future plans that could directly or indirectly encourage greater vehicle trip use on Kalmia, 47th, Jay and other neighborhood streets. Clearly the American motorist is a clever and enterprising creature when looking for short cuts and less congested travel routes, but this concern will need to be more thoroughiy addressed if the applicants go ahead with neighborhood meetings. • Pete Fogg, County of Boulder Land Use Oepartment, 303-441-3930 Airport lnfluence Zone The parcel is almost exclusively located in Airport Influence Zone 4. Landowners of properties within AIZ-4 may be required to sign an avigation easement with the city as a condition of obtaining a building permit. In addition, all utilities for new devefopment are required to be placed underground. A small area of the south end of the property along Kalmia Avenue is located in AIZ-2. The AIZ-2 extends roughly 100 feet from the edge of Kalmia Avenue right-of-way north into the site. No new residential use is allowed in AIZ-2. It appears that the proposed residential buildings are just north of the AIZ-2. Please delineate the Airport Influence Zones on the concept plan to corifirm. The site plan must be consistent with the AIZ restrictions outlined in B.R.C. 9-11-6. Bev Johnson, 303- 4413272. Building Design Architec2ural CharacYer: The architecYural concepts proposed for the residential and flexible units port'tons of the concept plan appear creative and depict an attractive character. The character shown seems to be creating a unique style within the development and an internal focus suitable for a mixed use plan. The context for the architecturaf character shown for the larger commercial buildings at the north end of the site is not apparent in the concept plan appiication. How does architectural style fit in with the rest of the site's development? How does it relate to other buildings in the area or the community? At the time of site review, please explore this issue in greater detail. Simulation of Proposed Buildinos: In addition to the applicanYs written descriptions, it would be helpfu! to see drawings or computer-generated simulations of what the proposed buildings would look like from surrounding roads and properties. How visibte would the parking deck be? How tall wouid the corporate office building appear? Wouid any view corridors be specifically affected? Answering these questions would be helpful for the concept plan review and critical at the site reviews step. Heiaht Modification?: Does the applicant intend to request a height modification for any buildings over 35 feet? Please note that all building height must be measured based on the city code definition of height. Drainage 1. Drainage from the subject property is currently split between the Four Mile Creek and Wonderland Creek Drainage Basins. Four Mile Creek crosses the northern part of the property and can be discharged to without crossing any adjacent properties. There is no contiguous drainage system between the site and Wonderland Creek which is located approximately %: mile to the south. This makes discharge from the southern portion of the site particulary challenging. A Preliminary Stormwater Report and Plan, which addresses maintaining historic release rates and avoiding impacts to neighboring properties, will be required at the time of Site Review. As indicated in the applicanYs written statement, it appears that detention facilities wili be required at both the north and south ends of the site tlue to the drainage basin split. Adequate open space should be reserved to accommodate these facilities. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418. Address: DIAGONAL HY ~ /n /7 AQ911d9 fll1111 ~~ n Page 9 i,~,_, 2. The appiicant will be required to utiiize best management practices to help mitigate stormwater quality impacts associated with the development of the site. The city requires that the applicant minimize directly connected impervious areas on the site and construct and mainfain structural best management practices. Directly connected impervious areas can be minimized by routing roof and parking lot runoff through landscaped areas rather than direcily to a storm sewer facility. Structural best management practices typically include features like water quality ponds, ' constructed wetlands, treatment channels, and sand filters. Detailed water quality requirements can be found in Section 7.13 of the city's pesign and Construction Standards and in the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control DisiricY's Drarrtage Criteria Manual Volume 3. Water quatity requirements musi addressed at a conceptual level in the Preliminary Stormwater Report and Plan submitted at the time of Site Review. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418. 3. City mapping shows the Farmers Ditch crossing the subject property. The applicant will need to obtain any approvals for modifying or relocating the ditch directly from the ditch company. Irrigation ditches have typically required significant maintenance easements in the past, so it is recommended that the appiicant consult with the ditch company before developing any detailed plans for the site. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418. 4. Due to the proximity to Four Mile Creek, it is anticipated that any subsurface structures will require dewatering. Since groundwater discharge to streets and sidewalks may causes algae growth and ice formation, the applicant should inciude drainage facilities adjacent to any subsurface structures when developing preliminary drainage pfans. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 44~-4418. 5. At the time of Site Review, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that adequate controls have been provided around the existing oil well to prevent contamination of stormwater runoff. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418. 6. Installation of underground utilities may provide a conveyance for any contaminated groundwater associated with the oil well. Previous environmental assessments should be provided with the Site Review submittal and updated as appropriate. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418. Engineering 1. If the applicant intends to sell portions of the subject property at some future date, a subdivision is required in addition to a Site Review. It is recommended that the applicant apply for the subdivision concurrently with the Site Review so that any land use issues associated with rights-of-way or easements can be identified. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441- 4418. 2. At the time of Site ReviewlPreliminary Plat submittal, the applicant will need to provide the following engineering related documents. Detailed requirements are included in the city's Design and Construction Standards manual: a) A Preliminary Stormwater Report and Plan b) A Preliminary Utility Plan c) A Utility Report d) Tra~c Impact Analysis 3. Prior to approval of a Final Subdivision Plat and prior to application for any building permits, the applicant will be required to complete the city's Technical Document Review process and obtain approval of construction plans for any public water, sewer, transportation, or stormwater improvements required to serve the site. Construction plan requirements can be found in Chapter 1 of the citys Design and Construction Standards. Jeff ARhur, Public Works, 441-4418. Flood Control 1. A Floodplain Development Permit will be required for all work within the Four Mile Creek Floodplain including grading and utility installation. The permit must be obtained prior to issuance of any building, grading, or right-of-way permits in this area. 2. Per city standards, the applicant is required to dedicate the Four Mile Creek Convyeyance zone as a public drainage and flood control easement. Further, any site development work or grading work in the Conveyance zone is subject to the requirements of Section 9-9-7, B.R.C. 1981 which do not allow any rise in the 100-year water surface elevations. 3. A smali area of the site south of the SH 157 off-ramp is in the High Hazard flood zone. City Code does not allow any new parking areas in the High Hazard Zone. This could affect the proposed parking area on the north end of the site. Address: DIAGONAL HY pgendalbmt ~~ Paget.aQ_ In addition, 100-year flood depths in parking areas are not allowed to exceed 18 inches. This may affect the parking iayout at the north end of the site. Bruce Johnson, 303-441- 3206. Land Uses Site Amenities: Since this site is fairly isolated and surrounded by roads, the applicant is encouraged to provide as many amenities possible on the project site. Staff believes this would a key component to the success of a mixed use developmenf on this property. A eoritbination of several of these secondary uses - such as small restaurant, laundry, day care facility, exercise facility - may be critical to cutting down on the number of vehicular trips to and from the site and giving residents and workers an on-site option to leaving the site for lunch or errands. Staff acknowledges that the size of the site may make it difficult to support certain businesses so that they are economically viable. Please also consider this issue when preparing a site/use review application. Allowed Land Uses: Under the site's TB-D zoning, the proposeC offices, dwelling units, recreational facilities and personal service uses (e.g. dry cleaner, duplicating service) would be allowed "by-right". Severaf potentiai uses such as restaurants, convenience stores under 3,200 square feet in size, and retail stores in an office or apartment building would be allowed with use review approval. None of the proposed uses would be prohibited under the current zoning. Possible Use Review: If the applicant proposes a land use which requires use review approval, a use review application and fees can be submitted concurrently with a site review application. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposal meets the applicable use review criteria, addressing such issues as compatibility and impacts. Countv of Boulder Comments: t) What assurances, guarantees, requirements or other "incentives" are being applied to encourage (at a minimum) that the residential units are occupied by persons working on-site? 2) The 20% moderate income housing figure is to be targeted to a"...market of existing residents who cannot find affordable ownership housing within the c'rty". How does the "existing residenP' credential get described or applied as a criterion? How does this assure that the qualifying resident will work on-site or that there will be employment opportinities on-site that match resident skilis? 6) For the "flexihle space" development, what is the basis for "anticipating" that this may include an additional 50 residential units? Is this negotiable? Fixed? Market driven? Could all of it become residential? 7) How will the "limited retail" be controlled or confined to retail types that can be economically viable providing services to patronage from on-site residents, employees and clients vs. requiring an off-site market base? 8) Visual impacts - What kinds of accessory use/structure controls will be imposed, e.g. satellite dishes, rooftop antennas/cell sites, climate control equipment, etc? Pete Fogg, County of Boulder Land Use Department, 303-441-3930 Landscaping The concept plan suggests an effective use,of trees and landscaping to screen the residential uses from the highway and to provide useable green spaces. Please consider a stronger use of iandscaping in the open space at the north end of the property to provide a unique entryway feature and to screen the parking lots from the highway. Bev Johnson, 303-441- 3272. Miscellaneous Please revise the concept plan to clariy that the project site includes the "triangle" land area north of the highway ramp. W hat is the size of the central open space area? Open Space and Mountain Parks The city will require a dedication of the triangular property located north of the highway access ramp. This land is located in the high-hazard floodway zone and contains a continuation of the Four Mile Creek riparian area, which is an important Address: DIAGONAL HY Agenda Ilem t ~~ Page # ~_ _ wildlife habitat area and corridor. It is also a smail wedge of land that would`connect the open spaoe properties wesf and east of the highways and provide the opportunity to potentiaily link the Four Mie Creek Trail and the Cottonwood Trail. Ann Gocdhart/Joe Manitone 720-564-2032. Parking Parkinq Lavout: Staff believes that the concept plan generally shows a creative approach to consolidating and decking parking areas to minimize the amount of land devoted to parking. It would be helpful to show the appearance of these parking areas (both residential and commercial) at the time of site review, Estimated Parkinq Cafculation: Staff estimated that 136 parking spaces would be required based on the number of bedrooms shown for the residential area, 450 parking spaces would be required for the cominercial square footage, and an estimated 63 parking spaces for the residential units in the flexible space (assumed 25 one and two bedrooms each). A parking estimate is still needed for the commercial portion of the flexible space; an estimated square foot number is needed. Also, please note that if the "studio" areas of the residential units are additional bedrooms, the parking calculation would be affected. The applicant's written statement includes on-street parking in the parking calculations. Please note that on-street parking cannot be included in the required off-street parking calculations. On-street parking numbers may be noted for information. Plan Documents The applicanYs plan drawings and written statements are very easy to read and clear to understand. Staff commends the applicant on the completeness of the submittal. Please show the Area 2 boundary of the Airport InFluence Zone on the concept plan. While it appears that the proposed residential units are just outside of this restricted area, it would be helpful to show this boundary on the concept plan. Please clarify the reference to "studio" on the plans of the residential units. At the time of site review, please ensure that all legal bedrooms as labeled as bedrooms and included in the parking calculations. Please show the centerlines of all roads and highways. This information is necessary to calculate required setbacks from major streets. Review Process Planninq Board Hearinq: This application has been tentatively scheduled for the November 1, 2001 Planning Board meeting. This meeting will include a public hearing on the request and Board members will comment on the application. No vote is taken and no decision is issued on a concept plan. To be scheduled for the November 1, 2001 meeting, 20 folded copies of the concept plans must be submitted by W ednesday, October 17ih for the Planning Board packet. If any changes will be made to the plans, please provide 10 folded copies of the final concept plans to staff no later than Friday, September 28~h, so that the staffs memorandum to the Board will he consistent with the concept plans to be presented. Site Design "Flex-units": The "flex-units" portion of the plan is perhaps the most creative and the most confusing part of tlie concept ptan. This mixed use concept could provide unique housing and work opportunities for Boulder residents while enjoying all the benefits a mixed use development affords (shared parking and open space, reduction in vehicular trips, etc.) The confusing part is due to some of the terminology and lack of specific numbers presented for this portion of the plan. Staff suggests that the applicant not use the phrase "live/work" in this application, since that is a specific zoning term used for other zoning districts in Boulder's zoning code. "Mixed use" is more applicable, since offices and dwelling units are both allowed uses. Also, please discuss with staff the applicanYs intent for "flexible space". Flexibility at the concept plan stage is acceptable. However, at the time of site review application, specific numbers for residential units, bedrooms, and commerciai square footage will be needed to allow accurate calculations of open space and parking. These calculations were not possible based on this concept plan; staff made some estimation, as included in these comments. O~en Space Reauirement: In the TB-D zoning district, 1,200 square feet of useable open space (based on the ciry code definition) is required for each dwelling unit. Based on the 90 residential units shown and the estimated 50 additional units in the flexible space area, 168,000 square feet of open space would be required for the plan. Also, if any buildings are Address: DIAGONAL HY /~nda IEem A ~ ~ Page H ~ ~ proposed over 35 feet in height, additional open space requirements would apply. Please address wliether the concept plan would prcwide the required open space. This wili need to be addressed in detail at !he time of site review application. ~en Soace PlacemenUUse: Staff finds that the placement of the consolidated open space areas will likely encourage its use by both residents and workers in the flexible space area. The development of amenities on this area would be key.to its success. How would it best be used by those on the site? Would playground equipment be included? Exercise or rest areas? The usability of the projecYs open space will be a focus of the site review. Oil well: The applicanPs written statement and community residents have provided more information about the historic nature of the site's oii wel1. It appear5 that the applicanYs concept plan creates a space around the oil well with the attempt to make it a focal point of-the site. The landscaping and urban design of the north end of the site will be critical to the success of making this an historic feature. Staff will share comments from Boulder's historic preservation community as they are received. Utilities Due to the location of the subject property, provision of water service is likely to be more complicated and costly than what might be expected for a typical site. The site is isolated from the city wafer system by major highways. City water mains are currently located both to the east and west of the property Fiowever, the main to the east of the property cannot be used to provide service due to a"pressure zone" split. The city essentially operates three separate water distribution systems or "pressure zones" in order to maintain reasonable operating pressures in all areas of the community. The main to the east of the site provides service to the Gunbarrel area and does not operate at an acceptable pressure range to serve the McKenzie Junction site. In conjunction w'rth a previous appiication to develop this properry, a preliminary utility plan was prepared by Hurst and Associates that demonstrated a possible configuration to take service from mains west of the property. Because CDOT does not typically allow open cutting of state highways, this plan included significant directional boring. In order to provide a redundant feed to the site as required by city standards, two separate crossings would be required. 2. An 18-inch diameter sewer main runs across the northernmost portion of the property and appears to be the most logical location to take service from. As a significant portion of this site currently slopes south, away from this main, the applicant will need to evaluate feasibility in more detail at the time of Site Review. 3. City standards require that any lots that are created have frontage on water and sewer mains and that each structure have it's own service line(s) and meter connected to a city main. In order to meet this requirement and requirements for fire hydrant placement, public mains will need to be extended through the site. The applicant should note that all public utilities will need to be located in public easements and that these easements must be a minimum of 25-feet in width. Structures, including underground facilities and overhangs, are not permitted in city easements. 4. The applicant should note that trees are not permitted within ten feet of underground utility lines. At Site Review, the applicant will need to demonstrate that their plans can meet both landscaping and utility requirements. 5. At the time of Site Review, the applicant is required to submit a Utility Report to show that service can be provided to this site in accordance with ciry standards and without adversely affecting the city system. Utility Report requirements can be found in Sections 5.02 and 6.02 of the city's Design and Construction Standards. 6. W hen developing plans for sanitary sewer service to the site, the applicant should evaluate the need for groundwater barriers. Jeff Arthur, Public Works, 441-4418. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Area Characteristics and Zoning History The Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) was asked to consider purchase of this property in 1996, because of its location as a gateway into Boulder and the fact that is already surrounded by City of Boulder open space. However, the OSBT deClined to purchase the property, based on its very high market price as an already annexed, business-zoned property. Ann Goodhart/Joe Mantione 720-564-2032 Land Uses ~ Jobs:Housinq Balance: Under the current proposai, a mixed-use project with housing, office, and live/work units is proposed. The application indicates 90 residential units, 135,000 square feet of office, and 119,000 square feet of Address: DIAGONA~ HY ~ . Agenda Item A ~~ Page # ~_, - -- --- - ~ - livelwork space. The applicant indicates that the live/work space might include an additional 50 residential units. This ~NOUId result in approximately 60,000 square feet of additional non-residential space in the live-work space (assuming an average of 1200 square feet per housing unit in the livelwork space) and approximately 200 additional jobs. The total for the entire site woultl be 675 jobs and 140 residential units. Under the current zoning and trends, approximately 1200 jobs are projected for the site. The applicanYs proposal wouid be a significant reduction in jobs in comparison to the city's current projection and would also add housing, thereby improving the city's projected jobs:housing balance. The site would still create more workers than the amount of housing needed to house those workers, resulting in a net worsening of the current citywide jobs:housing balance. A key issue would be assuring that an agreed Jpon amount of the flex space would be required to be used for housing. Susan Richstone 303-441-3271, Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272. Landscaping 1. When preparing a site review application, please refer to the city's landscaping requirements so that plan features like planting bed size, landscaping within parking areas, and screening can be considered early in the review. 2. Please include the following information in the preliminary landscape plan submittal at the time of site review (Bev Johnson,303-441-3272): Plan drawing at a sca/e of 1"= 10', 1"= 20', or 1"= 30', fo include: Standard title block including scale, north arrow, and date Location of property lines and adjacent streets (with street names identified) Zoning and use of adjacent properties Existing and proposed locations of all: - Building footprints for existing struciures and building envelopes for proposed structures - Sidewalks and curb cuts - Parking lots including layout of parking spaces, interior and perimeter parking lot plantings, bike paths and pedestrian walkways, drive aisles and curb islands - Utilities and easements, including fite hydrants, water meters, & height and location of overhead lines. Existing location, size, and type of all trees 1 1/2" caliper or greater Where fencing is used for required screening, a scaled drawing of the fence elevation. Planting specifications Layout and Iocation of all landscaped areas including: - planting strips along all streets - parking lot screening - interior parking lot landscaping - perimeter site landscaping or screening - all other landscaped areas Botanical and common names and sizes of all plant material proposed preliminarily. Locations of all proposed plant material, shown at the size they will be within 5 years of initial planting, and appropriately spaced. Location, size, and species name of any plant materials proposed for removal. ^ Proposed planting of all ground surfaces. Location and treatment of any proposed detention ponds. Location and dimensions of site distance Viangles 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 stalis required and the total provided. total interior parking lot landscaped area required and the total provided. total perimeter parking lot landscaping required and total provided. total number of street trees required and the total provided. total quantity of plant material required and the total provided. Miscetlaneous Copies of the concept plan application were forwarded to the City of Boulder Airport Manager fonvarded to the applicant as they are received. Address: DIAGONAL HY ~ Additional comments will be Agenda Item A ~'~ Page # ~ _ Neiyhborhood Comments Mailed Public Notice: The city sent an extensive mailed public notice for this application, with notices sent to property owners with'rn a one-mile radius, rather than the required minimum 600-foot radius. Direct mailed notice was aiso sent to those who contacted the city during the 2000 site review for this property. Public Comments Received: The city has received a high level of public comment ort the application. Staff has prepared a detailed summary of comments received by phone and e-mail; this summary (updated to August 28, 2001) is attached for the applicanYs review. Copies of letters received are also attached. Updated summaries will be fon,yarded to the applicant during the review process. Neiqhborhood Meetina: As discussed with the applicant during the pre-application meetings, a neighborhood meeting would be very helpful to share the proposed concept plan with the community and to listen to public concerns and ideas. Staff recommends that this meeting date and location be set as soon as possible so that it may occur in advance of the Planning Board hearing. Staff is available to help arrange the meeting logistics and providing a list of people to notify (a mailing list of people interested in the project is being developed by staff). The case manager will attend the neighborhood meeting as an information resource. Staff strongly suggests that a neutral third-party, such as a facilitator or mediator, attend and help run the meeting. Please discuss with staff. Open Space and Mountain Parks OSMP currenily runs an agricultural ditch between the Belgrove and McKenzie OSMP properties. This ditch runs underneath the two highway segments and crosses the proposed development site. OSMP will request that this open ditch be accommodated in the development by leaving it in place, (proposed buildings might have to be relocated to accommodate ihis option), re-routing it, or undergrounding this ditch across the property, IV. NEXT STEPS o Schedule, advertise, and attend a neighborhood meeting. c Attend a Planning Board public hearing on the application and present the plans. .. Continue to meet with neighbors, members of the community, and staff as next steps are determined and plans are developed. o Schedule a pre-application meeting, if needed. o File a site review applicafion; a concurreni use review applicatiori may also be required. Address: DIAGONALHY AQ9!ld9ll@RIB "'~ PageN~ MEMORANDiJM TO: Liz Hanson, City Planner FROM: Ray Grundy, Airport Manager SUBJ: Remarks on McKenzie Junction (Gateway Property). DATE: Sept 4, 2001 I received the request for review of this proposed development by inter-office mail on Friday, August 31, 2001. The developer is required to submit to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for their review the FAA Form 7460 - Notice of Proposed Construction. The developer should allow two months for the review process. As I mentioned eazlier during our telephone conversation, I am concerned about the proximity of residentia] development to the airport traffic pattern. There is a potential for persons moving into any residences located on the site to be unaware of the traffic pattern. It would be wise for any developer to add additional insulation and central air conditioning into the design of the residences. Additionally, it is our belief that any occupant of a residence located at this site should be made aware of the presence of the airport and the traffic pattern by means of a disclosure notice that is part of any purchase/lease/rental agreement. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 303-440-7065. Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page # a~ - .._ _ ~ - - ATTACHMENT D - McKenzie Junction Public Comments as of 11 / 28 / O l Case #: LUR2001-00046 -Summary of Telephone and E-Mail Comments -(Also see written correspondence receivedj Susan Reai 8/ 14/O1 3987 Dehesa Ct. - She lives in Palo Parkway and received notice of the project. - She has been to a hearing regarding the parking problems at the soccer fields. - The Gateway site has been mentioned as a potential overflow-parking site. - There should be an overpass to walk from fields to McKenzie Junction. - Additional parking is needed for the soccer fields. - Will the mixed-use parking facility have an RTD Park & Ride? - There is no good transit facility at gateway to Boulder. - Need adequate open space on the site for residential uses. If not, it will negatively affect nearby parks. Hal Nees- 8/ 15/O1 HNees@aol.com - It seems like a large development for such a small piece of land. I would be concerned about an abundance of parking, height of the buildings and proximity to the highway. - Additionally, I am concerned about additional traffic load on to Jay Road, the Diagonal and 47th St. The light at 47th and the Diagonal certainly would need changes. G. Paul Bailey- 8/ 15/O1 gpaulbailey@home.com 2950 Eagle Way PO Box 3037 Boulder, 80307 -I support development of the site, as it will provide an excellent frame for entry to Boulder where there is a vexy haphazard transition into the city now in terms of development. Mixed use on the site will provide additionai close in housing to town, which will reduce the regional commute at least for a few cars. There may also be an opportunity for a new node to the northwest for facilities of community service groups within the ofCce part portion. Kevin Hunt- 8/ 15/O1 KPHunt@hotmail.com 2865 Madera Ct. Boulder, Co 80301 A~da Item i/v/3 pa~ g ~~ -Keep on developing. Hopefully when my new born turns five there won't be any of those ugly fields left to play in. Even better, we'll have more tax revenue to build bigger roads to accommodate the over flowing traffic. Mike Exner - 8/ 16/O1 3968 St. Petersburg Boulder, 80301 - This gentleman is President of the Soaring Society of Boulder. - Would like to receive all mailings for this project. - Lives in 4 Mile Creek - Is a pilot for the Boulder Airport - Right under the lowest point of landing pattern. - This is a terrible place for residential units in terms of noise. - There will likely be a high turnover rate. - The traffic in and out of the area wonies him. - The area is under the traffic of the airport arriving and departing. - Aircraft routinely fly over the lot at 200 feet, sometimes lower. - Planes can sometimes get caught in downdrafts. Janet Stoltz 4070 Old Westburry Ct. Boulder, CO 80301 - Four Mile Creek - Opposed to deve2oping that piece of lanc3. - Opposed to residential on that site. - Potential prairie dog habitat? Check - Residential units need to be added closer to town. - Notion of people who live/work in the same location doesn't make sense - Would rather see an office project. - Key concern is the traffic, if iY is an island. Kathrvn Lon~ Roberts 3250 Oneal Circle, 25F Boulder, 80301 - Uses east Diagonal Highway. - The traffic on this road can be sticky at 6 PM. - She thinks that people will choose to use the east section of the Diagonal to gain access to and out of the site, as opposed to using Kalmia. - What is being done to address this issue? Roland Sharrett RJSharette(a~aol.com 2962 Kalmia, #29 Apenda I6em t~ f~ Page t a g Boulder, 80301 I'm writing you to comment about the concept plan review for what is now being called McKenzie Junction (sounds more yuppie than Gen-X). This is the 20-acre triangle between the Diagonal, 47th and Kalmia. Here are my thoughts for whatever they're worth to you and the board. I don't feel strongly against the plan since it doesn't directly affect our neighborhood, as does the Kalmia development, however, it seems ill founded, especially from a traffic standpoint..I would think the 4-Mile Creek folks would be more directly affected. You will no doubt hear from them. This development is another example of Boulder's planning deficiencies. From the standpoint of access, it seems poorly conceived. Why would anyone want to work or live in the island created by two major highways that are converging in their immediate area? And, looking ahead, when inbound/outbound traffic exceeds even today's levels, how would they ever get out to the market or to work? Eventually, I feel this road network is going to have to be enhanced, most logically by a spur that takes traffic somehow from Foothills (the future US36) over to 28th north of Jay, This will likely be a limited access freeway through the open space east and north of Orange Orchard. We may not like the idea, but something is going to have to relieve US36 traffic that will seek northwesterly routes to Estes, etc. Eventually, 28th Street will bog down completely and there will be few alternatives. Where will this island of 135k sq ft of commerce and 140 residences stand when that happens? In the middie of a gigantic interchange; that's where. Dumb, beyond belief. For the rtear future, these business folks and residents can exit Kalmia to 47th and go either way, or they can go either way on the Diagonal (for the time being). That's it. No other ways exist for their ingress/egress. Even now iYs a dumb idea. The original concept (1981) was no doubt that the island would become a "gateway" to $oulder from the north. Picture a small commercial mall, with gas stations, a motel:and convenience shops and, oh yes, a nice little 'welcome to Boulder' information center. Those days are gone, folks. Think Gunbarrel. But the property owners/developers still see quick commercial gold in that little island. They want to build it out to the curbs and sell it while it's still viable; then get out of the way when the rents go down (maybe they could call it "Crossroads North"?) and nobody wants to live in the middle of truck traffic and under noisy airplanes. Oh, and of course, the trains. Yes, just an ideal Aganda Ibm t~A Page t d~_ place to live and work, isn't it? What are they thinking? This wili become another future slum like we can project for several other Boulder locations in a few years when the thrill of living here wears off. Stop this foolish plan, city planners, while you can. The only sensible use for that island is probably doing what it does now: grow wildflowers and provide buffer for the airport. Go somewhere else, ASW Realty; you need to think more clearly. Rich Jortber~ rej@rjassociatesinc. com I recently read the notification for the development plan for McKenzie Junction along the Diagonal Highway. We are residents of Four Mile Creek, and we regularly run from our house to the Cottonwood Trail via 47th Street and Kalmia to Independence Road. We would run to the Cottonwood Trail via the bike path, but it does not cross under the rail road tracks. Crossing the rail road tracks where the trail terminates is not permitted though many do cross to the Cottonwood Trail this way. The tracks have been fenced off many times to discourage this traffic. Because of the risks associated with the trains and the unstable footing crossing the tracks, we tend to run to the trail via a dirt road at the corner of Independence Road and the rail, road tracks. This is risky too as it entails running across the former Diagonal Highway spur which is presently the entrance ramp to the Diagonal. We envision that the recreational access to the Cottonwood Trail will be impacted significantly by this development. It will be quite difficult to run along Kalmia to Independence with traffic generated by a 300,000+ sf development, and as a result we and others will probably then tend to cross the rail road tracks illegally at the end of the present bike path. The traffic along the Diagonal Highway entrance ramp will no doubt increase, and that will make crossing to get to the Cottonwood Trail more dangerous by the legal access than it already is. Consequently, I would hope that as a condition of approval that the existing bike path be extended under the rail road tracks (as is the case near the office buildings on the east side of Foothills Parkway at Pearl Street), as this will reduce the risk of illegal crossing of the train tracks. Jim Shook jsnbld~aqwest.net By any other name, McKenzie Junction (MJ), Gateway to Boulder, or the Diagonal Triangle, it appears to me to provide for a real estate development in the middle of two super busy highways. What kind of fuzzy logic could anyone with a whit of gumpsion (common sense!) be thinking to put business and or residential development in the middle of two Agendal~rn# ~A Paget~ super busy highways that are already pegged to become busier as Longmont and Boulder GROW (like it or not) together. Ya better keep it for greenbelt or better yet, and interchange for access to a much needed "beltway" around the city. I'm opposed to such development. It isn't a fit place for residential and limited kinds of commercial. What kind of residential does council have in mind for the MJ? Affordable Housing? Shelter for the "Homeless"? How in good conscience could you even consider it? Matthew Silverman silvermanmr(a~.vahoo.com I have reviewed the plans submitted recently by ASW Realty for the Gateway/McKenzie site and note with pieasure that the plans call for accommodation of continued operations of the 100-year-old McKenzie well. They also call for acknowledgment of the history of the well and the site. This weli is of great locai importance historically and should be considered for historic landmarking and preservation in this, the Centennial year of the field. I urge you to take whatever steps necessary to do so. As you may know, I have prepared a paper on the Boulder Oil Field and the McKenzie well. Copies were left at your office for you and other City staff inembers. In summary, the Boulder Oil Field was discovered exactly 100 years ago, in 19Q1. It is the second oldest field in the state of Colorado and one of the oldest producing fields in the Rocky Mountain region. Ironically, the single remaining well was the first commercial producer in the field. This well, possibly the oldest continuously producing well in the state and region, now represents a unique opportunity for historic preservation. The field was discovered by the dubious, but ancient practice of witching. The discovery is credited to a group associated with Isaac Canfield, one of the pioneers of the Florence Field, Colorado's oldest. Boulder Field was the focus of a forgotten boom. Over a hundred wells were drilled in the first few years, and scores of oil companies sprouted up. Aggressive promoters used doctored photographs and promised "Oil or money refunded," but the sawiest investors got out early. Agenda Item i~A Page R..j,~,_ A decades-long bust followed and all the wells have now been plugged but the #1-21 McKenzie, on the Diagonal Highway. This is a special part of Bouider's history, and the McKenzie well offers an excellerit opportunity to save it, but the very last one. If I may provide any additional information, including a PowerPoint presentation I have prepared on the history of the Boulder Oil Field, please let me know. Tom Sperr sperr a.equitv-oil.com I support the effort to have the Boulder Oil Field / McKenzie Junction designated as an historic landmark. Colorado has done an excellent job in preserving and celebrating our mining heritage. Our oil heritage is less well known, but is every bit as significant and colorful as was the search for gold and silver. This site is well worth preserving so that future generations may have some idea of the contributions the oil industry has made to the state. The Boulder Oil Field, being in the midst of an urban setting, is easily accessible to many of the citizens of our state. I can imagine future school fieldtrips to this site with the kids asking questions about the "grasshopper" pumpjack and teachers explaining that "oil fever" was every bit as infectious as "gold fever". I am a petroleum geologist in Denver, but I also have a degree in history. I am currently working on a paper on the Rangely Oil Field in the northwestern corner of Colorado, which turns 100 years old this year or next (some controversy in that date). I have come to an appreciation for how much of the industrial history of our country has been lost. I hope that this small site can be preserved. Dave Peterson Dave ,flatironener~v.com It has recently come to my attention that a company hoping to develop a piece of land adjacent to the Boulder-Longmont Diagonal has submitted a plan that calls for the preservation of the old McKenzie well located on the property. As a resident of Boulder County and a graduate of CU (Masters Degree in Geology) I would like to express my support of the plan to preserve this well. The McKenzie well is located on the southern terminus of the Boulder Oil Field. Although many local residents are not aware of this fact, the Boulder Oil Field represents one of the earliest bil fields to be discovered and developed in both Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Region. There is a rich and colorful history associated with the development of the field and the impact it had on the area. In my opinion it would be a shame if the McKenzie well, one of the last remnants of an important part of Boulder County's history, were to be lost. Apglld0.1~11~ '~ PBgB#sL~~ I ask that the City actively support the preservation of this historic landmark by allowing the development plan to keep the equipment associated with this well site in place. Linda and Craie'Cooke 8/27/O1 4035 Old Westbury Ct. Boulder, CO 80301 Very concerned about proposal...poor planning to add to traffic problem in that area...combined with other increased density in area- not acceptable...would rather the city purchase the site. Georse Newell 8/27/O1 P.O. Box 2179 Boulder, CO 80306 The City of Boulder has spent a lot of money over the past years acquiring open space to prevent urbaa spread out from the city center into adjacent land. MJ is exactly the type of development that the city has been trying to stop: a large urban mix of businesses that will add more traffic to our already crowded streets, more population to our already overburdened municipal services, and more pollution to our already degraded air quality. This development is wrong for this area. This property is next to the Pleasant View playing fields, a series of green fields that are used by residents seeking a respite from urbanization. Just north of the fields is a lovely little section of wetlands covered with marsh grass that provides sheiter for many different kinds of birds. The four mile trail also runs by here. The inevitable noise and pollution of heavy equipment during construction would heavily impact all these areas. Traffic will also impact these areas once constructed and in use. The application for development shouid be denied. This property would make a great piece of open space, or perhaps very low density housing. Robert E. Diprro, P.C. 8/24/Ol P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 8~306-0791 ASW Realty should be commended for their concern for Boulder's history. ASW's proposed plans are of great importance to both the oil exploration and production industry, of which I have been a participant for 50 years, and to the local historical record of Boulder. In connection with the local historical significance, I urge that you give consideration, if you have not already done so, fbr the historical land marking and preservation of this very important place in Boulder's history. Anonvmous Lonemont resident 8/20/Oi Agenda Item # ~°~ Pege # _.,,~_ -Works near proposed MJ site. This could be the "tip of the iceberg" of further development along the Diagonal Highway corridor that will eventually have a massive negative impact on the qualiry of life in the Longmont-Boulder region. 1) Traffic along the,Diagonal Highway has steadily increased in the last ten years based on high economic expense of the housing mazket in Boulder - forcing workers to commute from further distances. 2) The job market in Boulder remains tight and abundant, resulting in the attraction of workers to the city. The trend is likely to continue as housing costs in Boulder continue to soar. Such is the crunching impact of residents and commuting workers that the quality of life will further decline - resulting in yet more of the work force moving to outlying areas to escape the crowded city. 3) The Diagonal Highway is completely inadequate to handle increasing loads of traffic. This project will most likely add to the inefficiency of the Diagonal highway with more commercial and residential traffic. 4) There are currently plans in the works to build an actual interchange at Hwy 119 and Jay rd. Although this is just exactly what the Diagonal Highway needs (a freeway is truly what is needed instead of a single-choked highway), it could very well open the floodgates for development around the proposed intersection. 5) Both 47~ turning into the diagonal highway and the Diagonal itself post speeds between 45 and 55 mph. With residential and commercial traffic in and around the property, the speed on the Diagonal would have to be reduced out of safety for the potential increase in pedestrians crossing the street to catch the bus stop on the southeast side of the street. Most traffic I've witnessed speed through this area on a regular basis. Even with reduced speed limits, there will likely be high risk of accidents and injuries around the property. Anonymous - 8/27/O1 This project would add more traffic, more pollution, more noise pollution...traffic is insane, bumper to bumper in the area, especially 47th and Diagonal...unbelievabie..how can anyone think of adding more traffic?...the site now gives a little bit of space, green, and freedom...i don't agree with expanding this area, for health reasons, also beauty. Josh and Lori Kahn - 8/27/O1 4608 Apple Way Boulder, CO 80301 We are residents of Orange Orchard in unincorporated Boulder and we have been Board members of our neighborhood association Agenda Item N~~ Page H,~11_- for the last eight years. We were pravided a copy of Dean Schooler's email sent to you in response to the McKenzie Junction plans. Overall, we agree with everything in Mr. Schooler's emaii. We would like to take this opportunity to comment on one component of the plan. As you are awar~, there is a significant amount of planned development for our surrounding community (Parcels 12A, 12B, 13's and now McKenzie Junction) all on top of the recent build out of Four Mile Creek. Potential large and long-term changes are looming for the existing neighborhoods (Orange Orchard, Palo Park, Sale Lake and now Four Mile Creek). In our neighborhood, our house backs up to Jay Road near the intersection with 47th Street. Over the past ten years we have seen and heard a large increase in vehiculaz traffic on Jay Road. Recently, in the $oulder Vailey Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) update, plans have been approved to change the density of Parcel 12B to medium density. Additionally, city and county officials are citing Parcel 12A as potential medium density housing. At the same time, as you may know, the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) is evaluating building a K- 8 school on Parcel 12A. VCe and many of our neighbors are in favor of having this school built at this location. However, in our discussions with a variety of people we have learned that BVSD would prefer to have more land available for the new school (adding some part of Parcel 12B to 12A). Parcel 12B consists of six acres. Our recommendation is for you to evaluate how to assist BVSD in making Parcel 12A and perhaps some of 12B a viable site for BVSD to build a needed new school for this area of town. If you were to plan on McKenzie Junction consisting of a larger component of residential housing, you may be able to retieve the pressure for Parcels 12B and 12A to accommodate the residential housing plans. By not committing the majority of Parcel 12B to residential housing you will give BVSD the flexibility it needs to build a school on Parcels 12 for our future needs. Please take the time to investigate this recommendation with the other interested parties (such as BVSD, and the BVCP). Your efforts will be greatly appreciated by our neighborhood as we look to see how our community will evolve over the next years. If we can assist in any manner please feel free to contact us. John Marks 8/28/O1 Not concerned about the project unless there is a proposal to connect the east and west sides of Kalmia...would not support such a road connection - would affect his neighborhood...otherwise, no other comments. Agenda Item A ~ ~ Page # ~ ~ Jim McBride 11/21/O1 I would like to go on record as being in total support of the McKenzie Junction Project. As the owner of the property across Kalmia Ave., I have felt for_years that the subject property should be developed. After having attended the open house on Nov. 14th, it appears to me that ASW Realty has a well thought out plan that will benefit the surrounding area and the city of Boulder. Agenda Item A~Page # ~~ - August 20, 2001 Liz Hanson, Case Manager, Building Services Center, 3rd Floor 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302, Re Dear Ms. Hanson, fi~m,me - ~1eKrnzie»pa Review #: LUR2001-00046 (McKenzie/Gateway) Thank you for your notice concerning the concept review of the McKenzie Junction (aka. "Gateway") deveiopment by ASW (Auerbach). In your letter you noted that your reception date deadline would be "before August 20, 2001," but in conversation with you, you said you would be out of your office until August 27th, and therefore would still be receiving comments until this later date. I am counting on this later date since the "Notice" time to reply is so brief (mailed August l Oth, received August 13th) and due, effectively, Friday Augustl7th, "before August 20th (Monday). As a preliminary, I would like you to apply that stern re~uirement that doctors have to meet : FIRST, DO NO HARM. I believe that building this proposal will harm the City, its land, its neighbors, its passersby, its taxpayers and all those who will have to live with its presence. My references and comments are these: 1. The answer time for the Notice is very short. This hampers interested parties inspection and interpretation of the materials presented by the applicant, ASW Realty Property, LLC. I do very much appreciate the extended area of notice, however. Physical notice on the site is nearly nonexistent: two small signs are nearly invisible at the southwest corner of the property. They can be seen for only about twenty feet of auto travel, then from only the right side of the road. They are masked by copious weeds and a ramp rising to the 47th Street bridge over Foothills Highway. If the applicant or the City were really interested in informing passersby about this development these signs would be made visible for more than half a second from a place where many, not few, would see it. These signs almost disappear on a site of 20 acres. (As of 8/21/O1 both si~ns have blown off their thin sticks and are on the ground, nearly invisible. Photograph enclosed. I believe this does not meet even the letter of the notice requirement) 2, Andrew Gerber, ASW's representative, has contacted James Pribyi and me. In brief telephone conversations Gerber has told me that ASW was very concerned with hearing neighbor and community concerns and that ASW was planning to have community meetings before entering the planning process, the better to know the problems with developing this site. He has also told me the Mark Ruuin, present head of ihe Boulder Planning Board, hes told him that this Agenda Item #~Page # t1Y - -- ---- - .V. ,..,.. project "... is going to go through." It is surprising that this determination exists, even before public input has been taken. It is also surprising that ASW has not sought more input than from a few individuals before beginning this process. 3. Site plan problems: This site is fatatly flawed. Its location, right at a choke-point for primary city entry,and exit fromthe north east, makes the site undevelopable as proposed. Burgeoning traffic, increasing daily on the Diagonal Highway, Foothills Highway and on 47th Street promises to conflict with both the construction and the continuing use of this site. The number of vehicle trips originating from this site would be on the order of 3400 per day (residential = 140 units x 10 trips/day; business estimate = 2000 trips/day). This traffic would compound the intense traffic already being seen. The DiagonaVFoothills highways are at the center of a regional transportation study looking into ameliorating its already difficult traffic probiems. The DRCOG study finds present daily average trips on the Diagonal to be 33,600. It estimates that in 2020 the volume will rise to 59,800 daily trips. This is an increase of about 3.9% per year. The Bowers and Krager report has an impressive number of pages. The traffic study generated by Bowers and Krager, however, appears to be "cooked" to support a"low-impact" opinion. Number of trips per day from residential are unrealistic as are the Live/Work trips per day. In Fig. 3A, morning peak hour traffic is shown as 172 cars in and 79 cars out of the entire site, residential, Work/Live and Commercial. This hardly reflects reality. Bowers and Krager only quietly mention that the traffic data is extrapolated from greatly outdated, incomplete and flawed studies originally submitted by the GatewayBirch Mountain application. The report uses a one- percent/year growth factor, also unrealistic in the face of the DRCOG study. The DRCOG Transportation study finds the Diagonal, ...already congested." RTTF (Regional Transportation Task Force) members proposed these suggestions, "..TDM Programs" ($2.2M), "..grade-separation interchanges" $82.3M, HOV lanes ($49.6M), "Purchase additional Open Space to Reduce Development" (indeterminate cost). The study cites the ,..."difficulty of achieving significant con~estion relief through TDM" and "..for every 50 new residents of Boulder, Gunbarrel, Niwot or Longmont, one vehicle is added to the 2020 traffic volume on the Diagonal."(the reverse would be that reductions from growth would subtract the same) With the rate of growth of traffic past this site, isolated entirely by heavy transportation routes, only a current and comprehensive traffic study can even begin to describe the real situation surrounding this site. The intersections mentioned, SH113/Kalmia; 47th St./Kalmia; Kalmia/South; and SH 119/East, are only part of the complex traffic equation. Not mentioned is the problem of restrictive adjacent structures (47th Street Bridge over Foothills, Foothills Bridge over Diagonal), traffic lights on Diagonal both east and west of Foothills and at 47th Street, the railroad crossings on Independence Road, parallel to Diagonal and across 47th, south of the chokepoint (47th, Diagonal and Foothills intersections). Peak Hour "analyses" have little relevance until realistic trip counts are made and all the intersections influenced by this traffic are examined. The Bowers and Krager study does not fill these needs. 4. The site, as designed, also presents these problems: Assuming 1000 employees arriving Agenda Item # ~ A Page # ~ each moming, with two per car, 500 cars will come onto the north end business site, nonh east end, AM and leave PM. The southbound right turn with only a 273 foot decel lane will hold only about ten cars (at 30 LF per car), with the taper holding five cars. The inevitable result will be stacking back into the Foothills off-ramp and into the high speed north-bound lanes ofFoothills. If it is assumed that a large proportion of entering business traffic will enter off Kalmia, then the entire residential "neighborhood" wi11 be.clogged with morning and evening traffic, as it is the only other entry onto the site. Business traffic will fill parking places within residential space, as well. This will cause a decrease in residential quality of life. The residential area, including Flex-Space is designed around the access streets. The streets are not designed around the residential space. Instead oftraffic spines, there should be some non-vehicle space between residences, with vehicles accessing from the periphery. Presently, residenCes and flex spaces are too close to surrounding highways. The very considerable noise from trains passing on the east, with mandatory engine whistles at the Independence crossing must also be factored in to noise screening. Highway, railroad and airport npise would need massive amelioration with sound walls, peripheral trees, hedges, berms and access roads. It has been found elsewhere that effective sound amelioration would be sound walls, such as seen on south Foothills and on US 36, from Westminster to the south east. These, of course would be unsightly in this application and would add to the ghetto-like q~ality of the proposed housing, more about which later. 5. The impact that traffic to and from the McKenzie site wouid have on existing neighborhoods would be considerable. For example, South-bound Diagonal traffic, hoping to avoid the complex maneuver of exiting Foothilis, crossing under Foothilis, left-turning onto 47th or Kalmia or the NE entrance to McKenzie from north of Jay, will turn left at Jay Road, left again onto southbound 47th and left again onto Kalmia, the McKenzie residential entry. This will load 47th Street with additional traffic. When overload parking from the soccer fields spills onto 47th, with dozens of youngsters crossing the road, this will become even more dangerous. McKenzie trafFc, eastbound on Jay, will cut through Four Mile Creek on the new St. Lucia entrance (yet to be built) to avoid the light at Jay and 47th St. . West-bound traffic on Jay Road will take a short cut south on N. 57th and west on Independence to avoid the light at Jay and Diagonal. Foothills north-bound traffic, seeking McKenzie, will exit at Valmont and go nonh on 47th Street to avoid off-ramp traffic at the site. 6. This site is almost completely vehicle oriented, isolated as it is by major highways. Though the residential housing component is claimed by ASW to reduce traffic impacts at the local and regional level, the number ofjobs at this site will actually work to increase the already unwieldy Boulder jobs/residence imbalance. 90 residential units will house perhaps 200 job holders. The "Live/Work" units will, it is hoped, house its own workers. The commercial space will generate something like 800 jobs. This site will generate an additional 600 job holders needing residences. The ASW claim that this development will, "...reduce traffic inputs at both the local and regional levels" is incorcect. It ~ to the problem, not subtracts. 7. The top of the three-level garage, while noted as being below the 47th St. {~qenda Item A ~'~ Pege H ~7T ... _ _ ~ - .._ ~ Bridge ramp, would become a visua( sea of automobiles from the very road it would consider a "visual barrier." This would become an very unattractive substitute for open space here and east. of the Diagonal. . 8. Actual uses of the office space are undetermined. If the space were to include that of medical or similar usage, the number of trips per day will balloon beyond those from usage as "General Business." 9. There are no nearby shopping areas. Residents will, of necessity, have to leave the site for normal supplies. Any other on-site services, "...of use to the surrounding community...;" would generate additional day trips.' ] 0. Provision for alternative transportation is lacking. Inasmuch as this site is completely isolated from ai1 but vehicle access, good attention to pedestrian, bicycle and bus access ought to be a 12~ planning feature, not an afterthought. For example, access to the Four Mile Creek path, a path that actually crosses the isolated north section of the site, has not been elaborated. Access from the open space area to the south east (Cottonwood trail) has not been included. No pedestrian crossings from westside 47th walkways have been mentioned. No additional lights across 47th have been mentioned (at Kalmia, for example). Two bus stops have been mentioned bu2 no sites shown ~the siting of ihese is greatly limited and compromised (eg. northbound 47th at Kalmia). I 1.The three-level residential structures are massed on the southwest border of the property and would block any and all views across to the open space to the east. 12. The homely structural design does not project Bou-der's best image. My opinion is that the University of Colorado's desi~n style, with its roof angles (echoing the Flatirons), its red sandstone walls, its fenestration, its clustering, would be both relevant and a much better "city entrance statement." I would submit that this style and material use would help this construction avoid the cheap, short-life look that much commercial and residential has today. This is cer[ainly a desirable feature for an "entrance statement." So-called "New Urbanism" is a concept from Florida that looks back in time and loads a site with dated, unlovely structures, purporting to bring back the "good old times. In ten years, does Boulder want to be seen as looking forward or backward? • 13. As to the "viewing opportunity" mentioned in the Application, the view across this property is by no means, "...very limited even in its undeveloped state." lt is, in fact, a breathtaking panorama ranging from beyond Bear Mountain, Green Mountain, the Flatirons, to Fla~staff and the north. That this could be considered inconsequential is outrageous. In fact the previous (Gateway) application made a big sales pitch in its plans that the views were phenomenal! 14. The site drainage is very problematic. The McKenzie text states, ".... issues regarding Agenda Item #~Page # .~. drainage have been resolved conceptually....as part of prior applications." I do not believe that this is true. There are two earlier (Gateway) application approaches: one states that the drainaee will split north and south, much as the present site already does. The other states that the site drainage will be mostly directed to the north, into Four mile Creek. This second approach is by no means, "resolved," as a viable option, though chosen by ASW. The runofffrom hard surfaces on twenty acres will be considerable. Earlier, it was proposed by Birch Mountain/Gateway to drain the immediate runoff into the site extension, north of the Foothills off-ramp, and thence into Four Mile Creek. The big problem with this is that this smaller triangle of land is already in the flood plain, and in the event of a hundred-year flood, would already be flooded; it could take no additional storage volume. Down-stream residences would be badly affected by additional runoff. Holding to the existing drainage split is the only ethicai solution. Additionally, the SHE off-ramp and Four Mile Creek .are likely sites for flooding in this scenario. 15.. The quality of life of residents in this isolated enclave would be very low. The site is surrounded by massive traffic lanes and a noisy railroad line. Building traffic would pollute homes on the site with increasing amounts of exhaust, particulate matter and noise. Residents would be driven to exit the ghetto-like enclosure whenever they sought entertainment, shopping, or social exchange. Leaving would always be an encounter with traffic. Children would find themselves distant from schools and companions, with always the danger of traffic to contend with. There would be no places of recreation, religious expression, shopping or neighborhood meeting. A poor mix for residents. The site, as a residential area, evokes memories of an earlier comment on NYC's highway-ruined neighborhoods, "...prefabricated blight." The Boulder County Commissioners are in complete and unanimous opposition to development of this site. Their letter accompanies this. The costs to the City and its taxpayers to develop this site would be large. There is no doubt that the intersections at 47th Street, the Diagonal, Foothills and Kalmia would eventually have to be redeveloped. The complicating overpasses (Foothills, 47th) and the rail crossings (47th and Independence Road) will inevitably add millions of dollars in rework costs. The loss of incomin~ view, the noise- and exhaust-polluted site, the compromised access, the isolated living scene all combine to make this project an unacceptable risk for the City and the County and for those who already face difficulties in their passage through this chokepoint. McKenzie Junction, like its predecessor, Gateway, should be rejected by planners and City Council as untenable Please do not let this become a regrettable case of, "I told you so." Agenda Ibm B ~~ Page # ~L_ These are my preliminary remarks. As I gain a better picture of the ASW/McKenzie proposal, 1 will probably have more comments. Thank you for your courtesy in asking for my comments. Sincerely ~ ~~ ~ Rodger E~ 4082 Old Westbury, . Boulder, CO 80301 TEL: 303-449-8049 encls. 1. Letter from Boulder County Commissioners 2. DRCOG Diagonal study excerpts FAX: 303-449-2554 Agenda Item 4 ~O~ Page # ~_ i _POSt Of6ee 8ox 471 . Boulder. Cdorccip gp,~i0b Board of County Commissioners 131h & Peotl Streeis • 6oulGer Gounty Courmouse . Boultler. Coloratlo 80302 .(3031 44 1-3 50p August 23, 2000 Rodger Ewy 4082 Old Westbury Ct Boulder, CO 80301 ~ ~, ~c~~-~ Deaz Mr. Ewy: Thank you for your letter outlining your concerns with the development of the Gateway parcel in the City of Boulder. From first heating of this proposal, we have consistently expressed our total opposition to the development of this land. It is our understanding that the City's staff has completed the initial review of ihis project and issued a detailed set of comnients to the applicanu. They have identified significant transportation issues which affect neazby streets, many of which are located in the counry. T'hey have asked for involvement from the County's staff on these issues which we will be providing. We would encowage you to attend the meetings that will be held prior to the revised plans being filed as well as to the hearing before the Planning Commission. Elizabeth Hanson is the case manager for this project and can be contacted with any questions. Be asswed that we will represent the concerns of the county residents on this proposed development, but that ultimately the decision is not within ow jurisdiction. Sinc ly, Ron Stewart, Chair Boulder County Commissioners ~ ' Paul Danish Boulder Counry Commissioner Jano L Mentlez , PonaW K. Stewon County Commnsioner ~ CounN Comm~suoner ~ Mendez. Vice Chair der County Commissioners PaW Dansn Coun1V Commuvona~ Agenda 18~m #_~2.~_Page #~- .711 ,I ~ ~~' ~VI~VIY/V!~ 1 U From Longmont to Boulder DisYance: 10.5 Miles Tra~c Volume Today: Travei Time Today: 7ra~c Volume to Capacity Totlay: 33,600 Average Daily Trips 17.7 Minutes in Peak Nour V1C = 0.69:1 (under capacity) Estimated 2020 Tra~c Volume: 59,800 Average Daily Trips Estimated 2020 Travei Time: 27.5 Minutes in Peak Hour Estimated 2020 Traffic Volume to Capacity: V/C = 1.35;1 (over capaclty) Agenda Ilem A~~ pag~ p~; ~.~ _ i ~a~~ic ~ar~~ Ju~ ~~y _ - 1999 Finai ResuTts =- Question 1 Trip on Diagonal between Longmont and Boulder ~. Improve bus service ! Strongly Somewhat Somewhai iiscourage driving ,- Support SuppoR Neutral Oppose Strongly Oppos 538 419 240 175 263 (33%) (26%) (14%) (11 %) (16%} 3. Build interchanges I get rid of traffic signals Strongly S Somewhat Neutral Somewhal Strongly Oppos uppori Support ~ ppose 608 352 '188 158 •::I-:S43.:• (37%) (21%) (11%} (10%) (29%) C. Add flyovers - HOV (anes only/increase bus svc Strongly Somewhat Somewhat ' Support Support ~leutral qppose Strongly Oppa. 363 419 207 231 ;:~ 399_ . (22%) (26%j (13%) (14%) ;~ ;;(25%) : D. Do nothing Strongly 5omewhat Neutral Somewhat ` Strongly Opp- Support Support Oppose 180 109 202 224 836 (12%) (7%) (13%) (14%) (54%) Question 7 Would you support buying open space to restrict development and avoid future tra~c congesf'•~ EVEN if it means a local tax increase? Strongly Somewhat Neutrai Somewhat Stron I O~~ g y ~' Support Support Oppose 1040 263 81 88 285 (59%) (15%) (5%) (5%) (16%} file:/IIC~~Program PileslAtlobelAcrobat 4,O/rosults2.hlml (1 of 2) (1l3112001 7:56:01 AM] A~~~ ~~m ~~A P8Q8 #~_ '~ , _ _ . - ._. ~ _ BOULDER COUNTI' TRANSPORTATION~ SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDI' VOLUME I (Technical Analysis) PREPARED FOR: BOULDER COUNTY CONSORTIUM OF CITIES . REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE PREPARED BY: BRW, INC. 1225 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 DENVER, CO 80202 vIAY, t997 Agenda Item R~Pa9e # ~s~- ~. _ Overview _ ,s The Consortium of Cities „ identified SH 119 (Dia~onal ~ Highway) as a 10.5-mile ~~ ~ comdor from Foothills ='° Parkway in Bouldu to Ken F~~ Pratt Parkway in Longmont. ; ,e The current daily trafT'ic on the ~ corridor is 33,600 vehicles, ~ with a projected ° 7S percentincrease to 59,800 vehicles by 2020. lt now takes 17.7 minutes to drive the corridor in a single- occupancy vehicle and 22.7 Vehlcle Travel Tlme by Motle ` ~ Sinyle Oeeupaney Vehlcle ~ Hlph Oeeupaney Vehlole ^ Buc minutes by bus. For a single-occupancy vehicle, this transiates to an average speed of 36 miles per hour. Daily bus ridership is now 480 people. Of the six corridors, the RTTF selected the Diagonal FLghway for additional stvdy beyond the technical corridor analysis employed on all of the corridors. This cortidor was singled out for three major reasons: It already is congestad. Its endpoints are located within the boundaries of Boulder County. Several options are available for improving the roadway. Transportation Demand Management The focus of the extra analysis of the Diagonai H'ighway eortidor was on the use of transportation demand management strategies to lessen future trafi~c volumes. Transportation demand manaeement, or TDM, is broadly defined as a combination o£transit, employer, bicycle and other strategies aimed at reducine the number of vehicles on the road. Some examples of TDM strateeies are: employers stanin¢ and ending shifts at off-peak travel hours, improvements to trails and other facilities for bicyclists, or raising parking fees. As indicated by these examples, TDM aims to encourage individuals to chanee their driving habits through economic or employer- based incentives. TDM stratecies were included as an altarnative for improving traffic on the Diagonal Hiehway, as outlined on the following pages. Agenda Item ~~Page # _y~_ E.~aeOGena~oena ]0]Ow~T/be•a1noM~nO•• ~-_~-"~-~ 707o-TDUa7nn.c ' Altemative: Aggressive TDM and tncrease~'fransit "` Suggested improvements: Perce~t oi Peraon-Tripa by Moda .~ • lmprove bus stops '°" and Park-n-Rides '01 at intersections '°" with N~wot Road, '07 63rd Sueet, 75th i01 Street, Jay Road 70" and Mincral Road. 101 • Add a 96-space °" Park-n-Rideat Ernnpc.nanw ~o~owennesw~.ra~.ro•• ~pzo-ipuatnnN Hover Road. ~ Sinyle Oeeupaney Vehlele • Add bus-priority ~ Hiph Oeoup~~ey V~hkl• bypass lanes at ~ eu: intersections from ' Jay Road to Hover Road. • Add bus service in the morning and evening peak travel periods to reduce time between buses to 10 minutes. • Create Diagonal FTighway transportation management organization with employer TDM programs. • Establish county-wide parking cashoui program, which would pay cash swards to people for not parking in designated lots. Capital cost: ~2.2 million. Annua( operatine cost: 3757,000. Alternative: Add Grade-Separated interchanges Suggested improvements: • Construci grade-separated interchanges and eliminate traffic signals ai Niwot Road, 63rd Street, 75th Street, Jay Road and Mineral Road. • Improve railroad crossings. Capital cost: 582.3 miliion. Net annual operatine cost increase: $20,000. Agenda Item # lO~ Page # ~ u~~ ~• ~ . •..v~~~ uv~VV1\I~L . ~- ~_r I ,av. . s Attemative: Add HOV Lanes with~Grade-Separated interchanges r Suggested improvements: Add HOV lane tlyovers to bypass intersections with ]ay Road, 63rd Strect, Ivfineral Road, Nwot Road and 87th Str~et. lmprove bus stops and Park-n-Rides at intusections with Jay Road, 63rd Sueet, tvfinera} Road, Nwat Road, 87th Street, Hover Road and 75th Street. " Add bus service in the morning and evening peak travel periods to reduce time between buses to 10 minutes. Capital cost: 549.6 million. Annual operating cost: 57,000 for the highway, offset by a projected 525,000 in transit revenue, for a total annual revenue of $18,000. ,. Additionai Open Space Purchase to Reduce Development ln addition to these three alternatives, RTTF members discussed the possibility of combining the altematives or including an open space buy-down strategy. An open space buy-down would use public Cunds to purchase open space along the Diagonal Highway comdor to reduce the amount of land available for development. For example, rivo recent open space purchases by the City of Bouider -- the IBM East open space along the Diagonal FLghway and the City Park site off of Valmont Road -- significantly reduced the potential for new jobs in Boulder. The purchases reduced the city's estimated future employment base by 7,500 jobs, which in turn results in a reduction of about 5,800 trips a day on the Diagonal Highway south of Lookoui Road and 1,000 trips a day north of Lookout Road. The RTTF's TDM consultants estimated that a reduction of an additional 8,000 jobs through open space purchases in the Gunbarrel area would have a noticeable impact on Diagonal I~'ighway traffic volumes soulh of Lcokout Road. If an aggressive TDM program is pursued, a reduction of only 5,000 jobs through open space purchases would have a noticeable impact on traf~c vofume south of Lool:out Road. However, these job reductions would have little impact on traffic volumes north of Niwot Road, where residential development is mostly responsible for congestion. Additional study ~vouid be required to deternune how much land would need to be purchased as open space in order to achieve a noticeable level of traffic reduction north of Niwot Road. 2020 Scenario Without improvements, the travel time on the Diagonal Highway corridor by 2020 will increase by 10 minutes, from 17.7 minutes to 27.5 minutes.by single-occupancy vehicle and from 22.7 minutes to 32.5 minutes by bus. If ¢rade-separated interchanges are added at al] intersections, the Agenda Item # ~ A Page # ~2-. _~ , travel time in 2020 will be rcduced from today's time, to 15.9 riu`nutcs by single-occupancy •-- vehicle and 20.9 minut~s by bus. IfHOV lanes with flyovus at major intcrstctions arc constructed, the travel time in 2020 will be 24.1 minules by single-occupancy vehicle, 15.6 minutes by high-occupancy vehicle and 20.6 minutes by bus. , Looidng at the aggressive TDM alternative, the impact on travel time by ZOZO would be minimal, The uavel time by 2020 would be 25.9 minutes by single-occupancy vehicle and 30.9 minutes by bus. ~ . • Each altemative would have a widely difierent impact on the number of people using bus services along the Diaeona] Highway by 2020. Withoui any improvements, it is anticipated that bus ridership will increase from the curreni 480 riders to 740 riders by 2020. The alierrtative to sdd HOV lanes with flyovers at major intersections woutd have a dramatic impact on bus ridership, with an anticipated I,795 riders by 2020, as would the aggressive TDM suategies, which would increase ridership to 1,810 people by 2020. Adding grade-sepazated interchanges would result in 740 bus riders, or the same number ofbus riders as doing nothing. Discussion Although many RT"TF members expressed interest in TDM to reduce traffic congestioq the analysis of TDM strategies on the Diagonal Corridor demonstrated thc difficutty of achieving significant congestion relief through TDM. The RTTF hired consultanu BRW and Charlier Associates to jointly prepare estimates of the e~'ectiveness of various TAM strategies on the Diagonal Highway. Specifically, the consultants looked at severa] strategies in the following categories: increased transit, employer alternatives, improved urban design to ptomote use of transportation other than single-occupancy vehicles, and parking management. Various pricing measures, including toll roads and an increase in the gasoline tax, also were discussed but not included in the teehnical analysis because they are not allowed under current Colorado law. ln addition, regional growch management strategies were discussed but not included in the technical anatysis. RTTF staff estimated that for every 50 new residents of Boulder, Gunbarrel, Niwot or Lon¢mont, one vehicle is added to the year 2020 traf5c volume on the Diagonal , Highway. Conversely, for every 50 people reduced from future growth projections, one vehicle trip is subtracted from the level of 2020 traffic volume. Thus, open space purchases and other efforts aimed at reducing population and employment growth along the Diagonal I-i'ighway were sug¢ested as pan of the TDM discussion. Because the effectiveness of these strategies depends upon the circumstances of each situation, it is difficult to determihe the exact impact of a broad- based strategy based on open space purchases and other planning techniques. However, many RTTF members advocate this strategy as potentially the most effective available TDM technique. Exc(uding pricine measures and regional growth strategies, the consultants examined TDM programs nationwide and predicted a 7.6 percent reduction in total trips if an aggressive TDM plan were adopted for the bia¢onal Hiehway. The plan would have a total annual cost of about Agenda Item #~Page # ~ RTTF Preferences ° - , ~ Groap memtrers wcre divided in theirsuppart otscverAl diFl~erent oplions for improving transpor~ation scrvice siong the Disgonal Highway eorridor, with an option that combined the various strategies having the highest levd ot supporl. Siz options emerg~d, incorporating difTerent tombinations of the alternatives outiined above, in additiao to rail service, which was not studied in detail. The optioo that.incocporated HOV lanes, ' aggressive TDM, increased transit and an open space buydown had the ttrongdt ~upport among RT'TF members. All of the options and the RTTF prefere~ce survey responset were as follows: • Aggressive TDM and Increased Transit - 22 total ruponses were received. Seven were opposed, four indicated slight supporl, five indic~ted moderase support, and siz indicated strong support. • Aggressive TDM and Increased Transit with Aa Open Space Buydown Program - 23 tota! responses were received. Si: were opposed, four iadicated siight support, two indicated moderate suppory and eleven indicated strong suppori. • Add GradrSeparated lnterchanges - 22 total responses were received. Sis were opposed, siz indicated slight support, five indic;ated moderate support, and five indicated strong support, • Add HOV I.anes with Grado-Separated Inierchanges - 23 total responses were received. Eight were opposed, Gve indicaied slight support, eight indicated moderate support, and two indicated strang support. • Add $OV Lanes with Grade-Separated Interchanges, Aggressive TDM and Increased Transit with an Open Space Buydown Program - 23 totat responses were received. Two were oppased, four indicated slight support, eight indicated moderate support, and nine indicated strong support. ~ Rail Service from Longmont to Boulder - 23 total responses were received. Five were opposed, eight indicated slight support, two indicated moderate suppoK, and eight indicated strong support. Agenda Item # ~'~~ Page # 51 - -- 13oulder Countp Transporta~ion St~stem Evalualion StudY 3.4 SH119/DIAGONAL CORRIDOR 4 The Boulder-L.ongmont Diagonal corridor included a transit/travel demand management (TDh1) alternative (Alt. 4A), a 6-lane highway widening altemative (Alt. 4B) and a 4-lane grade-separated expressway alternative (Alt. 4C). These alternatives were furtt~er refined to idrntify specific physical and operational~improvements as described in thc Corridor Development and Evaluation Profile (Section 3.4.1). Several key assumptions and decisions that were made durine the definition of this alternative are listed below: The core analysis for the SH 119 comdor focused on the seoment between Foothills Parkwa~• in Boulder and Ken Pratt Avenue in Longmont. This sesment of roadway carries the hi~hest proponion of throu~h trips traveling between Boulder and Lon~mont and ~hus provides the fairest comparison between the transit and highway widenine altematives. A secondary evaluation of the SH i 19 coiridor from Ken Pratt Avenue to I-25 is discussed ia Section 3.43. Consistent with the Ciry of L.ongmont's plans, it was assumed that the 87th Sveet intenecuon would be convened from unsignalized to si~nalized contro] for Alternadves 4A and 4B, and convened to an interchange for Alternative 4C. For Alternative 4A, corridor improvements focused on a combinacion of transit and TD1vi measures. Transit improvements included increasing service ]evels to provide 10-minute bus headways, expansion of the existing Niwot park-n-ride, conswction of a new pazk-n-ride at Hover Road, installation of bus stop shelters at all stops, and consvuction of bus-priority b}~- pass lanes ac signalized intersections from Jay Road to Hover Road. Several TDN1 measures were considered for the diaoonal corridor includin~ incentive programs for travel reduction, vehicle use disincentives. modified tra~•el characteristic prosrams and employer based pro~rams. The resulting TD~I measures applied to Altemati~'e ~A were: Estimated 9~ TDM Measure Reduction of VviT• Ernployer Assisted CarNanpools 0.4 Expanded Mobility Pass/Guaranteed Ride Home Program 0.4 Compressed/Al[ernative Work Schedules 2.~ Telecommutin~ 1.1 Improved Bike/Ped Terminus Facilities 0• 1 TOTAL 4.59~ `ISmrrces: "rinnlrsis nnd EvnGmriou ojTransporrnrion Mrnsures ro Reduce Vehiclr Trnvel."DRCOG. l0/9l: nnd "Cast mid Effecrira~ess oj TCM's."Apoger Resenrd~. lnc.. I/9a) : R Agend9itEem ~ °t~ Page R -~~--- OIL OR MONEY REFUNDED: BOOM AND BUST IN THE BOULDER OIL FIELD, COLORADO, 1901-2001 ~Matthew R. Silverman 3195 11 `h Street Boulder, CO 80304 silverman m r@yahoo.com Submitted to Oi!-Industry History, August 10, 2001 ABSTRACT The Boulder Oil Field was discovered in 1901. It is the second oldest field in the state of Colorado and one of the oldest producing anticlines in the Rocky Mountain region. Ironical]y, the single remaining stripper well was the first commercial producer in the field. This well now represents a unique opportunity for historic preservation. The field was discovered without benefit of geology, by the ancient practice of witching. The discovery is credited to a group associated with Isaac Canfield, one of the pioneers of the Florence Field, Colorado's oldest. Professional geologists did not recognize Ihe oil potential of the area until a$er the discovery had been made. Suggestions that F. V. Hayden identified the Boulder azea as the center of a vast "oil belt" were the fabrications of aggressive promoters. Early work by Fenneman and Lakes described the field in the first decade of the 20~' Century. Located in the western Denver Basin, Boulder Field is associated with an en echelon fold nea~ the foothills of the Front Range. A south-plunging anticlinal nose controls the field structurally. Production is from fractured Pierre Shale and sandy zones within the Pierte, especially th~ Hygiene Sandstone. The Pierre is also the source rock for this oil. Cumulative production i; about 800,000 barrels of oil. Bou(der Field was the focus of a forgotten boom. Over a hundred welis were drilled, and oi companies sprouted up. Promoters promised "Oil or money refunded," but the sawiest investor~ got out eazly. Efforts aze now underway to enable the historic recognition of the field and the preservation of thc remaining #I-21 McKenzie well. Agenda Item ~~~ page N. 53 1. INTRODUCTION The Boulder Oil Field was discovered just over 100 years ago, in 1901, a few miles northeast of the Colorado town of the same name. It is the second oldest field in the state and one of the oldest producing anticlines in the Rocky Mountain region. Boulder Field was discovered the same yeaz as Spindletop Field in Texas, and its eazly development shares some of the boomtown atmosphere and scandal that made Spindletop famous. However, it does not shaze Spindletop's record of economic success. Boulder was a modest discovery that opened the oil industry of the northern Denver Basin. It declined 2o stripper-well levels long ago. Strangely enough, the single remaining well was drilled in 1902 on the same site as the discovery well (Figure 1), which had to be abandoned when bailing tools were dropped in the hoie. It is one of the first wells in the field and represents a unique opportunity for historic preservationists and the oil industry to cooperate in reminding the public of the natural resources that brought people to Colorado in the 19`~ and eazIy 20`h centuries. Ironicafly, this opportunity presents itse[f in Bou]der, a college town famous for its environmental activism and hostility towards the extractive industries. 2. THE OIL iNDUSTRY AND THE SEARCH FOR PETROLELTM IN 1900 The birth of the modern oi] industry took place in 1859 with Colonel Drake's well in Western Pennsylvania. The systematic seazch for oil leapt forwazd in 1885 with I. C. White's pub(ication on the anticlinal theory of petroleum accumulations (Howell, 1934). Arguments pro and con the theory were published in the scientific journals of the 1890's, but the fundamenta] principles were soon generally accepted. In 1901, however, exploration techniques were primitive. Wells had been drilled in the Boulder area to foIlow-up oily odors and seeps in the Benton, Niobrara and Hygiene Formations as early as 1892. An accepted exploration practice, which led to the drillsite selection for the Boulder discovery well, involved witching or dowsing, with a forked stick. This device was also known l~qenda Item ~~Page # _~.!~_ - as a"bobber". The discovery is credited to a group associated with Isaac Canfield, one of the pioneers of the Florence Field, Colorado's oldest, discovered in 1881 (Kupfer, 2000). Colorado was the first of the Rocky Mountain States to develop a petroleum industry. Just a year after Drake's discovery in Pennsylvania, plans were under way to exploit the oil spring at Canon City. In 1881, Alexander M. Cassiday and Isaac Canfield made the first commercial discovery, in what was called the Florence Field. Production there came from fractwe-related porosity and sandy lenses in the Pierre Shale on a monocline. Othenvise, exploration was slow to yield fruit. despite the prodigious amount of information on the strilcture and stratigraphy of the state provided by the federal surveys, especially those of Ferdinand V. Hayden (Owen, 1975). Early prospectors drilled neaz seeps, and the value of geology and geologists, let alone the anticlinal theory, were not widely appreciated. After the discovery of oil at Boulder, Hayden's mapping of Colorado was widely cited in the press and (mis)used by the promoters as a clue to the location of oil. The Daily News (Denver, February 7, 1902), for example, called "Hayden's Map of the Cretaceous" a`waluable guide to oil prospectors." Along with a representation of his map of the Colorado Group in Eastern Colorado, the paper noted that the "shaded portion of the map herewith shows the Colorado cretaceous formation under lying the Boulder oil fields, as it appeazs on the map of the United States geological survey under the direction of Hayden." It went on to say "The opuuon of those who pin their faith to the Hayden map is that the best wells wil] be found neaz the middle of the strip. . ." The map in question actually was a geologic map of the region (Hayden, 1877). The outcrop of the Upper Cretaceous Colorado Crroup was reprasented by a band varying in width from a point north of Morrison to a width of three-to-five miles through Boulder and north towazds Wyoming. As a reconnaissance tool, use of this map was appropriate. It indicated some azeas in which the Pierre (the reservoir rock) was at a shallow depth. However it could not be relied upon to locate structures or other drilling targets. There is no indication that Hayden or. his parties ever considered the oil potential of the Boulder region. He visited the azea and noted (Hayden, 1873 that "Boutder valley tertiary coats are enormously developed," but made no mention of oil in Agenda Item # ~A page # 5 Boulder. (He did refer to the oil shows in Canon City along Oil Creek, over a hundred miles co . the south.) In fact, professional geologists appazently did not recognize the oil potential of the azea until after the discovery had been made. Monograph 27 of the U. S. Geological Survey, Geologv of the Denver Basirt in Colorado, was published just five years before the Boulder discoven~ (Emmons, 1896), and it does not include oil among the economic properties of the azea (coal, fire clays, building stones and water.) The photographed stake (Figure 2), which sugeests that Hayden identified the Boulder azea as the center of a vast oil belt, is a promoter's fabrication. 3. DISCOVERY AND RJITIAL FIELD DEVELOPMENT The Boulder Field was discovered by the Boulder Oil Company's McKenzie well in NW/4 NW/4 Section 21-T1N-R70W, Boulder County. Production was measured at 3 to 20 barrels per hour, from 2,537 feet. The oil was sold for about $1 per barrel and shipped by rail to refineries in Boulder and Denver. About I00 wells were drilled in the next four years; of these only 28 were productive. The best production came from a northem extension brought in by the Inland Oil Company in 1905. After the discovery at Bouider, geologists, including government scientists, began to take notice. Fenneman's efforts (1903, 1904 and 1905) and shorter papers of Arthur Lakes (1904, 1906, 1909 and 1911) are most important, Publications by Kirkbride (1903) and Washburne (1910} are also of interest. The USGS issued several reports on known oil and gas occurrences during this period; an unusual number were on the small discovery at Boulder. (Vastly lazger accumulations at Rangely, Colorado, and Salt Creek, Wyoming, had also been made in the first decade of the 20~' Century. In fact, Salt Creek demonstrated spectacu(azly the value of petroleum geology, increasing the credibility of the science and the opportunities for the practice.) Fenneman (1903) surmised that "the beds from which the oil is obtained are the highly vaziable sands or sand rock ...varying between clay shala and silica sand." This overemphasized the reservoir contribution bf the sandstones, but generally he got it right from the start. He struggled to find a structural connection to the presence of oil at Boulder, later noting (Fenneman, 1904) that prior to his 1403 Agenda Item R~ A Page ri s2~2_ - paper, "there appeazed to be no law governing the distribution of oils in the Fort Pierre Shales." Fenneman (1903) conciuded, "While there is as yet no evidence that deformation of strata has anything to do with forming receptacle for the oil, it is not yet certain that the distribution of oil is independent of fo]ds." A yeaz later Fenneman (1904) provided the earliest published map of the field (Figure 3). He concluded that "there is nothing thus far known in the field at Boulder to offer encouragement to prospecting, except in intimate relation with folds." Fennemaa (1905) provided the most detailed eazly review of the geology of the field. He described the eazly reliance on "strong- smelling rocks" to attract interest to the Boulder area and the "positive behavior of bobbers" to identify drIll sites. He noted, "The exact location of a lazge proportion of the wells in this fietd has been Sxed by this means. The principle on which the use of the bobber rests is the same as that to which the proper site of a water well is determined by the involuntaty turning of a witch- hazel sprout when held in the hand." In a masterpiece of understatement, Fenneman said, "The early beliefs were based upon grounds which might now be regazded as far from demonstrative. The subsequent finding of oil must therefore be regazded lazgely as a piece of good fortune rather than the assured outcome of a safe business venture." Fenneman (1905) concluded that, as in the Appalachians, "it is not the great anticlines which have conserved the hydrocarbons ... there wil] be a strong presumption in favor of restricting the search for oil to folds of the smaller order: ' One hundred yeazs of drilling results have proven him correct. Lakes (1904) confirmed "... that the discovery was practicapy an accident, or haphazard one, founded on no particular geological signs or symptoms, and still less on any mazked surface signs or oil seepages ..." He conc]uded that "Folds determine the oil zone, and prospecting should be directed along them only." In 1909 Lakes took up the issue of the origin of oil, counterposing the volcanic or "solfataric" theory with the organic theory, which he said "... has done duty amongst geologists for a long time in lack of a better one." He noted the tenuous relationship of the Boulder Field to the Valmont dike three miles away, but concluded the "... region is no great exponent of either the organic or the volcanic origin of the oil found in it " Lakes (19I1) provided the best early cross-section of the field (Figure 4). Interest in the field had peaked by this point. Subsequent publications are limited to summazies in oil and gas field Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page # _.,c- volumes of the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists (Deuth and King, 1954; Cary, 1961). . An unpublished Master's thesis (Whitney, 1956) is the most complete examination of the field; it is now almost fifty yeazs old. 4. TF~ BOOM The Boulder Oil Field was the focus of a boom that is virtually forgotten today (Smith, 1981). Ultimately, two hundred wells were drilled, most with "other people's money." Companies sprouted up and stock was sold to locals and outsiders from New England to Califomia. Promoters promised "Oil or money refunded" and "This stock is sure to pay." Real estate prices skyrocketed, and speculation in minerals was intense. One University of Colorado professor, B. A. Langridge, raised $500,000 for drilling, equivalent to several million dollars today. (Langridge served as Colorado's State Geologist in 1905.) New schools were built in anticipation of a boom, and Boulder's population grew from 6,150 in 1900 to 9,539 in 1910 (Pettem, 1994). Over 100 oil companies were doing business in Boulder in 1902, including familiar names like Midwest Refining and Ohio Oil, which eventually became parts of BP Amoco and Marathon, respectively. More colorful company names included Boulder Belle, MIllionaire Oil, LeR Hand Oil, Gnome Oil & Refining, Offset Oil and Mogul Oil. Doctored photographs were taken by a now-revered pioneer photographer, 7. M. "Rocky Mountain Joe" Sturtevant to promote investment (Travis, 1995). There is little record of the investors making a profit in these ventures. The wily Canfield got out early, in 1902. 5. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY AND PRODUCTION HISTORY Located at the westem margin of the Denver Basin, Boulder Field is associated with one of the en echelon folds near the foothills of the Front Range. A south-plunging anticlinal nose, whosc axis is roughly parallel to the mountains, controls the field structurally (Figure 5). Flattening and some dip reversal are apparent on the nose. Structural mapping on the Pieae has proven difficuh due to correlation problems; therefore, mapping on the underlying Niobrara is generally Agende Item A~Page ~ r ~ preferted. The best wells aze located on the small Haystack anticline (Sections 28 and 33 - T''I~ - R70V~, which has about 400 feet of closure. Production is from fractured Pierre Shale and sandy zones within the Pierre, especially the Hygiene Sandstone (Figure 6). The Pieae is also the source rock for this oil. The fracture porosity is associated with folding, such that the best production appeazs to come from fractures pazallel to the fold axis (Whitney, 1956). These aze discontinuous tension fractwes whose extreme variability is characteristic of shale reservoirs. Production was concentrated on a belt that was about one mile wide (east-west) and about six miles long (north-south). The Pierre is several thousand feet thick in the field area, although the net productive zbrie is much thinner. The shallowest production was from 73 feet and the deepest from 6155 feet, but mosi of the oil came from depths of 900 to 2600 feet. Average producing depth was about 2000 feet. The Hygiene is a thick sandy zone within the Pierre; it produces in many fields in the northern Denvet basin. Development was rapid, and 100 wells had been drilled by 1905. Of these, only 28 produced oil in commercial quantities (Whitney, 1956). About 180 wells were drilled in the field's first fifty years; perhaps 20 more have been drilled since then. Records for the early wells (pre-1950's) are very poor; the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission was not even established until that decade. Peak production was in 1909 when the field made about 86,000 barrels of oil (Figure 7). Cumulative production is just over 800,000 barrels of oil, and the decline curve is typical for production from a fractured reservoir. Relatively high initial rates were achieved as the fractures were flushed. This was followed by a rapid decline in rates and a long period of low productivity. The best well in the field, drilled in Section 4-T1N-R70W on the Haystack Anticline (Figure 5), made about 130,000 barrels of oil, over 15% of the field's total. Whitney (1956) noted that thert were also five gas wells; one was appazently commercial (although no production statistics haw_ been located) and the others yielded gas for residential purposes only. The field-wide drillin~ _ Agenda Item t~~ Page # y~ - ... , .._ - __ ,~... success rate was about 44%, although many of the producers should be considered non- economic. The average well produced about 10,000 barrels of oil: The field is apparently underpressured, but no pressure data were available for this report. The oil is sweet, 4(f° API and above. Typically 50 to 200 feet of surface casing was set; no production casing was run. Tubing and rods were set, and the welis were put on electric or gasoline pumps. Many of the wells were pumped irregulazly. Some wells were shot with dynamite or nitroglycerine to improve production. Results were mixed and the practice w~as abandoned. Drilling in the last 90 yeazs has been limited and largely nonproductive. Annual field-wide production peaked at 85,709 barrels of oil in 1909 (about 235 barrels per day) and declined to less than 10,000 barrels (27 barrels per day) in every year but two since 1914. The lone remaining well, the #1-21 McKenzie, produced 162 barrels of oil in 2000, about'/x barrel per day. It is now pumped approximately once every three weeks, for about 24 hours. The potential for future production is considered to be slight for several reasons: 1: Production from the Pietre has been thoroughly defined and is modest. The fracture pattern has proved difficult to predict. (Horizontal drIlling has not been tried in the field, but has succeeded in similar reservoirs elsewhere.) 2. The deeper sands have been tested, including the Dakota and Lyons, both of which produce neazby. The Lyons was tight, with slight oil shows. The Dakota included multiple wet sands. 3. Environmental and land-use restrictions and the political climate in liberal Boulder would make it very difficult (probably impossible) for an operator to obtain the necessary permits. 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND-USE ISSUES One stripper well is still producing, but encroaching urban pressures have now placed the field within an area of neighborhoods and upscale "prairie mansions". The City of Boulder has acquired much of the old field area for Open Space. The Boulder Reservoir, a populaz recreation Agenda Item A~Page # ~ ~ area and local water source, is adjacent. However, environmental protection issues ha~~e been minimal, since most of the wells were plugged and abandoned over fifty yeazs ago. Boulder Field has escaped many of the development and environmental issues that plague operators and municipal officials wherever old oil fields are now part of the suburban landscape. hiinor remediation work has been undertaken by the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission at state expense (personal communication with Dave Shelton, Petroleum Eneineer, with the Commission). The site on which the #1-21 McKenzie sits is for sale (Figure 8). It comprises a 203~-acre tract on State Highway 119, the Boulder-Longmont Diagonal. The property had been donated by the McKenzie family to the University of Colorado, then passed through several hands (including the Resolution Trust Co.). It is now wned transitionat business, appropriate for offices and non- retail services, and has been termed the Gateway Project. When the land is sold, the developer will iikely prefer to have the pumping equipment and tank battery removed, and the field may be gone from view forever. However, an effort is underway to formally recognize the historic significance of the field. Ideas ranging from a roadside mazker to landmazk designation of the well have been discussed. Meetings have been held with the operator, the Cotorado Geological Survey, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and the City of Boulder's Landmarks Board and Preservation Planner. All groups have endorsed the concept in principle, and the process is continuing~. 7. CONCLUSIONS Discovered ] 00 years ago, the Boulder Oil Field is a scientific, commercial and historical oddity. It was discovered without benefit of geology, but is one of the oldest producing anticlines in the region. The field was scene of a great boom that lasted only a few years; the bust cycle has ~ Historic landmark daignation in 2001, the field's crntrnnial year, has been a goal, but had not been achieved as this articte wu prepared for publication. For more infortnation, or to assist in ihis effort, please contact the suthor. Agenda Item # ~~ Page # ~ endured for decades. Its presence in the midst of the town of Boulder was once economicall~ and socially significant, but is now an historic irony. Surprisingly, the last remaining well was probably the first commercial producer in the field. A small group is planning the centennial recognition of the field and the preservation of the historic #1-21 McKenzie well. 8. REFERENCES Cary, R S., 1961, Boulder Field, in R.M.A.G. Oil & Gas Field Volume, Colorado-Nebraska - 1961, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 70-71. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2001, annual production statistics and well files, Denver. Daily News, The, 1902, Hayden's Map of the Cretaceous Formation, Denver, February 7, ]902. Davis, T. L. and Weimer, R. J., 1976, Late Cretaceous growth faulting, Denver Basuy Colorado: Professiortal Contributions of the Colorado School of Mines, no. 8, p. 280-300. Deuth, J. E. and King, R W., 1954, Boulder, in Jensen, Fred S., Sharkey, Henry H. R. and Turner, Danie] S., The Oil and Gas Fields of Colorado, Rocky Moantain Association of Geologists, 1954. Emmons, S. F., 1896, U. S. Geological S¢rvey Monograph 27, Geology of the Denver basin in Colorado, Washington, D. C. Fenneman, N. M., 1903, The Boulder, Colo., Oil Field, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 213, p. 322-332. Fenneman, N. M., 1904, Structure of the Boulder Oil Fietd, Colorado, With Records for the Year 1903, Con~ibutions to Economic Geology, 1903, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 225, p. 383-391. - Fenneman, N. M., 1905, Geology of the Boulder District, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 265, p. 8-98. Hayden, F.V., 1873, Sixth annual report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories for the year 1872. Hayden, F.V., Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories (U.S.), 1877, Geological and Geographical Atlas of Colorado and Portions of Adjacent Temtories, New York, J. Bien, Sheet XII. Howell, J. V., 1934, Historical Development of the Structural Theory of Accumulation of Oil and Gas, in Problems of Petroleum Geology, AAPG, p. 1-23. Kirkbride, J. E,, 1903, The Boulder Oi]-Field, Colorado, The Engineering and Mining Joumal, Vol. LXXV, no. 6, p 218. Kupfer, Donald H., 2000, Canon City's Oil Spring, Fremont County, Colorado: Colorado's First Commercial Oil Prospect (1860); and the Discovery of the Florence Oil Field (1881), Oil- Industry History, v. 1, no. 1, p. 35-59. Lakes, Arthur, 2904, The Geology of the Boulder Oi] Field, Mining Reporter, vol. XLIX, June 2, 1904, p. 559-560. Agenda item ~ ~g Page # ~ Lakes, Arthur, 1906, The Boulder Oil Fields, Mu-ing Reporter, volume ~3, Mazch ?9, 1906. p. 314-315. Lakes, Arthur, 1909, The Origin of Oil, Mining Science, volume 60, August 13, 1909; p. 124-125. Lakes, Arthur, 1911, The Geology of the Boulder Oil Fieid, Mining Science, volume 63, March 30, 1911; p". 341-342. Owen, Edgaz Wesley, 1975, Inception of Professional Practice, 1891-1910, Chapter 6: Part III; Appalachians, Midcontinent, Rocky Mountain Reeions, in Trek of the Oil Finders: A Historv of Exploration for Petroleum, AAPG Special Publication, p. 215-246. Pettem, Sylvia, 1994, Boulder, Evolution of a City, University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado. Seazs, Paul M., 1968, Boulder's Brief Oil Boom, Empire Magazine, Mazch 31, 1968. The Denver Post. Shelton, Dave, 2001, personal communication, April 18, 2001. Smith, Phyllis, 1981, A Look at Boulder from Settlement to City, Pruett Publishing Company, Boulder. Travis, Ella M., 1995, Remarkable Activity: A Look at the Boulder Oil Field 1901-1904, unpublished research document, Camegie Library, Boulder. Washburne, Chester W., 1910, Development in the Boulder Oil Field, Colorado, U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 381-D, p. 514-516. Whitney, Fred Leigh, 1956, The Boulder Oil Field, Boulder County, Colorado, Unpublished M.S. thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder. Agenda Ifem fl ~~ Page # =s1_ a ~ ~ ~ $ s a ~ ~ -o m ~ m m ~ `f FIGURE 2: Hayden's stake. The photo caption reads: "This stake was found on the Geo. B. Poor farm, property of the Boulder Muung Oil and Gas Co., and marked `Center of Oil BeIY supposed to have been placed there by Pro. Hayden in his geological survey 1873." No evidence sugoests Hayden or his party did so. Photo from Camegie Library, Bou(der. Agenda 16am i~Page # ~'.~ t N F Z f ~. o ~ - fOOTN/ Ot/ CR P .' ~~9 ~ 1~ 2 Z 6 10 0 ti ' , ;' ar ! o ~ ? a " : Z : . ` . ~4 F t3 ~ t8 '.{7 : 1b IS O Z p ~: TAB E;M'T. . H : 3 0 ~ ~ ~~ i :; . -• ~ p ,Z.c t c .~ ~~ . ~ 23 24 i t 0 21 .r` Z2 c 'L y'Y., 9. V ~ t ~~~ ...~:~ U Q r i ~ u Z ' ~ ~ S = ~ 30 p Z9 ~ 28 ~ . ~R<~ 2T AV T O ia S ACK Q J S > . FOO /CL TL O S :'% ~ ~ 3f 32 =;_;::33 '34 t a ~ Z - 2 0 f p'1 5 4 ~ ~. ~ ~~ N D'~ ~ u a e 12eeerracr- n ~ o 0 I I V 2 7 e ~~ • g • s~ ° ti ,. oo, o . ~ 1 13 IB I7 0~ o • t6e~`~ 15 . o ° '` is e+u p~ O ~ 2 4 ~$ °2~' ~ 2) 22 0 0 0 0 ' ~ V~~OM A~C~/C ~. 26 25 80 Z9 28 27 HO E R. 7t w. L S Ralc ~~ . 1 LE6END ~ ~ • Oil wtlla R.70 W. - 0 6rywelis - FIGURE 3: First published geologic map 0f the Boulder Fieid, after Fenneman, ] 904. T'he folded outcrop pattern of ihe Hygiene Sandstone is higiil{ghted. Note the location of the discovery weU in NW/4 Section 21-T1N-R70W. A~aimmtt ~~~Peget.~_ # , a ~ ~ ~ w 3 x I~ ~ d m m ~ ~ ~ Y`~ ~' ; r;. IGR~~' 1 s w~U i ~ ~ //i i~ ~ ~ O~ttonE ~~~c I FIGURE 4: Cross section of Boulder Oil Field after Lakes, 1911. Yl~t~o~r D~Kr Lam+++~~ E ~..r ~ ~._ f~XMtc~s 3 - ~ -- _ . _ _ o _ _ PiERRE sH~c~ z uac Ocl Sandstn~ ' ~ Z rIERR~ tNAiE D -----..._ ~ - - jyio3RAR ~~-+f __._~~ ~.~BE,rroh fNALE . _...,~~ DcrKaT rundit: ~_ _ ?uRA.rR~~s R~~-l3EQS ~r Section of Bo uldcr Oil Field. • ~ ~ f 1 \ I ~ ~ ° ^ \ n ~ I ' • Y \ \ ~. I Q I ' I L Mlr ~ \ ~\ ` \ l~b HK ~ ~ 1 ~I ~ \ \ `' I 1 1~ ~ ~• ~I M \ 1 ,11 r .1 ~ { u. i ~ ' ae ao~ Q u I N ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~Yaf ~' ~~ `'• g i '{ I I I I~~ •: ~bi~ I ~~~)~~, ~,~.. ~ $~ ' I N I • / T I ~ ~00 /~ ~I I I ~ \. •~•~~ ~ ~ / /~ • j/// ~i • ':;~ ~ ~ ~Y ~ ' i t.~. , i~~ ~ ~ ' % ~ ; . ,~ ,/~,~i •:• . . • / . ~ °= ~ / ~ sry/ ~ ~~ ~ ~ u~i • / • ,g / ~ ~~1~~ ~ ~ • d' / ~ ~~ i • / ~ i ~a ~~ •.~• • • / . • ;, ~~ :. ~,~ e ~. • ~ „ ~ / • • • % / • • ~ ~ . • ~ • • * . • / / -~ / / , • ~~i:u •/ • ~ ~x~~ ~ / / / i ~ • ~ ~o • . >i / / ~ N • ~ •• t• ~ • ~ ~ • ~ • ~ ~ II ~\ `••~ / / / / X/ ~ ~ ~~N • l O I ~\ ~ / . . ~ / /' rt~ia. v.• ~~nn • ~ -- , ~~~ I ! ~-i~~ ~. I~IT~ ~ ~.. / / ~ }~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ° ~ • ° NT ;. ~ rt~ow.~ FIGURE 5: Structure map, top ofNiobraza Fortnation: CI=250 feet. Each block is one square mile. After Cary, 1961. qgendaltem#fe-c_ra9a1 ~O g LARAMIE FORMATION • ° FOX Ht~LS SANOSTON~ .~. _` _ ~ - Y - - ~ (n W - ~ ~- ~ J . --- . W 2 L_ ~ UQ cn °°_ LARIMER-ROCKY R10GE ~ W ~ _ •_ TERRY t U W , . ,e,, HYGIENE ~. .. d . _. ~ -.~ W - - ~ .,..._._ ~ - ~ ~ • -•- ~-1i i NlOBRARA - BENTON GROUP ~(~ ~ ;_ ~- DAKOTA GROUP ~ ~ ~ MORRISON O `~ -~ i '~ Tr , ; ;..-' LYKiNS P T: ~:'~ FOUNTAIN PE X ~ XXX X x FIGURE 6: Stratigraphic column of the Boulder Field azea, after Davis and Weimer, 197b. Key reservoirs in the field are the fractured Pierre Shale and Hygiene Sandstone. qgendalbmi ~'~ Pegei.~ - ', ~ ~ ~ _ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FIGUItE 7: Dedine curve for the Boulder Oil Field through 2000. Annual production statistics from Whitney (195O I ~,..d ~6o I`nlnr„rln flil Rt. C;es (',on.tervation CortunissiOfl (2001). __ ___ __ . _ _ _ _ ~ _ -- -- ._ - .... - Figure 8. The McKenzie #1-21 today. End of an era? WRIGHT-KII~'~_ Commcreiat Di~ ' Agentla Ifem # ~g Page # '7/ .: ,: ~,UE .. : ?:,:'; Creorge Newell _ P.O.Box 2 7 79 Boulder, Colo, 80306 Planning Boazd Ciry of Boulder Building Services Center P.O.Box 791 Boulder, Colo, 80306 15 Aug I am writing to comment on the proposed McKenzie Junction development, LUR2001-00046. The City of Boulder has spent a lot of money over the past years acquiring open space to prevent urban spread out from the city center into adjacent tand. McKenzie lanction is exactly the type of development that the ciry has been trying to stop: a large urban mix of businesses that will add more traffic to our already crowded streets, more population to our already overburdened municipaI services, and more pollution to our a(ready degraded air quality. In addition, this development is wrong for this azea. This property is next to the Pleasant View playing fields, a series of green fields that are used by residents seeking a respite from urbanization. Just north of the Pleasant View fields is a lovely little section of wetlands covered with marsh gtass that provides shelter ffor many different kinds of birds. The Four Mile Creek trail also runs by here. All these would be heavily impacted by the inevitable noise and pollution of heavy equipment during construction of this project, as well as ihe traffic it generates once consrruction is finished and the complex is in use. The application for development should be denied. This property would make a great piece of open space, or perhaps very Iow density housing. Sincerely, ., , ~ ~_ i' , .iy-C ~.~ ° ~~~. ~ ~, i~. I~ ),' , ' / 4~.~;: l. Agenda Item # ~~ Page ~ ~.~~. ROBERT E. DIPPO, P.C. ATfORNEY AT LAW !'.O. BOX 3594 BOULDER, COIARAD080307-3544 PHONE/FAX (303) SF3-0851 August 24, 2001 i-:iiiabc•t}i 1?anson. Senior Pinnner ~~i:~ ~,; ~lu~.i;der Planning anci llcvelopment Serviccs p. c;, Bux 79! Boulder, CU R03U6-0791 F':1X lU;-A41-3241 Drur \7s. Hansun: 'I'hc plans of ASW Realty for the Gateway/McKenzie project, including thc continued op;:ration of the MoKenzie well. have rccently been broughtto my attention. As 1 underswnd th~ ~c pitvn~, ~ne~ include, in addition tu the continued operation of lhe McKenzie well, an ;,,;~ ~,nH Icdgment i~f the 100 ycar history of this well and the Boulder Uil F'ield and the si~ni licunce c~l' Hnulder Counry's first oil production. ASW Realty should be commended for thci: eor,ecn fo; Lioulder's history. I~eal [lr~t the proposed plans oi ASW Realtv are of great importance to both the oil c~, I:~ration und productiun irdustry. of which I have heen a participant for 50 vears, and to the In~~l his[uric:tl recurd of Boulder. In connection with the local historical significance. I utge that you ~~ive cunside~tion, if }~ou have not xlready done so. for the historic land markin¢ and pr~scr~ ~lion nf this very important place in Boulder's history. Very truly youts, /~v~`r Robert E. Dip~ po Agenda Item ~ ~~ Page # ~._ ~-. ~ 15 August 2001 City of Boulder Building Services Center 1739 Broadway-Third Floor P.0.8.791 Boulder, CO 80306 , ~ Attn: McKenzie Junction Project The City Planning Board, , ~;Ue .. I am a Longmont resident who works in Boulder very near the project site and 1 wish to voice my concerns over the impact of the McKenzie Project on several levels, however, I do wish to remain anonymous. Please pass these concems to ASW Realty Property, LLC and ask that they specifically address these issues at the appropriate Planning Board hearing. 1) Although this project may be suitable for the property site based on the Cify oi Boulder's zoning, it could easily be the "tip of the iceberg" of further development along the Diagonal Highway corridor that will evenfually have a massive negative impact on the quality of life in the longmont- Boulder region. Specifically: aj Traffic aiong the Diagonal Highway has steadily increased in the last ten years based on economic unaffordability of the housing market in Boulder - forcing workers to commute from further distances; b) The job market in Boulder remains tight and abundant, resulting in the attraction ot workers to the city. The trend is likely to continue as housing costs in Boulder continue to soar. Such is the crunching impact of residents and commuting workers that the quality of life will further decline - resulting in yet more of the work force moving to outlying areas to escape the crowded city; c) The Diagonal Highway is completely inadequate to handle increasing loads of traffic. This project will most likely add to the inefficiency of the Diagonal Highway with more commercial and residential traffic; d) There are currently plans in the works to build an actual interchange at Hwy 119 and Jay Road. Although this is just exactly what the Diagonal Highway needs (a freeway is truly what is needed instead of a signal-choked highway), it could very well open the floodgates for development around the proposed intersection; e) Both 47'" Street turning into the Diagonal Highway and the Diagonal Highway itseli post speeds between 45 and 55 miles per hour. With residential and commerciaf traffic in and around the property, the speed on the Diagonal Highway itself would have to be reduced out of szf=ty for the petential increase in pedestrians crossin~ th= street te c2tch the bu~ stop on the southeast side of the street. Most traffic I've witnessed speed though this area on a regular basis. Even with reduced speed limits, there will likely be a high risk of accidents and injuries around the propeRy. 2) The number of 140 dwelling units ptanned in addition to commerciai office space on 20 acres indicates high residentiai housing (such as apanments) are likely to be built. This speaks of a very poor trend in development that has ruined California. The economic Ievei of Boulder housing is quickly outpacing workers salaries. It is growing more difficult for a family to afford a detached home. Greedy developers know this and so do the long- time residents of Boulder who are sitting on cash cows - counting the dollars as their home property values continue to climb. Both greed and elitism have resulted in the oniy type of residential development that many famiiies can afford - apartments. In California (especially the San Francisco Bay area) apartments are by far the largest percentage of new dwellings built. Colorado has an obligation in keeping from turning into a clone of Califomia. Agends Item ~~Aage u ~ ~. Apartments are extremely detrimental on the community. They increase traffic:'statistically, crime is concentrated in a smaller area because of the nature of high residential structures; and on a deeper level, apartments continue the trend of "affordable" housing for families who pay rent 1or years and have absolutely no equity. 3) South of the property lies some rather unattractive tusiness establishments that will likely stagnate the value ot the proposed use of the McKenzie Junction. Specifically, a Sinclair gas station, a' used car depot, Hertz Rent-a•Car and a beauty salon make up most of these businesses. Although they are not attractive where they are currently, not many businesses and residents interesting in purchasing or leasing space in the project are going to be at ail content with the view to the south of the property. These unsightly businesses either need to move somewhere else and raze their structures - or the Realty company in charge of the new property will likely face high turnaround due to the blight in their back yard. 4) This project is located in whai amounts to a highway interchange. Even with sound walls (or basic propetty walis built of concrete blockj, there will be an unacceptable amount of noise constantly roaring tnrough the development. i used to live next to a very busy freeway in Caliiornia anu the sound walis did virtually nothing to reduce the amount of noise from traffic. This would likely further reduce the overall quality of the residents who would reside here. If the plan moves forward in iYs present capacity, the Planning Board and the McKenzie Junction developers need to take a very serious look at the following to make the project actualiy work, and function as an integreted community within Boulder - and actually have little or no impact on the surrounding commur.ities and the Diagonal Highway corridor itself: 1) Do not build apartments (or any residential structures of any kind) on this property. The increase in traffic will add to the misery of Diagonal Highway congestion; probably increase the potential for crime; and will result in low-rent tenancy or high turnover tenancy due to the constant noise of traffic emanating from the interchange; 2) Allow access to and from the property on 47'" Street only. The last thing the Diagonal Highway needs is another'&!!%# signal (likely to be placed at independence Road); 3) The city needs to do its part by ordering the businesses south of the proposed project to clean-up or get ouf. Ofhenvise, the partnership between the city of Boulder and the property developers will not make this project a long-term success. The City of Boulder needs to tread lightly on this project. The false impression that development is encouraged along the Diagonal Highway corridor must not be conveyed if this project is approved. I believe the city of Boulder is iruly cautious in how land is used and will make the right decisions that will maintain a comfortable small city atmosphere, without selling out to the greed and destructive behavior too often seen by land developers. . - A concerned Boulder County resident Agenda Item R ~9 Page # '7.~ ,,,,_ _~ {AW OFFICES OF KARL F. AN[1TA POST OFFlCE BOX IOOI ] ~20 14TH STREE7 BOULDER. COLORADO 80306 (303145~2~7660 August 23, 2001 Elizabeth Hanson, Senior Planner City of Boulder, Planning and Development Services i739 Broadway P.O. BUk i91 Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791 Re: McKenzie Junction Project Dear Liz: n r w~~ ~~'F1~ .4l/r C C ~~4~ I looked at the Proposal on the subject project and obtained a copy of the Project Summary dated August 6, 2001. I am delighted with the choice of the name, and especially pleased that the developer seems, in part, to recognize the historicity of the McKenzie No. 1 Well. Unfortunately, the development proposal does not give nearIy enough presentation, nor commitment, to the preservation aspects. As you know, the McKenzie No. 1 is the "discovery" well for the Boulder Oil Field. It was driiled and completed (according to newspaper reports} on February 5, 1902. The original well, which it replaced, had discovered gas on August 1, 1901. This was the second oil discovery in Colorado, and the first in the front range. The location is of substantial significance in the history of Boulder, and, indeed, the State of Colorado. I believe that Matt Silverman may have given you a copy of his paper "Oil or Money Refunded: Boom and Bust in the Boulder Oil Field, Colorado, 1901-2001." As Matt points out, the discovery of the field and the brief production leading to a short- lived oil boom, was significant not oniy to the history of the community but to the history of the oil industry in this region. The fact that this original discovery well is still producing 100 years later is also significant. • The site, therefore, must absolutely be preserved. I am pleased to see that the developer recognizes the importance, but I am bothered by the statement on page 4 of the Project Summary that "if the wetl is capped...artifacts of the well - or other Agenda Item #~! Page # ~ Elizabeth Hanson August 23, 2001 Page 2 acknowledgement of its history - would be incorporated into the office plaza... ". This is far too indefinite and amounu to little more than expression of a hope. A much stronger acknowledgement of the importance of the site is necessary. . As to the "artifacts," that is to say the pump jack and tank currently located ac the site, these particular items of equipment may be more~than 50 years old. Even if not, they are cer[ainly approaching that age. Although the equiprrient may be generic, the fact of iu location and use on the McKenzie No. 1 is significant. One might relate it to lumber or windows incorporated into a structure having historic significance. The items themselves are important because of their relationship to the history of the site. As such, they take on a much greater importance than other similar items which might even be more ancient and in better condition. The pump jack and tank should be preserved as part of the history. The site, and the equipment, are sufficiently important that they should be landmarked under the City Landrnark Ordinance. The developer should be asked to define the area immediately around the pump jack and [ank, and submit that area to the Landmarks Board for designation. There are numerous citizens who would support such a designation before both the Landmarks Board and the Ciry Council. One matter which I note to be absent from the submittal (perhaps because it is still preliminary) is a Certification of Compliance with House Bill 1088 (Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-65.5-101 et seq.) The mineral owner needs to be advised of the surface development. It is not indicated that the mineral owner was so advised or is participating in the development. In this connection, Matt Silverman has already made contact with the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission. It is our belief that the developer, as well as the minerat owner, could both benefit by landmark designation of the site and the equipment. Such designation might reduce the potential closure and cieanup costs that both ownerships otherwise face in the future. You may want to make this suggestion•to the developer. Again, I am delighted with the choice of the name and with the recognition of the imponance of this site. I hope that your department can work with the developer to Agenda item # ~ 9 Page # ~ •7 Elizabeth Hanson August 23, 2001 Page 3 assure the citizens.of Boulder, and Boulder.County, that this most unportant location, and equipment, will be preserved. Yours truly, ~ f / , ~ / ~ , /Zu: ~ ~ ~ ~ Karl F. Anuta ~ KFA: cam Enclosure cc: Dion Wolfenbarger Sharon Rosall Matt Silverman oers/ooulEerod ag 2J Agenda I~m # ~ ~r Page # ~ ~~z~~~~~i =~~. ~bhsati: ~~ia n k. ~GU~ ~i/' ~~t.c, CP~~ ~ta n i~~ ~r C019'I lIu r%f' 0Il~ y~v p ~oa05~ ~ MG k-P rL ~l G ~N n~~iq.ti. dZ U~[. ~oF YYU n~f I l may ~ ~u ~ ~Jw'~ -Cl~n,so y L~CSi~c.1~ ~',Y~)~~SS In~ V I uu5 . •~1 U T71Cr G(CCPSS - y/'15 un~ ~/G(~G~uL l~-~t.. ~t5ua ll y-~s~ u~~ busy roads w~ic h Seem C~.i{~'i~u-L`~' '~ ~r ~r .T yurss ccc-ss UJ ~ u!. ~. bk.. `~ G~ rG ~+ry lL k' a lrrircc, ~ y 3' y" a C' I-I j(x. '`J~<.~LC. - L~CCS GGU.I (~.i,~ 1^?Q~~ f / nPE~ ~'V%l~f. D{r'ILLS ~ reQV~~.^J Y1~^(•r /fl~~G? _' ~, n ._. `f {`~t n ~G SC~ , , r ~ ~~ ~rl '~iu.l. ' ~-~'~'z/Jn.^,.; r, ~~.' ~ ~ ~li17f27` - bvhc~.~ ~r n- a~u ~r.~.~ p ~+c.e ~a ~'rc~. ~ v'`- ` C~~CS ~ Agenda Item # ~~ Page # _.L.~.-- . 1' -~h,~n~. `IHu~" y~t5 ~S a~ Yhurcl ~u~fcvrd ~n~~,1.1 ~~ y1/ ~u~" `~'{'h 5 CD'"t rn ct no ~ y~u.e dS , ~ 1 w"+ s i~ rr.u^c- sc~l~.vols ~(~ss fru f(;c. Qnd uc~i~~ -C /t V i CU n~G<-~- e~U r~5 . ~ hr~r ks ~" ~is~n~ ^~ - Mp ~~ ~ow ~a r ~soti ~z3~ P ~u rn G-~ ~~ u ~~ Co ~c~~ a I P.S Wha`~f' u~U~" Crossrovds ~ ~, .', ~ Agenda Item # ~~ Page # ~ August 24, 2001 Ms. Liz Hanson, Case Manager Building Services Center, 3`d filoor 1739 Broadway . • Boulder, CO 80302 Re: Review #; LUR2001-00046 (Mackenzie/Gateway Dear Ms. Hanson; AUG 3 p ~ppi Afrer reviawing the proposal for the development of the piece of land between the Diasonal Hiehway and 47`h Street in northeast Boulder (described as the McKenzie/Gateway Yro~ectj, my neighbors and 1 find it to oe totaiiy inappropria~c for ~i~ai location. I list the following reasons: . A beautiful "gateway" to the City of Boulder already consists of the current Flatirons skyline and open space rather than the proposed shoddy, modem development (al la Rock Creek/Superi~r mess) This section of land basically sits within a large, cloverleaf otvoff-ramp for the Diagonal Highway. It is completely surrounded by very busy highways and roadwavs. I cunently live about !5 mile from the Diagonal Hi~hway (in Four Mile Creek Subdivision) and am oftentimes blown out of bed by the noise coming from traffic on the Diagonal Highway and from the trains and train whistles on the nearby tracks. The noise/vibration levels within residences built between the roadways will be intolerable and will only get worse. Complaints will be freGuent. Traffic in this entire area has increased dramatically in the 7 years I have lived in this immediate area due to extreme growth. 1fie proposed development in this l~ighway uii G~ Taiu y:.: ea ~: il? se , e: CI~ CX3CEZhgrP r~,!f r, This highway on/off ramp area is directty under the takeoff/tanding path for Boulder Airport. Residences were not allowed in the area that is now the Pleasant View Soccer Fields due to aviation safety concems. However, the area that is now the soccer fields is further away from the airport than the land of this proposed development. . This site cunently floods during spring run-off. Alleviation of flooding on this site to protect this project would increase the potential for flooding in nearby neighborhoods bordering Four Mile Creek. Such flooding wouid open the door for serious litigation. Thomas Feiereisen 4192 Hampton Circle Boulder, CQ 80301 {303) 44~-4180 '~~~'':'~C~ Agenda Item R~Page # ~ Because this azea is surrounded by highways, pedestrian access to this site will be minimal at best. T'his site will be accessed by motor vehicles. lt is not centrally located, The neazby neighborhoods survive on the use of motor vehicles and this project will be the same thus adding to the problem. This development proposal may have some merit at a larger, more commercial site but is entirely inappropriate at tliis location. Please don't let developers disguise this inappropriate development as something Boulder wants and needs - it is not what Boulder wants or needs! Nothing could improve on the current vista of the Flatiron Skyline w~hen approaching Boulder from the north. My neiehbors and I urae vou to not allow this "McTCenzie/Gateway ProiecY' orouosal toproceed. We suggest that this small sandwiched piece of land be considered for open space purchase. Thanl: you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~~ "~ -E.c.ei`-a'`-s-c^-~ Thomas Feiereisen Agenda Item R l°9 Page ~~,sz~_ G. ALtAN NELSON ~ CONSULTING PETROLEUM GEOLOGIST 1645 COURT PLACE, SUITE 302 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 - Wyoming Proiessional Geologist No. PG-77?3 BU5.303-573-0699 HM.303-469-Z935 CELL 303-514-5185 FAX 303-831-060? Auguat 27th~ 2001 Ms. E7.izabeth Hanaon, Senior Planner P.o. Box 791 Boulder~ Colorado Dear Ms. Hanaon~ The oil and gaa industry in Colorado annually contributes a few million or more do).lar~ to the State eotfera in taxea and royalties on State and Federal landa. Since we in the induatrT nre in a busitlees that gives so much to help pay for State goeern- ment it ~eems to me appropriate to put some ]and of landriark~ monument~ etc.~ in xhat I understand is the second oldest oil field in ~olorado and I believe the thin~ oldest oil field discovered in the whole country. ~iatt Silverman 3ust took me out to the site of the old oil £ield and I saw the well that is still producing after 100 years. Thia general area around or near thie srell-site I think would be a good location for a historical marker of some kind befon the area ia overrun by unchecked real estate deveelopment. I epeak as a resident of ~olorado for 54 Yeat'a, and as one of the longest in membersnip in th~ local geolo~i.cal aoaiety~ the Roaky 24t. !lssociation of Geologiata in Denver. Ve trul yours ~ ~-v~. ~~ =: v^c:DW ~, A~an N-1~on Agenda Item A ~'4 Page # ~_ ~~ 4520 Nassau Plaae Soulder, CO 80301 (303) 272-9078 August 26, 2001 Ms. Liz Hanson , ' Cau Manager ~ Building Services Center. 3'd Floor 1739 Eroadc~ay' Bouldet. CO 80302 Re: Review #LUR2001-00036 Dear Ms. Hanson. I w~rite in reference to the McICenzie Junction concept review. My neighbor Rodger Ewy Idndly shared the proposed design ptans the other day. I am sutprised and concerned with the plan az it is structured. Mc reasoning follo~vs: 1. The pucported intent of ihe Ciry Council is to reduce uaffic in Boulder. Yet the desi~ clearly Hili create a tremendous bottleneck given the only convenient northem entrv point is ~ia ~7'" and Jay. One need onl}• see the traffic burden that already exists during rush how. Funhermore. the ~~en~ location is ~~mially completel}~ motor vehide dependent. The ASW dauq of reducing traffic is speciaus. The uaffic impect estimates in the Boweis and Krager report are clearly underestimated I' m loath to say it is intencional. However, it clearly is seif-serving if not misleading. Peak hour estimates of 172 cars in and 79 cars out? This stretches the bounds of credulih~. Wh}• then the lazge number of parking spaces? A comprehensive and up to date stufi~ is clearly called for. othenti•ise the suttounding neighborhoods will su8'er the brunt of traffic problems w7th no Qiscernable benefit for the Cin. 2. Planning dces not take into account ihe requisite park spnce ihat is supposed to be allocated fo Cin• residential areas. Contrnn• to assertions by certain memben of the Ciri• Council. the soccer fields are not park space. The Park Commission reaffirmed this w~hen it ga~~e the go ahead to fence in the fields. 3. According to the ASW representati~~e, Mark Gerber, Mark Ruzzin has stated that the project is going tlvough. If this is the case, then it entirely circum~~ents the demceratic process and makes a mceken• of the inclusive process the City espouses. Than ag~in the neazh~ ludden notificauon signs (~rh} aren't they as big as tha commercial real estate signs?), and the limited response time to you, only reinforce the percepUOn thai the city and its operational bodies operate in an amocratic manner. Is it any wonder that the project has a new name, wined by neighbors at our neighborhood picnic today, `Ruzzin's Folly'. 4. The Boulder County Commissioners in their August 23'~ letter to Rodger Ewy, clearly state that the}~ are opposed to any development taldng place. It strilces me as odd that they would take a polar opposite view to the City. In coaclusion,l oppose the McKenzit ]unction/GatewayPRuzzin's Folly' project as presented. With more time and information I have no doubt that 1 will have more reasoned arguments to challenge ihe project. 1 look forwazd the opportunity to participat~ actively. Best regards, ~'/ . //~~-~ ~ . - - ~--. ' ~ -~ Michael C.T. O'Keeffe ." . ~ ~ Agenda !!em # ~0 ~ Page ~ ~ - -- August 28, 2001 Liz Hanson Building Services Center, 3'~ Floor 1739 Broadway Boulder,CO 80302 Dear Ms. Hanson, RECE!I~ED SEP (1 6 2001 ~ I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed McKenzie/Cmteway development. As a resident of the proposed development azea, I would be very upset to see this open space paved over and built for more office buildings. We do not need any more traffic, noise, pol(ution and degradation of what rural feel remains here. Please leave thi5 space alone! ! Rodger Ewy's letter to you from August 22, Z001 echoes my sentiments exact[y. Wendy Mazursky 4826 Macintosh Pl. Boulder, CO 80301 303-474-0605 wenmaz@aol.com Agenda Item #~Page ~ _~S _._ 2Z0 ~aron Way Houlder, CO 80303 Aug~st 29, 20Q1 Eliu6cth Henson: Seaior Plaaner: City Plsaaing aad Developmcnt Servixs: lt hes been brought to my attention thei ASW Iteehy bes submitted a concept plan review to the ciry thet includes laadmarkmg the #1-21 McKenue well oa the diagonaL I think this is a great idea The $oulder oil field is the aecond oldest oil field in the state (behittd Canyon City) and one of the oldest in the Rocky mountain area. Colorado's early history is dafined by its natuia! zesources devtlopment. I have been a Boulder tasident smce 1945 and every time I passed that well and saw the little pump jack working I would wonder about its history and think it was a neat piece of equipmeut to view. Like the mining industry it won't be n~any years and all !he ciurcat wells in the state will be produced out, abandoned and we will move on. Proper 1and:narldng of this site - not a lot of ground is involved - is a great way of preserving a part of our natural resources historical heritage. Tt~ank you for yotu mterzst. ,(J'.aivr,T,Q~~~~ Delmis Irwin Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page ~ ~~ ~~ G ~ ~ ~; w ~`~ ~~~ Ll ~ ~~ ~ `~ a o ~ m ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~' ~ m ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ `. ~ vi '1 ~ ~ ~~~~.~~~ ~~~~~ ° ~J ~~ ~ ~ ~~o~\ ~ ~'~ ~~ ~-."~- ~ ~ ~~~~o y~~ y ~,~ ~ ~, . ~ ~~ o ,,a ~. \~ ~ ~~~~~. ~-~ '~ ~ ~ a " ~~ ~ 1~ l~' ~j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ . ~~~, ~~ ~ , ~~; ~ `~ ~ ~j ~ ~ '1, ~~ `~~~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~~~. ~~ , a ~~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~_ ~ . ~ ~ V~ ~.~~~ n~ 5 y~ ~, ~ o ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ,o~~~~ ~~,~\ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~.~~ ~ ~ ~h ~~~ ~~;~~~ ~~~~ ~ c~~~ ~~ ~ ~;.,~ ~~~~a o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C ; ~ ~ ~.~ ~~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ \ oV- ~~ y ,. - ~ ~ ~ ~~ tl ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ w .~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~~, ~ W ~ ~~~ ~~c . ~.~ ~. y ! l ~ ~ ~__ o RECE!~cC SEP ~ 6 2001 August 31, 2001 Ms. Liz Hanson Building Services Center, 3'd Floor 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Re: Review # LUR2001-00046 (McKenzie/Gateway) Dear Ms Hanson: This letter is in regazds to the planned development near the intersection of 47th/Kalmia/DiagonaUFoothills/Iris Blvd. I read with inteiest about the 2nd proposed development in this area and then my interest immediately tumed to concem. I will not get into the specifics of why this proposal is so fatally flawed, because the flaws are so obvious: - the number of buildings the developer proposes for the spof is comical - do you honestly expect people to WANT to ]ive in this area? You are suaounded by high traffic volume roads on all sides, not to mention an active railroad line about 100 yatds away. This will give any potential residents a v~ low quality of life. - this site is completely inaccessible except by car. You literallv could not walk across any bordering streets safely. - the traffic at the intersection of 47th/DiagonallKalmia/Foothills/Iris is already clogged and could not handle the additional daily trips. The intersection is also extremely dangerous. I myself was in a neaz-fatal accident at that intersection so I speak from personal experience. If the city/counry really wants to make this spot an "entrance" to'Boulder, then why not leave the area Open Space, which is what makes Boulder so special in the frst place? Let the developers edeve o the corner spot at 47'" and the Diagonal thaYs already occupied by businesses that are akeady an eyesore. Leave the views in place - thaYs the most welcoming site I could imagine to our beautiful city. And with the Agenda Item #~Page # ~~ August 31, 2001 Page 2 economy in its current state, and all the commercial real estate sitting empty already - it's in the papers daily - why develop more buildings that aren't needed? I can only hope that somebody with an unbiased, rational mind will be revieH~ing the develop site with a discerning eye. We will all have to look ai it for our lifetimes. ,, ,Nery truly 4025 Savancl~4 Ct. Bou]der, CO 80301 Day phone: (303) 546-1385 Aganda Item # ~ ~ Page # ~Y.- " - - sxu~ F cvRrrs'•~ 46401'HUNDERBIItD DR, M292 BOULbER, COLARADO 8030.9-3830 September 1, 2001 Ms. Elizabeth Hanson, Senior Planner P.O. Box ~91 _ Boulder, CO 803D6-0791 Dear Ms. Hanson: V ~ I I ^ECE~~'ED SEP 0 7 20Q1 I write to urge that city planning Officers proceed di]igently to arrange the historic landmarking and preservation of the McKenzie #1-21 well site near the Diagonal Highway. In this I fully support my colleague Matthew Silverman who has, I know, communicated to you the historic signi`~cance of this unique well and has furnished copies of his perceptive history of the Boulder Oil Field. You probably also have. seen the brief account of the history written by Siivia Pettem in her Boulder County History columro in the Boulder Daily Camera of last March 15th date - a copy is attached in case you missed it. The 1401 discovery and subsequent development of the Boulder Oil Field is an important and colorfu] chapter in the history of Boulder, both City and County; and the McKen,zie well, as the sole surviving trace of the exciting events of 100-years ago, surely demands alert attention to ensure its preservation. Not only the geological profession, but certainly all historically conscious Boulderites will be extremely grateful for your efforts to ensure that this interesting evidence of our community's past remains with us. Sincerely, % v~..~1.~C~t'2 ~ ~ L~ Bruce F. Curtis Professor Emeritus of Geological Sciences University of Colorado at Boulder copies: Deon Wolfenbarger, Preservation Planner Matthew Silverman, Consulting Geoloqist Agenda Item # ~~ Page # ~ ~ ~" ~: ~ ~ ~ : v ~ a :,1 v S~LVtn P~'rFart Boulder Counry H"utory d'LL CL92C,~ natural gas triggered economic boom n Ianuary 1902. l.saac Canfield Arilled tor al on lLe McKenzie farm near loday s Boulder County airport When he hit `black gold,- his well was said to have gushed 72 barte(s per day for weeks. Boulder residenls were Ihrilled 'All manner of carriages, lafly hes, coiumbines, automobiles, cyck motors and Ihings o~ aheels kept the road hot to Ihe we!!s,' wrote a Camera reportec People wen[ away with wuven'v 6oUks o( ihe amber liquid Wat was considered "beavliful to look upon' . As otLer wells were discovered, the newspacer toilowed Ihe o0 6eld's progress on a daily basis. Fach development was exp4ticed in qreat delail in a mgular cntumn dled "Drippings o( the Oi1 I7ow." Whik he drilled tor oii, CanGeld also struck nalura] gas Ne lit a flame, which was seen from miles around, as a symbol of the communitys newfound weallh. Crooks and rnmpelent conlractore alike took out inrnrponlion papers and sold . penny stocks. Newspaperreaders were guarAnleed ~hat Iheq would gM rich quickly if lhey invested under special limited-time o(fers. - Men wdh money poured inlo 13oulder on nearly every hain.'Ihe Rockekllers were expecled any day, and resider.ls were cer- tain ihat ihe populaGon ot 1Leir cih wouid doubleovernight In February 1902, oil (rom CanLeW's well was shipped to a reGnery frear Canon City.1Re supply seemed lo be tndless. Ey Marc1~, Boulder had 92 oil companies. A month later, lhere were 117. Al[hough Ihe oil under 1he land norlh- eas[ of lioulder was real, no amount of drilling could keep up wi0~ expectations. [n just a few monlhs, lhe bottam seemed to fall ou[ of the market, and the eitys enthusiasm was replaced wiih skepticism. As orre com panyrepresenGtive e~eplained,'Suckers be[ame sit14 and lLinkin8l~Pk refused lo Uke the'v places' Despite 1he frauds and failures, however, a lew conxrvaWe busmessmen managed to keep the industry alive. From 1904 to 791A, one weli supplied most o( Boutder wilh aalunl gas (or cooking and lighting. When lhe Ilolcl fiouldersJo opened in 1909, ihe rnntrador didn'[ know i( natural gas or electricity would be more reGaWe, so he fitted We Irotel's lamps to run on bolh BouMer's oil oulput peaked in 1909 pilh a total of 85,709 barrds. Bul, by Ihen, resi~ dents had losl i~crest in oit and nalural gas produciion. From 1910 on, the output quick- ly diminished unGl Ihe 1950s, and, more recenOg in the 1980s, when dri~ting rige lemporarily sprouted up again in Doalder County. Can6eM, who slarled all We hoopla in the Qoulder oil Gclds, was mnre o[ a specu- la~or fhan a businessman. lle IeIl town shwqy aRer his 6ig strikq missed out on ~he reporled $fi110,(100 it produced, and was never heard (rom again. Silvia Pettem i fates( 6001, 'Bov(der, A Srnse oJTime rtnd /'lace,' is a rollecfion aJ sefttkd hisMry rn7vmna Lonk fo~ if in arro bookstorrz ~ il TO RFACH US: Edimr. Maria Co~e, (303) 473-1308 coumw~t6cdai(yamcn.mm FAX: (303) 473-! 131 www.Medailywmero.~coMlealures . ~ J V7AL°,MOIE c.~v. r.a cs~+r a mrxwr. sm+. n~na s.aw ar Oil pusMd from this FSoulder Counry oi wcll in june 1902. August 24, 2001 Ms. Liz Hansan Building Services Center, 3'd Floor 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Re: #LUR2001-0046 (McKenzie) Deaz Ms. Hanson; I am writing to comment on the concept review of ASW Realty's proposal: McKenzie Junction, previously named Gateway. First, I assume you are accepiing comments through August 27, as indicated in your handwritten amendment of the Land Use Review cover document. While I appreciate your effort to provide public notice, I believe my situation is typical and shoutd persuade the Planning Department to allow more time for citizen comment then the 5-7 days implied by mailing a notice on August 10 and asking for comment by August 20. I opened your letter, dated August ] 0, on August 17 when I retumed from a trip. I had to go out of town once again cn August 18. Let me say, that even your extension of the comment perio@ to Augtzst 27 bazely allows sufficieni time for research and comment. Given the recent public debate involving the proposed fencing of the Pleasant View Soccer Field and the Redesignation of Pazcels 12A/B and 13 under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, I suspect that you are aware of the intense and organized concem by the affected neighborhoods to the obvious adverse effects of any development on the state highway locked parcel known as Gateway-now McKenzie. Those adverse effects include: Traffic Congestion: Any development on the scale of McKenzie will create greatly increased traffic both directions on the Diagonal, SH 119, 47`h Street, N. 57`h, Independence and Jay Streets forcing greater traffic into adjoining neighbothoods. All of which adds to public safety concems, noise, visual and air pollution through neighborhoods with narrow streets. I presume you are aware of City, County and State DOT plans to build access interchanges at Jay Street and other roads intersecting with SHI 19 just to deal with increased traffic loads on SH 119. It appeazs that the ASW proposal extrapolates from.an outdated tra~c study to deliberately underestimate and misrepresent both current and future traffic and public safety issues. Even a casual look at the daily trip numbers and configuration of the site would tell you that any traffic from the north (either Hwy 36 or 119) would divert to Jay and then south on 47~' to access the site off from Kalmia since there is no other access to the site from southbound SH 119, bringing traffic on all of Jay and 47`~ to intolerable levels. The City must insist on up to date, rush hour, traffic counts and then factor in both traffic growth as well as the increased trip count created by 353,000 square feet of office and living space. Agenda Item # ~~ Page # ~ Visual Pollution: The proposal desuoys the `view corridor' of Boulder and the Flatirons from the major northeastem entrance (both SH 119 and 47'h Street) to the city. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan states that major entryways are to be protected and enhanced to preserve the natural setting and appearance of the community. Development of the McKenzie parcel-no matter how well camouflaged-would severely and forever destroy the Boulder entrance vie~vs of the Flatirons on SH 119 as well as 47`h and Independence Streets. Presumably, in an effort to satisfy city housing needs yet maximize profitability, ASW proposes a residentiaUcommercial mixed use. ASW's design-while an improvement over the five-story hotel proposed by the Gateway developers is a visua] offense and blight on the major northeast entrance to Boulder. Looking south on 47`h, you'll view the top of a parking ramp and sea of vehicles and south on SH 119 or west on Independence a three-story strip mall. • Noise, light and vehicle exhaust air pollution: Any development of the site would greatly increase vehicle-generated noise and exhaust pollution. Additionally, light pollution from the proposed three-story structures will be visible and offensive to adjoining residential neighborhoods. • Drainage and flood plain issues: The site, concrete locked as it is by busy state highways and bordered on the north by Four Mile Creek, has great wlnerability to flooding and drainage issues. As recently as the sprin~ of 2000, 47`h Street was closed for days when Four Mile Creek flooded out.its banks blocking the roadway. And, that was hardly a 100-year flood. No access to site except by motorized vehicle: There is ]ittle-arguably no pedestrian or bike access to the site. The only pedestrian or bicycle access may be the light at 47`h and Diagonal, then proceeding up the roadway to Kalmia. There is no sidewalk or bike path access to the site from any direction. That is hardly a hospitable residential environment and directly violates Boulder's commitment to a`walkable' city. Imagine chiidren dashing across four lanes of fast moving traffic to get to cross the Diagonal at 47th or east and west of the viaduct on the Diagonal. Traffic today moves dangerously fast on SH I 19, Jay and 47'n Streets creating considerable danger to both pedestrians and bikers. No nearby shopping services: Try walking from the McKenzie site across the 47`h, SE along the Diagonal (no walkway); crossing the SH119 southbound ramp and then crossing the Diagonal again at 30`h (no walkway on 30~h) to get to the Albertson's or other retail at 28~h and Iris. Dangerous and long; which means residents will jump in their cats to get a carton of milk. The McKenzie/Gateway site is cordoned off by high speed, high traffic roadways and is not conducive to residential living. qgenda Item N~~ Page a~1.3 _ _ ._. - ~ .:.. No park or recreational site: Pleasant View is off-limits to non-authorized use (only authorized soccer use is pettnitted. In fact, the Pazk Board intends to fence the soccer fields to prevent recreational use. Palo Pazk is already overused by the existing neighborhood and population it serves. In either case, just try to walk safely from.McKenzie to Palo Pazk. The only controlied intersection is at 47`n and Foothills. Similazly, there is no safe access-short of a constructing a tunnel or pedestrian bridge over SI3 119 on the north side of the McKenzie site--to get to the Four Mile Creek Path. The McKenzie/Gateway sife is cordoned off by high speed, high traffic roadways. Airport flight path: The developers claim to avoid the Airport Influence Zone by desiening the housing outside the zone. However; Auerbach's Schematic Plan II has residential units on the south end of the parking ramp on the south end of the pazcel. Pre-judgment by Mr. Mark Ruzzin, Planning Board chair: If, in fact, Mr. Ruzzin has pre judged and promised to ASW, as reported by Roger Ewy, that this project...."is going to go through...", the process has been ethically and perhaps compromised. Perhaps Mr. Ruzzin intends to run for the city council on developing McKenzie and destroying the Flatirons vista available on SH 119. For all the reasons cited above and many more yat to be r.esearched, the McKenzie- Gateway site is inherently flawed for any development-commercial, industrial or residential-- by virtue of its `island' setting betwaen walls of concrete highways and gowing high speed, four lane traffic. Considering its fundamental limitations as essentially an inaccessible triangle of state highway median, the McKenzie parcel should not have been zoned for development many years ago. The Boulder County Commissioners certainly recogiize that in their stated opposition to site development. The City of Boulder should not compound the mistake by allowing development now. The parcel should be added to the city or county open space inventory. Many neighbors in Kalima Court, Palo Pazk, Orange Orchard, Four Mile Creek and County residents to the east of the SH 119 will no doubt provide more commentary as ASW's McKenzie proposal becomes better known. Thank you for consideration of my comments. Please keep informed me of the next step in this process. Sincerely, James Pribyl '720 888 7328 O 720 888 S l34 fax 4664 S. Hampton Circle Boulder, CO 80301 Agenda Item #~Page ~ ~ WooDBOUxrr~ ADVisoxs LLC ~ Jeffrey "TJ" Heyman ~ `~~ r'!5. I~~~-J ~ ~I_~~b ~l~-l~~ '~~J 'T ~'a'~i..+~ l,~}' ~~ y'.~~4c: C-~'~C1h~'?~ V V~^y~c: Ci.i i.4,~.rJ?~:~~n~.= t1~61ics~ C i~u 3> ~~ l'~JL C~r~^/~s ~:_•:~.~'?v'~-~::.,~ ~r`~'`,~'1.''v.:.; ~1~'~Cr ~~.--~.2~'11~~ ~ T1S:, ~LiGb`'D,'~Ja ~-+~'~~-.,., ~~~~-'~[ ~ . ~~i~~ '=7T i.~: ~~-{~ !`S QV~G~!'1..= ~i~ G~t"~ ~.~:+,JOC~1 pN :.~.r ~j7 ~+7 ~1~ nl!j't,t^+~. i H'~S ?~.~;5~ ~ • . 1", qM ~ w~ ~-'~ .~k3...: it-C~. S`~'~-1 (,.1~4'~L(}?c,'~% .~..d•~l. ~ ~t `~~ ~^'~ `"'~~`"° ~~l y ~ ~, ~ ~ :*1.~.~ ~c , n.~- '~~F a=~ S~ ~ . ~~ Tel. 30J 939 9940 Fax 303 449 4253 tjheypworldne[.att.net 1720 14~ "1.-3r ~.,-,~-t: " -R-C- •~5 ,a :~~~i ~ ~ ;1~ il+c J~+=icFw~t~;,7 :.~. ;~ iv r-~r ~= ' ~ ...+^ y"~, `~--- h Strac, Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80502 Agenda Item #~Page tt ,~,a ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ To: Boulder City Planning Board ~ From: Four Mile Creek Community and the Adjoining Neighborhoods of Palo Park, Kalmia, Orange ~ Orchard, Sale Lake and North 57t"-Independence ~ Subject: Assessment of the Concept Review for McKenzie ~ Junction - #LUR2001-00046 ` Date: November 27, 2001 e ~ , ~ ~ i i 1 Contact: James Pribyl 4-Mile Creek _ 303 444 3205 H 720 888 7328 W Michael O'Keeffe Board of Directors 4-Mile Creek (303) 272-9078 W 1 ~ ~ ~ Index ~ I. Introduction II. Photographic Panorama ~ III. Written Questions Presented at the Wednesday, November 14 Developers Meeting A. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan B. Visual ~ C. Environmental D. Drainage/Flood Problem ~ E. Traffic F. Housing G. Business ~ H. Costs I. Noise J. Four Mile Creek Trail (bike and pedestrian access) ~ IV. Assessment of the Proposal Based on E~usting Information A. Site Plan Problems ~ B. TratFic Volume Problems C. Quality of Life for McKenzie Residents ~ D. Surrounding Neighborhood Impact, Traffic Cut Through E. Site Vehicle Dominance and 7ob/Housing Imbalance F. Disingenuous Site Description ~ G. Visual Blight I3. Little Alternative Transportation I. Unattractive Style J. Floods and Drainage ~ K. Ghetto-Like Community Within L. Aviauon Accident Potenual M. Crime Expectarion ~ N. Cost to All ^ City, County, T~payers and Neighbors ~ V. Conclusion ~ VI. Appendix A. Boulder County Commissioners' Letter in Opposition B. Boulder County Transportation System Evaluation Study ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Introduction The neighborhoods identified on the cover page of this report have an abiding interest in the McKenzie Junction. There is little doubt that we stand to be significantly affected by the proposal as presented - safety, traffic, noise, environmental impact, and emergency vehicle access to name a few. It can be readily argued that a11 of Boulder is in a similar position given the site's entrance view to the city and, as presented, its appazent contravention of the Boulder Va11ey Comprehensive Plan: ^ Policy 2.07Design of Major Entryways. Major entryways into the Boulder valley shall be ~ identified, protected and enhanced in order to emphasize and preserve the natural setting and appearance of the community. Future strip commercial development shall be discouraged. ^ Policy 2.08 Preservation of Rural Areas and Amenities. Preserve existing ruralland use...where environmentally sensitive area, hazard areas, ...vistas...earist... A clear boundary between urban and rural area and periphery of the city will be maintained. ^ Policy 2.15 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses. In order to minimize conflicts between adjacent land uses that vary widely in use or intensity or other characterisrics, the City will use tools, such as interface zones, transitional areas, and cascading gradients of density in the design of subareas and zoning districts. • Policy 2.23 Commitment to a Walkable City. The city and county will promote the development of a walkable city by designing neighborhoods and business areas to provide easy and safe access by foot to places such as neighborhood centers, community facilities, transit stops or center, and shazed public spaces and amenities. ^ Policy 2.24 Trail Corridors/Linkages. The City ... shall encourage the development of trails and trail linkages for approporiate uses, such as hiking, bicycling, ... to provide a variety of alternative recreation and transportation opportunities. ^ Policy 2.30 Design that respects F~isting C7earacter. 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. Increases Job/Housina Imbalance The City has also stated that a goal is to improve the job/housing imbalance. Mayor Toor argues for the need to create "a better balance between the number of jobs and people in the city". As structured the plan will create 675 new jobs, but only 90 identified dwelling units. Therefore, it badly exacerbates the existing imbalance. Furthermore, it epitomizes the concept of urban sprawl. Instead of going `4~rban to the edge" and stuffing in as many offices and houses as possible, we need a critical mass of jobs around major transportation points such as downtown Boulder. Only then will public uansport work the way it is intended and help reduce our growing traffic problems. 4 Unneeded Commercial Saace The business argument for additional corporate type offrce space must also be questioned in light of the fact that commercial vacancy rates in Boulder County haue increased from 8.54% to 13.57% during the first quarter of 2001. "It is estimated that there is a 60% drop in the number of companies looking for space this year as opposed to the year 200Q so even landlords in the city aze hauing to lower lease rates. Last year's office space peak of $19 per square foot is now back in the $15 per square foot range. This correction is creating opportunities for companies looking for space and for investors looking for office buildings" (Re/Max of Boulder October report). Further evidence of the significant over supply of office space is evident by the "49% vacancy rate along the U.S. 36 corridor" (Sunday Camera November 25, 2001 Fl). Northeast Boulder Traftic Gridlock Any development at the McKenzie site must consider the growing traffic gridlock, choked collectors and arterials serving north and northeast Boulder, Gunbanel, Niwot, and north and northeast Boulder County. Clearly, city and county planners could not anticipate and therefore did not create transportation corridors to serve the growing residential and commercial population of Gunbarrel, Niwot, North and East County Boulder when allowing those developments over the past 20 to 30 years. Now, Jay from 75"' west to Independence and the Diagonal is the major transportation corridor serving East Niwot, Gunbanel and East Boulder County. Similarly, Jay Road, starting at High- way 36 eastward to 47~' is the major arterial for all traffic from north Boulder and north Boulder County growth flowing to the Foothills Parkway to get around the city to the South or to any destination in East Boulder. Any southbound traffic on Highway 36 from North Boulder County also cuts east on Jay, then south on 47~' Street to access Foothills Parkway. It is obvious that further development in Northeast Boulder-particularly McKenzie-given the site is isolated by state highways-will only worsen the traffic congestion, pollution, safety and congestion on the Foothills Pazkway, Diagonal Highway, 47'~` Street, and Jay Road vicinity. Southbound traffic on Foothills Parkway trying to get through Boulder during morning drive time is already backed up from Valmont north to the McKenzie site and beyond-nearly a mile. The reverse is true in the evening where northbound traffic on Foothills and the Diagonal backs up forcing commuters to take alternate routes on city streets. If development is to pay its way with respect to needed transportation infrastructure improvements, its clear that commuter growth created by developing the McKenzie site will never pay its cost to the taxpayers. ue tions The rational for McKenzie 7unction raises disturbing questions about the willingness to destroy pristine views, trample the very intent of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, increase traffic problems, reduce safety, exacerbate the job/housing imbalance, add unnecessary commercial space, damage the qualities of existing neighborhoods that make them ideal for families and place an undue burden on the City as it becomes necessary to pay for major infrastructure changes in the medium and long term. ' Written Questions Presented at the Wednesday, November 14 ~ Developers Meeting at UCAR ~ To: McKenzie Junction Developers From: Four Mile Creek Community M Re: McKenzie Junction Preliminary Development Plan ~ Based on the plans shared to date, the Four Mile Creek Community has identified a number of issues that are of direct concem and interest to the neighborhood. They are outlined in the series ~ of questions below. We would greatly appreciate your responding to these questions in order to help us understand the merits of your proposal. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan How do you plan to abide by the following policies? Policy 2.07 Design ofMajor Entryways. Major entryways into the Boulder valley shall be identified, protected and enhanced in order to emphasize and preserve the natural setting and appearance of the community. Future strip commercial development shall be discouraged. uestions: 1. What is your justification for interfering with the existing panoramic view? 2. How will this plan enhance the e3tisting naturai beauty? Policy 2.23 Commrtment to a Walkable City. The city and county will promote the development of a walkable city by designing neighborhoods and business areas to provide easy and safe access by foot to places such as neighborhood centers, community facilities, transit stops or center, and shared public spaces and amenities. uestions: 1. Where do you see people walking from since the property is on the outskirts of the city? 2. Where is the ready access to community facilities and neighborhood centers7 Policy 2.30 Design that respects Facisting 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 humau scale, to respect the character of the surrounding area. uestions: 1. What pazk space have you allocated for residents? 2. How do you see this project respecting the e~sting character of the surrounding area of open space and open sport fields? ~ Visuai ~ ^ How do you plan to ameliorate the destruction of the view corridors? ^ Do you plan to have earterior lighting of the buildings? If so what will the impact be at night to surrounding neighborhoods? , Environmental ^ What environmental study has been conducted? ~ ^ Is the existing ground water contaminated? If so what plans do you have in place to address the issue? Note: Contamination e~tisted when a report was made in 1993 -"Phase II Environmental Assessment Report Gateway Property, Boulder, Colorado". ' ^ VJhxt plans do you have for the oil well and storage tank? LVhat if they're made active again7 Drainage/Flood ~ ^ What flood control plans do you have? ^ What drainage plans do you have? ~ ^ How do you plan to handle drainage in a flood plain area? ^ Are you utilizing 100-year storm events in you plans? ~ Traffic ^ When was your traffic impact study conducted? ^ How long was the traffic observed for7 ' ^ What were the traffic count numbers? ^ If it wasn't observed what previous studies aze you using to establish the study? • What assumptions have you made pertaining to trat~c? ^ What assumptions have you made pertaining to traffic signals? Note that the ciry regulation ' DCS - sec 2.03 (P) (2) discourages new traffic signals. ^ Has the study been sent to the Colorado Department of transportation since SH119 is outside , the C~ty limits? An issue of access. ^ What will the impact to 47th and 7ay be sinca there is no alternative northern access way? ^ In the event of an emergency during rush hour, how will emergency vehicles be able to access ~ the site quickly and safely? ^ How do you plan to mitigate traffic cut through in the Four Mile Creek Neighborhood? ^ How do you plan to get the necessary bus trips from RTD to support this concept? ~ ^ Did you take into account the traffic generatad by the Pleasant View soccer fields and the planned development of parcels 12 a and b at the juncrion of 47'~ and 7ay? (question put forth the night of November 14, not in original document). Note, due to inadequate parking people ~ park their cars and cover up the bicycle lanes on both sides all the way up to Jay Road. ^ What percentage use public transport at the office complaxes to the south of the proposed ~ development? Housing ~ ^ What is the ratio of residents to workers? ^ What park facilities do you plan to incorporate as required by Boulder7 Your preliminary plans show nothing. ~ ^ Is it appropriate to put housing in an area completely sunounded by primary roads? ^ What percentage of the housing is planned for affordable housing? ~ ~ 7 ~ ' Business ^ Given the declining economy, and the available office space in Boulder, who do you see as ~ potential tenants7 ^ What taz~ base do you anticipate this proposal will generate in a declining economy? r ~osts ^ Who will carry the burden for new traffic lanes, bus stops, tral~c lights etc.? ~ Noise ^ How do you plan to ameliorate the noise tevels from the highway for those living and working in the planned proposal7 ~ ^ If you utilize a wall or berm system, how do you plan to reduce the noise reflected at the 4- Mile Creek neighborhood? ' Four Mile Creek Trail ^ How do you plan to provide access from the trail? ~ ^ What pedestrian access do you plan? ^ Since the complex is on the outskirts of the city what number of pedestrians do you estimate will walk to the site daily? From where? ~ ^ What is the pedestrian and cycling count for other office complexes in the area? ^ What is the percentage of cyclists and pedestrians versus those traueGng in cars? ^ What percentage of people are estimated to use public transport? ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ Assessment of the Proposal Based on Existing Information ~ Ttris critical piece of land is threatened, much like the so-called "CU South Campus". Both ' properties are of equal importance to the city of Boulder. Each property is at one of the two most important entries into Boulder, the northeast and southeast. Each offers unparalleled entrance views of our mountain backdrop - please see the enclosed photographic panorama. Each is under , threat by overly ambitious development plans. In the case of McKenzie Junction the plans are at odds with many of the City's stated intentions and desires for a viable and vibrant community. , Developing the McKenzie property will have grave consequences additional to losing the entry view. Please consider the following: ~ SITE PROBLEMS: This site is fatally flawed. Its location, right at a traffic choke point for a primary city entry and ~ exit from the northeast, makes the site undevelopable as proposed. Burgeoning traffic, increasing daily on the Diagonal Highway, Foothills Highway and on 47th Street promises to conflict with both the construction and the continuing use of this site. The number of vehicle trips originating ~ from and going to this site would be lazge. This traffic would compound the intense trat~c already surrounding the site. , The Diagonal and Foothills highways are at the center of a regional transportation study examining its already difficult tra#Hc problems. The DRCOG study finds present daily average ' trips on the Diagonal to be 33,600. It estimates that in 2020 the volume will rise to 59,800 daily trips. This is an increase of about 3.9% per ,~. ~ The traffic study generated by Bowers and Krager (for ASV~, however, is overly optimistic in supporting a"low-impact" opinion. The numbers of trips per day from residential areas aze unrealistic, as are the Live/Work trips per day. ~ ~ ' r ~ ~ ' In Fig. 3A, morning peak hour traffic is shown as 172 cars in and 79 cars out of the entire site, residential, Work/Live and Commercial. This hardly reflects reality, the proposal as presented states 675 jobs. Bowers and Krager only quietly mention that the traffic data is extrapolated from studies (greatly outdated, incomplete and flawed) originally submitted by the GatewayBirch Mountain application. The report uses a 1°/a per year growth factor, also unrealistic in the face of the DRCOG study. The DRCOG Transportation study finds the Diagonal Highway, "...already congested." RTTF (Regional Transportation Task Force) members proposed these suggestions: "..TDM (Traffic Demand Management) Programs" ($2.21~, "..grade-separation interchanges" $823M, HOV lanes ($49.611~, "Purchase additional Open Space to Reduce Development" (indeternrinate cost). The study cites the ,..."difficulty of achieving significant congestion relief through TDM" and "..for every 50 new residents ofBoulder, Gunbarrel, Niwot or Longmont, one vehicle is added to the 2020 traffic volume on the Diagonal." (the reverse would be that reductions from growth would subtract the same) ~ ' 1 With the rate of growth of trafftc past this site, isolated entirelv bv adreadv heavilv congested transportation routes. only a current and comprehensive, unbiased tra~c study can even begin to describe the real situation surrounding this site. ~ The intersections mentioned, SHl 13/Kalmia, 47th St./Kalmia; Kalmia/South and SH 119/East, are only part of the complex traffic equation. Not mentioned is the problem of restrictive adjacent ' structures (47th Street Bridge over Foothills, Foothills Bridge over Diagonal), traffic lights on Diagonal both east and west of Foothills and at 47th Street, the railroad crossings on Independence Road, para11e1 to Diagonal and across 47th, south of the chokepoint (47th, ~ Diagonal and Foothills intersections). Peak Hour "analyses" have little relevance until realistic trip counts are made and all the intersections influenced by this traffic are examined. The Bowers and Krager study does not fill these needs. ' TRAFFIC VOLUME PROBLEMS: ' The site as designed presents these problems: Assuming 675 employees arriving each morning, with 1.5 per caz, 450 cars will come onto the north end business site and leave in the late ~ afternoon (other trips such as breaks, lunches, etc are not counted). The southbound right turn with only a 273 foot decel lane will hold only about ten cars (at 30 LF per car), with the taper holding five cars. The inevitable result will be stacking back into the Foothills off-ramp and into ' the high speed north-bound lanes ofFoothills. Actual uses of the office spaces are undeternuned. If the space were to include that of inedical or ' similar usage, the number of trips per day will balloon beyond those from usage as "General Business." On-site services, "...of use to the surrounding community...," would generate additional day trips. r There are no nearby shopping areas. Residents will, of necessity, have to leave the site for normal supplies. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ , ~ 10 ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ , r ~ ~ ~ , , , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ OUALITY OF LIEE FOR MCKENZIE RESIDENTS: If it is assumed that a large proportion of entering business traffic will enter off Kalmia, then the entire residential community will be further clogged with moming and evening traffic, as it is the only other entry onto the site. Business traf&c will fill parking places within internal residential space, as well. This will badly compromise residential quality of life. The residential area, including "Flex-Space" is designed around the access streets. The streets are not designed around the residential space. Instead of traffic spines, there should be some non- vehicle space between residences, with vehicles accessing from the periphery. Presently, residences and flex spaces are too close to surrounding highways. The very considerable noise from trains passing on the east, with mandatory engine whistles at the Independence crossing must also be factored in to noise screening. Highway, railroad and airport noise would need massive amelioration with sound walls, peripheral trees, hedges, berms and access roads. It has been found elsewhere that the only effective sound amelioration would be sound walls, such as seen on south Foothills and on US 36, from Westminster to the south east. These, of course would be unsightly in this application and would add to the ghetto-like quality of the proposed housing. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IlVIPACT. TRAFFIC CUT THROUGH: The impact that traffic to and from the McKenzie site would have on existing neighborhoods would be considerable. For example, South-bound Diagonal traffic, hoping to auoid the complex maneuver of exiting Foothills, crossing under Foothills, left-turning onto 47th or Kalmia or the northeast entrance to McKenzie from north of Jay, will turn west at Jay Road, left again onto southbound 47th and left again onto Kalmia, the McKenzie residential entry. Combined with additionai trat~ic from Highway 36 and southern bound traffic coming east on Jay and then south on 47th, it will load 47th Street with additional traffic. When overloaded parking from the soccer fields spills onto 47th, with dozens of youngsters crossing the road, this wili become even more dangerous. McKenzie site traffic, eastbound on Jay, will cut through Four Mile Creek on the new St. Lucia entrance (yet to be built) to avoid the light at 7ay and 49th St. West-bound traffic on Jay Road will take a short cut south on N. 57th and west on Independence to avoid the light at Jay and Diagonal. Foothills northbound traffic, seeking McKenzie, will exit at Valmont and go north on 47th Street to avoid off-ramp traffic at the site. 11 ~ r M STTE VEHICLE DOMINANCE AND JOB/HOUSING IMBALANCE: This site is almost completely vehicle oriented, isolated as it is by major highways. Though the ~ residential housing component is claimed by ASW to reduce traffic impacts at the local and regional level, the number of jobs at this site will actually work to increase the already unwieldy Boulder jobs/residence imbalance. 90 residential units will house perhaps 100 job holders. The ~ commercial space will generate approximately 700 jobs. Therefore, the site will generate an additiona1600 job holders needing residences. The ASW claim that this deveiopment will, ".. seduce tratHc inputs at both the local and regional levels" is incorrect. It adds to the problem, , not subtracts. DISINGENUOUS SITE DESCRIPTION: ' The "viewing opportunity" across this property, as mentioned in the Application is by no means, ' "...very limited even in its undeveloped state." It is, in fact, a breathtaking panorama ranging from beyond Beaz Mountain, Green Mountain, the Flatirons, to Flagstaff and the north. That this could be considered inconsequential is outrageous. In fact the previous (Gateway) application made a ' big salas pitch in its plans that the views were phenomenal! (see photographic panorama) VISUAL BLIGHT: i The top of the three-level garage, while noted as being below the 47th St.Bridge ramp, would become a visual sea of automobiles from the very road it would consider a"visual barrier." This ' would become a very unattractive substitute for open space here and east of the Diagonal. The view upon entry to northeast Boulder is ontstanding by any standards (see photographic ~ panorama). 300,000 square feet of building space and the requisite parking structures will destroy an image that enhances and represents the very essence of Boulder. , The three-level residential structures are massed on the southwest border of the property and would block any and a11 views across to the open space to the east. , LTTTLE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION: Provision for alternative transportation is lacking. Inasmuch as this site is completely isolated ~ from all but vehicle access, good attention to pedestrian, bicycle and bus access ought to be a basic planning feature, not an afterthought. ~ For example, access to the Four Mile Creek path, a path that actually crosses the isolated north section of the site, has not been elaborated. Access from the open space area to the southeast ~ (Cottonwood trail) has not been included. No pedestrian crossings from the west side 47th walkways have been mentioned. No additional lights across 47th have been mentioned (at Kalmia, for e~mple). Two bus stops haue been mentioned but no sites shown (the siting of these ' is greatly limited and compromised (eg. noRhbound 47th at Kalmia). 12 r ~ ~ M ~ ' ' ' , , ~ ' 1 , ' , ' ~ ' 1 UNREPRESENTATNE/UNATTRACTIVE STYLE: The homely structural design does not project Boulder's best image. The University of Colorado's design style, with its roof angles (echoing the Flatirons), its red sandstone walls, its fenestration, its clustering, would be both relevant and a much better "city entrance statement." This style and material use would help this construction avoid the cheap, short-life look that much commercial and residential has today. This is certainly a desirable feature for an "entrance statement." FLOODS AND DRAINAGE: The site drainage is very problematic. The McKenzie text states, ".... issues regarding drainage have been resolved conceptually....as part of prior applications." We do not believe that this is true. There are two eazlier (Gateway) application approaches: one states that the drainage will split north and south, much as the present site already does. The other states that the site dr8inage will be mostly directed to the north, into Four mile Creek. This second approach is by no means, "resolved," as a viable option, though chosen by ASW. The runofffrom hard surfaces on twenty acres will be considerable. Earlier, it was proposed by Birch Mountain/Gateway to drain the immediate runoff into the site extension, north of the Foothills off-ramp, into Four Mile Creek. The problem with this is that this smaller triangle of land is akeady in the flood plain and, in the event of a hundred-year flood, would aiready be flooded; it could take no additional storage volume. Indeed, 47th street was closed as recentiy as the Spring of 2000 due to the flooding of Four Mile Creek on 47th north of the soccer fields. Down-stream residences would be badly affected by additional runoff. Holding to the existing drainage split is the only viable solution. Additionally, the off-ramp and Four Mile Creek aze likely sites for flooding in this scenario. GHETTO-LII~ COMM[7NITY R'Tl'HIN: The quality of life of residents in this isolaxed, forever circumscribed enclave would be very low. Significant traffic lanes, a noisy railroad line and the final approach to the airport surround the site. Increasing traffic will pollute homes on the site with increasing amounts of eachaust, particulate matter and noise. Residents would be forced to drive to enter/e~t the ghetto-like enclosure whenever they sought entertainment, shopping, or social exchange. Commuting would always be an encounter with traffic. Children would find themselves distant from schools and companions, with the ever present danger of traffic to contend with. There would be no places for recreation, religious expression, shopping or neighborhood meetings. A poor mix for residents, let alone families. The site, as a residential area, evokes memories of an eadier comment about Robert Moses' NYC's highway-ruined neighborhoods, "...prefabricated blight." (Lewis Mumford) 13 ~ , ~ ' ~ ' ' , r , 1 ' AVIATION ACCIDENT POTENTTAL: Part of the McKenzie site is actually in the flight path of the Boulder Airport. 85% of all final approaches to, and 15% of a1l takeoffs from, the airport occur over the designated area. 56.6% of aU accidents resulting in hull loss or death occur are in the final approach to an airport (30.5% &om takeoffs). Traffic operations at Boulder average 80,000 landings and takeoffs per year or 220 per day. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), there have been 49 air incidents/accidents affiliated with Boulder County Airport since November 1983, an average of nearly 3 per year. 8 are categorized as fatal. While no jet airliners fly in and out there remains, nonetheless, an extreme and continuing hazard of an airplane or glider dropping into the site, with consequences of the sort we have just seen in New York/Queens, if less in scale. A flaming fuel spill or engine impact can always take lives. LTltimately it raises a difficult question of who will be held accountable for allowing residential and commercial space to be built in a flight path, the developers or those who would provide permission7 CRIME EXPECTATIONS: It is not politically conect to discuss this in Boulder, but it is crucial, in the light of impact on surrounding neighborhoods, to broach the subject of crime in affordable housing azeas. At one moment, only eight months ago, there were fourteen outstanding warrants for arrest in the Glenwood affordable housing enclave near K-Mart, only a mile from McKenzie Junction. In this same compound, numerous unlicensed cars stand on the street for days, begging the question as to whether they are stolen. Boulder police seem relatively unresponsive to the problem. These facts and statistics are all publicly available through the Freedom of Informarion Act. Given the socially compromised quality of the site, only a greater rather than lesser crime potential e~cists from this site. ~ COST TO ALL: The ultimate costs to the City, County, taxpayers and neighbors to develop this site would be ' large. There is no doubt that the intersections at 47th Street, the Diagonal, Foothills and Kalmia would eventually have to be redeveloped. The complicating overpasses (Foothills, 47th) and the rail crossings (47th and Independence Road) will inevitably add millions of dollars in rework ' costs. The housing area would have to be protected from the extremely loud noise of the adjacent highways and train passage with a massive, costly sound wa1l. ' The loss of incoming view, the noise- and exhaust-polluted site, the compromised access, the isolated living site all combine to make this project an unacceptable risk for the City and the ' County and for those who akeady face ditTiculties in their passage through this chokepoint. For those who live nearby, the decrease in quality of life and exposure to the harm that this site promises, including the danger from auiation catastrophe, make this site absolutely unacceptable. ' 14 , ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' , ~ ~ , ~ ~ i 1 1 i 1 1 , Conclusion As stated earlier the rational for McKenzie Junction raises a number of disturbing questions. Are we, as a community willing to destroy pristine views in order to create a ghetto-like environment for residents? Will we trample the very intent of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as evidenced by the violation of numerous sections documented in this report? Do we want to make traffic worse by pushing commercial development to the edge of the City? Are the safety and quality of life concerns of the nearby family neighborhoods to be undermined for the sake of unneeded commercial development7 Is the job/housing imbalance a serious endeavor - 675 jobs ds 90 homes? Given the limited transportation corridors serving North and Northeast Boulder, Gunbarrel, Niwot, is the city willing to add to the traffic congestion and public safety of existing neighborhoods to gain so little in either tax base or affordable housing? Is the City expected to pay for the inevitable major medium and long-term infrastructure changes that will be reyuired in an effort to compensate for building on such a site? When is enough, enough7 Boulder has a multiplicity of places better suited for development than an isolated lot sunounded by a moat of concrete swimming with an ever increasing number of cazs, SUVs and commercial vehicles. As a City we pride ourselves in setting a national example. Let us do so by saying no to the idea that creating estranged communities within a community is a benefit. Furthermore, let us follow the considered view of the Boulder County Commissioners. They are in complete and unanimous opposition to development of the McKenzie site (see attached letter). 15 ~ r ~ Appendu~ ' A. Boulder County Commissioners' Letter in Opposition B. Boulder County Transportation System Evaluation Study , ~ 1 , , , ~ 1 ~ ~ i 1 1 1 , 16 ~ ~. , 1 ' ~ ' ' , , ' ' ~ ' ~ r ~ 1 , August 23, 2000 Post Office Box 471 . Boulder, Coloratlo 80.306 Board of County Commissioners 131h & Pearl Sireets • Boulder County Courthouse • Boulder, Colorotlo 80302 •(303) 441-3500 Rodger Ewy 4082 Old Westbury Ct Boulder, CO 80301 Deaz Mr. Ewy: ~ r~~ C-~`' fL~° ~,u; ~1lcken3te) Thank you for your letter outlining your concems with the development of the Gateway parcel in the City of Boulder. From first hearing of this proposal, we have consistently expressed our total opposition to the development of this Iand. It is our understanding that the City's staff has completed the initial review of this project and issued a detailed set of comments to the applicants. They have identified significant transportation issues which affect nearby streets, many of which are located in the county. 'I'hey have asked for. involvement from the County's staff on these issues which we will be providing. We would encourage you to attend the meetings that will be held prior to the revised plans being filed as well as to the hearing before the Planning Commission. Elizabeth Hanson is the case manager for this project and can be contacted with any questions. Be asswed that we will represent the concerns of the county residents on this proposed development, but that ultimately the decision is not within our jurisdiction. Sin ly, .~-~~ jU2l~,~ ) Ron Stewart, Chair Boulder County Commissioners ~ Paul Danisfi Boulder County Commissioner ~v ~` Mendez, Vice Chair der County Comnnissioners ~ Jana L Mendex Ronold K SYewaA ca,nH ~~~ counry c.ommlaswner Paul Dar~ Canh CanNOloner ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ , ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' , ~ ' ! BOULDER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY VOLUME I (Technical Analysis) PREPARED FOR: BOULDER COUNTY CONSORTIUM OF CITIES REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE PREPARED BY: BRW, INC. 1225 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 DENVER, CO 80202 MAY, 1997 , . ~ ' ' ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ , , ~ , ' SN ;719 -- LONGMONT DlAGONAL From Longmont to Boulder Distance: 90.5 Miles Tra~c Volume Today: 33,600 Average Daily Trips Travel Time Today: 17.7 Minutes in Peak Hour Tra~c Volume to Capacity Today; V/C = 0.69:1 (under capacityj Estimated 2020 Trafftc Volume: 59,800 Average Daily Trips Estimated 2020 T~avel Time: 2T.5 Minutes in Peak Hour Estimated 2020 Traffic Volume to Capa city: V!C = 1.35:1 (over capacify) 6 ~ .a~licdam' ~ ~~ ~ , A. Improve bus service / ' discourage driving ' Traffic Jam Survey 1999 Final Results Question 1 Trip on Diagonal between Longmont and Boulder , B. Build interchanges / get rid of traffic signals ~ ~ Strongly Support 538 (33%) Strongly Support 608 (37%) C. Add flyovers - HOV lanes ~ only/increase bus svc Strongly , Support ' ~ D. Do nothing ~ ~ ~ 363 (22%) Strongly Support 180 (12%) Somewhat Neutral Somewhat 9 Y `pP -Stron I Q ose Support Oppose 419 240 175 ` `263:' (26%) (14%) (11%) s.(16%)`'; Somewhat Neutral Somewhat " "`- Oppose ~Strongly: Support Oppose . ~~ , ;~ ~ / I n4n 352 188 158 ,.s343;:.. : ; 21 % ~ ) 11 % ~ ) 10% ~ ) . >: 2:1% :':'." .: `.: .. ~ :~ , ..:. ,; Somewhat Neutral Somewhat ,: 9 Y pp -Stron I 0 ose Support Oppose 419 207 231 :~399: ~ (26%) (13%) (14%) 'i;:q.:.~2`J,%) ::.:'.:. ~ Somewhat Neutral Somewhat . gtron I:O ±ose g Y Pp Support Oppose 109 202 224 836": (7%) (13%) (14%) ``:;(54%) Question 7 Would you support buying open space to restrict development and avoid future traffic congestion EVEN if it means a Iocai tax increase? ' , Strongly Support ' 1040 (59%) , Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongiy Oppose Support Oppose 263 81 88 285 (15%) (5%) (5%) (16%) ~ fi~e:p/C~/Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 4.Ohesults2.htm1(1 of 2) [t/31/2001 7:56:01 AM] ~. 1• ATTACHMENT E ASW McKenzie Property Concept Review Public Meeting November ].4, 2001 Questions and Comments from audience KarlAnuta.• Timing of the decision? RE: Decision will not be made at December 13 Planning Board. Not until there is application. Rodger Ewy,• Height exception request? How high do you want to build? RE: Do not know yet. Michael O'Keefe: Fourmile Canyon Creek Homeowners group brought in 42 questions they would like the developer to address. These deal with issues related to: traffic, environment, trails, costs, visual impacts, business uses, noise, housing and BVCP categories. RE: ASW staff will respond and distribute back to attendees. If build 90 housing units, and provides for about 1200 jobs... how does this impact the jobs/housing balance considerations of the Ciry? Site zoned for business How to incorporate housing? RE: Numbers are still up in the air. Which community groups have been contacted? Please set up a meeting to talk with neighboring homeowners. RE: Spoken to local community and service groups, Chamber, Thistle Housing, etc.. Col%en Ostland, has lived in Cattail Cove for 11 years. Noise concern. Has spent past five years wrangling with CDOT. Can not sleep in summer. Traffic Wildlife impacts. Prairie dogs and snakes and hawks are vanishing. What is the plan for wildlife conservation? Ponds, natural areas, animal population? Jim Pribyl Fourmile Creek neighbor.• fol%w up for Kathleen. ~on Sandos from Fourmile: Context: Entire open land south of neighborhood is slated for development. 16 acres NE of neighborhood is slated for development. Another 500 more homes in Palo Park. Increase in area density. Agenda Item # ~'~ Pag2 # .~-G- TRAFFIC: Fourmile not well connected to City by convenient routes. There is cut through traffic in our neighborhood; 2 routes out: 47th or 28th Street Any impacts to these two access points - create bottlenecks. ACCESS to development. There is huge inbound traffic in A.M. on Diagonal. Few choices for access, especially left turn. Iris access - low duty cycle lights. Jay Road adds the traffic to 47tn Kathleen Krager RE: traffic questions: ^ Preliminary work only. Site Plan needs to be finalized first. ^ Access needs to be pinned down. ^ Nothing is set in stone - we have to look at this from lots of angles. ^ To/from Longmont access is key. Working on scenarios/options to see if there may be a fix to improve area. Jim Pribyl: Please reconcile the 675 jobs and 172 car-traffic figures: generated for peak traffic times. Site has unique limited access issues; it is not well served by mass transit; little pedestrian access; SOV traffic. Can we get the dates and times for recent traffic counts? eillingles 5235Independence Rd. Tra~c on )ay and Independence: speed issues. Intersection safery issues. Extremely dangerous situation and I do not see a solution. Steve Durian from COB: Boulder Traffic Mitigation Program: call Bill Cowern 441-3266 RodgerEwy: (I call this) "Choke Point Charlie" - internal planning. Need to see consideration of neighborhood livability (car impacts), Orient the development more to people than cars; create access to trail system. Spine of pedestrian and bike use. Create more raised berms. More quiet spaces for families and kids; less asphalt. Matt Silverman: Concern for historic preservation of old oii well. 1901- this was a significant oil field, and the well on-site is last of the original wells. Significant part of Boulder history. This well is still producing. John Harding 3880 No. S~h: Tra~c impact on 47t" and Jay, Diagonal. Extremely concerned about traffic. Can not make left turn at Independence. When will traffic report be available for review? Agenda Item #..~._Page # 9~ RE: Timing of report depends upon timing of development application. Public notice to neighborhoods. Clarification of site plan review process. How are neighborhoods involved? Kathleen will meet with neighborhoods to go over traffic report when it is released. Who pays the costs of traffic management solutions? RE: The developer. We try to make growth pay its own way... for the most part. Col%en Ostland.• How will the neighboring existing businesses be affected? The service station and stuff on adjacent site. RE: Not at all. We aren't buying their land. Jim Pribyl,• Pleasant View soccer fields are a traffic issue that needs to be considered when doing the traffic report. There are lots of car trips and overparking on 47th during soccer season. Saturday and Sunday especially. BVCP - Pleasant View Park is a"special use facility" and not open as a public park. This area will not be open for public use, general use. This park will not provide a"park" benefit to new residents. Housing: what is considered affordable? It says 20% will be affordable. Affordable to whom? RE: Market to people with 60% of AMI. Will get more information. Please include your response to the affordable housing question with the neighbor's 42-question response document. Can you provide some metric information to describe the pricing structure? Matthew Landhoe (?): The site planning for this proposed concept seems to be done well. The office part and the perimeter need a better design treatment. Look at impacts to adjacent sites. Col%en Ostland.• Are there any solar applications planned? Energy requirements of new development should be considered. RE: To be considered. RodgerEwy,~ Style of the architecture. Look forward, not back. Should be contemporary - echo CU. Use styles and materials prevalent in the region. Flagstone, tiles... Design must relate to the area. Agends Item B~~Page R ~ COMMENTS COMPILED McKenzie Junction Concept Review November 14, 2001 i) Tonight's presentation gave me: plenty 2 responses enough 3 responses (one person wrote in "some") marginal 1 response notenough 2responses information about the concept review process and the proposed development at McKenzie 7unction. ~ 1) I would like to see more information about: Traffic congestion! Especially at the intersection of Independence and 119. This intersection is already dangerous. Transportation and noise I would like to see all answers to Michael 0'Keefe's questions and receive a copy of the meeting list. Plans to preserve the oil well. Traffic planning Impact on NOISE! Traffic studies, alternative transportation access/planning (bus, bike, ped...) 2) My key concerns/interests pertain to: (circle all that apply) Transportation 4 circied Bldg. Height 4 circled Landscaping 2 circled Noise 6 circled Historic preservation of oil well 3 circled Affordable housing none Mixed use proposed 1 circied Other: TRAFFIC, The buildings (offices) look like factories; Keep drawing! Airport approach info; xeriscape? Livability of housing qqenda Item ~ ~ ~ Page # ~G~. The meeting set-up and presentation :(Circle one/comment) Worked well 6 circled (1 excellent) Did not work for me because... traffic questions were not answered! Sound problem 3) I have the following questions and would like project staff to contact me. (Please write your question(s) on the back of this form and lea ve your name and phone number. Project staff will fol%w up with you. ) William Ingalls 5325 Independence Rd Boulder 80301 303-516-0462 Marjorie Maagoe mpmaagoe a,vahoo.com Would like to receive notes. (Molly note: League of Women Voters) James Pribyl J ames. Pribvl(c~,l evel3. com 720-888-7328 Matt Silverman Colleen Ostberel Rodger Ewy 303-449-3761 303-786-9755 303-449-8049 (two comment forms with no contact info) Agenda Item A~~ Page # l~ / ATTACHMENT F ~ McKenzie Junction (Gateway Property)~ Concept Plan Review Submitted by AS W Realty Partners LLC August 6, 2001 Project Summary McKenzie Junction is a mixed-use development proposed for a 20-acre site bounded by the Diagonal Highway (both northbound and southbound), Kalmia Road and 47`h Street. The project will incorporate a mix of housing units, live/work buildings, and commercial office space, with limited retail services. This property has long been identified as a commercial site, at least since Boulder's annexation of the property in 1981. This concept development plan has been prepared in response to suggestions and comments made during trvo previous pre-application reviews held earlier this spring, as well as discixssions with members of the community. As a result of these discussions, the plan has evolved from a commercial office project to a true mixed-use development. Proposed uses include housing, commercial office space, and `9ive/work" space. The southern part of the site-the area least influence@ by the southbound Diagonal Highway-is pianned as a residential neighborhood with about 90 housing units. Commercial office buildings are located at the northern part of the site, where the two highways converge. A transitional, "live/work" component is located between ttte residential neighborhood and office district. The live/work space would be designed as flexible space that could accommodate a combination of residential, service commercial, and artisan uses. We anticipate there might be another 50 housing units within this component of the plan. The plan incorporates an open space network that provides a variety of spaces. A central park, or commons, lies at the heart of the project, as an internal focus that unites the various uses on the property and provides an interface between the commercial and residential components of the plan. There are also smallar, informal courtyards within the residential community, as well as private open spaces attached to ground floor units. The office buildings are sited to create a more formal plaza at the north end of the site, which provides an amenity to office workers and reinforces the "gateway" aspect of the project. Perimeter landscaping, particularly along the Diagonal Highway, provides a transition between McKenzie Junction and adjoining open space. Site Influences The site is located at the junction of two major highways: the Diagonal Highway and Foothills Parkway. The Foothills Parkway merges into the Diagonal at this site, giving ~ In previous submissions this site has baen given the name "Gateway". For this review we are reverting to the historic name for the property, which was once part of the McKenzie Ranch, and [he site of McKenzie Well No. 1. McKenzie Junction Site Concept Review /Da Agendattemf "~/.__ the property visual prominence from both highways. This property serves as a major gateway into Boulder, particularly those coming into town along the Diagonal, from the direction of Gun Barrel and Longmont. The site is adjoined by permanent open space on the north, east and west sides, The interFace between M'cKenzie Junction and the open space has been carefully considered. Setbacks along the highways provide a landscaped buffer. The riparian landscape of the Four Mile Creek has been extended into the office plaza and central pazk, setting a landscaped theme for the development. South of this site there aze several small-scale commercial buildings, including a gas station, rental car lot and beauty shop. These uses are likely to be redeveloped at some future date. Because of its location and surrounding uses, this project is something of an "island". The intent of the plan is to create a distinctive environment and residential neighborhood. Strategies for Environmental lmpact Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Visual Impacts The visual impact of the project has been identified as a critical issue, as the site is very visible to motorists and passengers on both the northbound and southbound Diagonal Highway. In laying out the site, we have been very cognizant of the visual importance of the site, and attempted to minimize impacts. From the southbound Diagonal, there are prominent views of the Flatirons. For drivers and passengers approaching the site from the north, the first view of the property will be of the existing cottonwoods along Four Mile Creek, which are taller than the proposed structures. After passing these trees, the view opens up for a short distance, before being blocked by the 47`h Street overpass. To protect the views of the Flatirons, we have aligned the short side of the office buildings toward the north, and shifted them towazd the east side of the property. The office buildings and landscape will reinforce, through their siting and design, this location as a gateway to Boulder. The view alon~ 47~h Street is also important. The proposed housing near the corner of Kalmia and 47` would be compatible with other residential uses further north along 47`h. The parkin~ structure, which occupies the remaining frontage along 47`h Street, is located near the 47` Street overpass and below eye level. In refining the plan for McKenzie Junction, we plan to use three-dimensional computer modeling to simulate views of the properiy from both 47`h Street and the southbound Diagonal Highway, in order to understand the impact of the project on existing views, as well as the view that we will be creating. Traf£c Vehicular access to the project is limited to two points: one entrance along the northbound Diagonal, and one along Kalmia. There will be no access from the other McKenzie Junction Site Concept Review AgendaltemA ~_2~ PepB#...~~- streets. Turning movements will be restricted to encourage traffic on the major highways and to discourage use of local streets, particulazly Independence Road, to access this site. The proposed land uses have been chosen specifically to reduce traffic impacts at both the local and regional level. At the regional level, the inclusion of a significant number of housing units helps to address the City's concerns over jobs/housing balance and the impacts on the regional transportation system that this imbalance is causi.ng. At the local level, the mix of housing and commercial uses and the provision for limited retail services will help reduce trips by the projects residents and workers. Within the project, a series of local streets will provide access to the various uses. The blocks formed by these local streets will be short, small in scale, and provide a pedestrian-friendly environment. We have prepared a preliminary traffic analysis for this submission, and will prepare a full traffic analysis for the project. Travel Demand Mana~ement Strate ig_es The project will incorporate a number of strategies to mitigate traffic demand. Most importantly, the uses themselves will work to reduce trips. Residents of Boulder will have the opportunity to both live and work at this site, which would especially mitigate traffic during the peak, commute hours. We also anticipate incorporating small service retail uses that would serve the residents and businesses on site. These may include on- site laundry and dry cleaner drop-off, office-supply/copy shop, day care, and lunch room/deli. We witl also provide for one or more bus stops for local transit service. The development will promote the use of alternate modes of travel by providing bicycle parking, showers for employees, and excellent pedestrian connections within the site. The site is well located to provide connections to the Four Mile Creek Trail, via the 47~h Street bike path. The plan also seeks to discourage multiple trips to and from the site. Sheltered sitting areas would provide places for employees to use during breaks and lunch hours. Attractive locations on-site, as well as a place to buy sandwiches, reduces the need for employees to drive off-site during the day, and thus makes it more Iikely that employees will be willing to carpool. Parking The plan disperses parking throughout the site, in structures and small surface lots. The parking for residential units is located within the structures, in garages located off parking courts. The site plan incorporates small surface lots throughout the development to provide convenient short-term and visitor parking, avoiding the need for large surface lots. Almost half the pazking is located in two structures, which aze located where they will have the least visual impact. McKenzie Junction Site Concept Review Agenda Item #~AgBf ~0 A three-level structure (two levels above ground, plus grade) is proposed at the intersection of the Diagonal and 47`h Street. Because 47`h Street is elevated as it passes over the Diagonal Highway, travelers along 47`h Street would, for the most part, look over and beyond the structure, rather than into it. The short fapade of the parking garage along the Diagonal Highway would be lower and less prominent than the existing 47`n Street overpass. A single level of subterranean parking is located below the two office buildings at the north end of the site, where the visual impact will be minimal. The landscape design incorporates perimeter berms along the Diagonal Highway. These berms will serve two purposes: to buffer the interior of the property from the noise and views of the highways, and to screen pazking azeas from the views of passing motorists. Airport Influence Zone A very small portion of the property, at the southernmost edge, is located within the Airport Influence Zone Area 2 of the Boulder Airport Plan. New residential development is not permitted within this zone. Our design locates all housing units outside the zone. Existing Oil Well There is an existing oil well on the site, McKenzie Well No.l. The site is reportedly the oldest continuously producing well in the country. Today, however, the production is minimal and the well does not seem to be economic. The plan is designed to accommodate the continued operation of the well, which only requires occasional truck access. If the well is capped in the future, artifacts of the well--or other acknowledgement of its history-would be incorporated into the office plaza as a feature of the site. Drainage It is our understanding that issues regarding drainage on this site have been resolved conceptually through engineering analyses prepared as part of prior applications. We propose to take the direction indicated in those studies, with most of the drainage flowing towazd Four Mile Creek. There will be detention basins at the north and south end of the property. Development Program The following table represents a preliminary development program for the site. The program envisions a mix of residential and commercial office uses. About one third of the space is proposed to be "flex" space, or live/work space that could accommodate a mix of "loft-style" housing and space that could accommodate professional services and small businesses. The commercial office space is likely to be leased to multiple tenants, but possibly a single tenant. We are particulazly interested in identifying a local institution or business McKenzie Junction Site Concept Review ~q. " Agenda Item # ~~, :~repB i ~~ that might want to consolidate or expand its existing operations in Boulder. The residential units would ba sold as condominiums or townhouses. The live/work space would be subdivided as condominiums, with space sold or leased. A portion of this space would be priced to meet the city's affordability requirements. The target market for the live/work space would be local businesses that would like the security of owning their own space, and the protection from escalating rents that ownership provides. We propose to work with the small business development center to identify potential users, as well as needed services and requirements. Preliminary Development Program Housing Use Units arking Percent of Total Gross Floor Area Attached Residential (townhomes 90 135 28% 99,000 & stacked units) Live/Work 50 397 34% 119,000 Office - 450 38% 135,000 Total 140 982 100% 353,000 Parking Provided Contained within Residential Units 135 14% Surface Lots 287 29% On-street 90 9% Structured (below grade) 190 19% Structured (above grade) 280 29% Total 982 Consideration of Alternative or Supplemental Uses ASW will consider public uses as well, including such possibilities as a transit center, day care center, and other services that would be of value to the surrounding community as well as the residents of McKenzie Junction. McKenzie Junction Site Concept Review Agenda Item # ~~ Pepe ~ ~~ ~ Housing The following is a preliminary unit mix and estimate of proposed home prices. Twenty percent of the total units would be permanently affordable. We would also consider increasing the mix of affordable units, and will compete for additional subsidies available from the City. The inix and pricing of the mazket rate units is likely to change, based on the final design and development costs. However, our goal for the market rate units is to price them to be affordable to moderate-income residents of Boulder. Our target market will be existing residents of Boulder who cannot find affordable, ownership housing within the city. Prelitninary Uuit NTiac Number F[oorArea Price s.. Avera ePrice !~'ordable 1 Bedroom 4 675 $ 148 $ 100,000 2 Bedroom 4 825 142 117,000 2 Bedroom 5 975 146 142,000 3 Bedroom 5 1,125 139 156,000 Subtotal Affordable 18 917 143 131,000 Market 1 Bedroom 18 850 212 180,300 2 Bedroom 36 1,100 191 209,800 3 Bedroom 18 1,400 175 245,200 Subtotal Market 72 1,113 190 211,275 Total 90 96,600 $ 182 $ 195,220 ARCH/TECTURAL CHARACTER Waze Malcomb and Wolff/Lyon Architects have been selected as tha azchitects for the project. They are in the process of developing the architectural vocabulary for the project, as illustrated in the sketches attached to this proposal. The following are some preliminary concepts. The corporate buildings on the Northem portion of the site will take on an architectural character reflective of agricultural building forms of the surrounding agrarian environment. The materials would be consistent with this style of architecture. The roof will be a standing seam metal deck. The walls will be a combination of concrete stucco, shiplap siding with accents of natural corrugated metal and stone at the entrance elements. The "live/work" flex units adjacent to the corporate will take on a similar aesthetic, using the same materials palette as the office buildings. However, the building massing and detailing are smaller in scale, keeping in character with the smaller unit sizes and the varying uses. McKenzie Junction Site Concept Review /,O, l~qentla Item #~eQeS~ The "live/work" flex units on the west side of the central pazk will provide a transition to residential scale and chazacter. In order to create a strong sense of place and civic pride within the project, the architectural character of these buildings will take on western "Main Street" architecture to provide continuity in expression with the street oriented architecture of Downtown Boulder. Simple comices, generous awnings, strong street facades with large windows will be the common elements of these buildings. Stucco in various colors, brick and siding will be the dominant materials palette. The architectural character of the residential units will be similar to the character of western `9ive/work" flex units. Again the elements of the western "Main StreeP' architecture will be the theme. However, the massing will be divided to smaller masses in order to break down the scale. Front porches and balconies will help to create a comfortable residentiai feeling. In order to enhance a sense of belonging and to keep "eyes on the streeY', townhomes will have individual entrances directly from the street or from the green courts. Neighborhood Meetings It is our intent to conduct meetings with neighborhood groups and citizens who have expressed concerns with this development proposal in the past. We would appreciate a list of those groups or individuals whom planning department staff believes would be appropriate for such contact. Also, we would welcome the presence of representatives of the City at these meetings. McKenzie Junction Site Concept Review Agenda item #~ege # _ /0 ~ ASW Realty Partners ASW Realty Partners LLC is an integrated real estate development firm, with experience developing residential and commercial properties. Through excellence of design and a collaborative process, ASW approaches each development as a unique opportunity to addresses the needs and desires of the ]ocal community. ASW has an extensive track record in affordable housing. After a competitive selection process, Eagle County and the Town of Vail chose ASW to develop approximately 300 affordable housing units in Edwards, Colorado. The project is being developed in a joint venture between ASW, Eagle County and the Town of Vail. In Steamboat Springs, Colorado, ASW is nearing completion on a 54-unit townhome development that provides affordable housing to local residents. In this project, ASW entered into an agreement with the Regional Affordable Living Foundation to mazket the townhomes exclusively to local residents during an initial marketing period. In Santa Fe, New Mexico, ASW is developing the largest privately-sponsored affordable housing project in Santa Fe's history. Thirty-five percent of the homes in the 479-home subdivision are offered at restricted prices, and ali of the homes are priced at a level affordable to moderate income households. Except for size, the affordable houses are undistinguishable from, and sit side-by-side the market rate homes. Nava Ade was recently recognized with a Gold Nugget awazd for providing high quality, affordable housing. In recent years, ASW has received numerous awards for excellence in design and development, including recognition by local and national organizations. The New Mexico Home Builders Association recently recognized ASW as the top builder in the state, for the second consecutive year. McKenzie Junction Site Concept Review Agenda Item R ~~ Page ~ ~~ .. . ~,.~-~ ~ - t gowers ~ Krager, ~nc. July 29, 2001 Mr. Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer City of Boulder Public Works Post Office Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 303 441 1880 fax 441 3241 Re: McKenzie Commons 01371sd.wps Dear Steve: Per your request, I have prepared this traffic analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the development of a multi-use project at SH 119 and Foothills Parkway known as McKenzie Commons (formerly Gateway Property). This analysis attempts to address the concerns regarding access and nearby intersections for the plan sketch review of this p~oject. A more detailed analysis will be completed with the plan submittal. The McKenzie Commons site is located on the north side of Kaimia Street between Foothills Parkway and SH 119 (Diagonal Highway). The site location is shown in Figure 1, attached. The site is proposed to have full movement access to Kaimia Street and 3/4 access to SH 119. As part of this project, the west -eg of the SH 119 / Kalmia intersection would be restricted to right turns only. This configuration wilt still provide adequate access to the site while protecting the neighborhood east of McKenzie Commons from increased cut-through traffic on Independence Street. Traffic counts of existing AM/PM Peak Hour turning movement traffic were taken at the site. Count data have been attached for your review. Trip generation for the full build-out of the site is shown in Table 1. These projections are based on trip generation factors from the "ITE Trip Generation Report". ITE does not provide a standard trip factor for livelwork, so I have applied the rate for a single-family dwelling unit. Since this rate would atready discount the reduced work trips, I have not applied any further trip reductions for this land use. I have applied a 15 percent Travel Demand Management (TDM) reduction to the multi-family and office trips. Travel demand strategies for this project are described in the Concept Pian Review. (390 Stuart Street, ~arriage f-jouse penver, CO 80204-(243 -("(3o3)445-2626 ~Cioj)446-0270 A~ende Item ~ ~_ ~ ~~ 1~-~ •_ : Mr. Steve Llurian City of Boulder Public Works July 29, 2091 TABLE 1 'Tt2AFFIC GENERATION SUMMARY ` TOTAL TRIPS GENERATED ITE , ADT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CODE LAND USE SIZE ENTER EXIT TOTAL '' ENTER EXIT TOTAL Multi-Family ~i , 230 (Residential g0 DU 527 I 7 33 I 40 33 16 ' 49 Condominium/ i Townhouse Live/Work 210 ~Single-Family 50 DU 478 9 29 ''38 ' 32 18 ! 50 Detached Housing) ' 710 General O~ce 135 KSF 1,486 185 26 ~~ 211 34 167 ! 201 TOTALS: 2,491 201 88 i 289 I - 99 - 201 - r-- I 300 LESS 15%TDM REDUCTION for ~ I ~72 79 '' 251 I 89 - 174 -- I 263 Multi-Family and Office Uses: ; , DU = Development Unit KSF = Thousand Square Feet Gross Floor Area Trip distribution for the site was based on the location of the site in relation to the major street system. Trip distribution in shown on Figure 2, attached. Traffic assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the roadway network. Site-generated trip assignments are shown on Figures 3a and 3b. Short-Term background tra~c (Year 2003) was developed by applying a one percent annual growth factor to the existing traffic counts. The short-term background traffic is shown in Figures 4a and 4b. Year 2020 background traffic projections were developed using a 40 percent growth factor. The long-term background traffic projections are shown on Figures 5a and 5b. Site-generated traffic was combined with the background traffic to determine the total projected traffic in the study area. The resulting total traffic projections are provided on Figures 6a, 6b, 7a, and 7b. Using these traffic projections, I analyzed the operations of the two site access drives and the intersections of Kalmia/SH 119 and Kalmia/47th Street. My analysis indicates that the addition of traffic from the McKenzie Commons will have very little impact on the surroun- ding street system. A summary of the results are provided in Tables 2a/2b and 3a/3b. The computer output of the capacity analyses are attached for your review. Aganda Item A ~'~ P2ge #.~_. Mr. Steve Ourian City of Boulder Public Works July 29, 20~1 TABCE 2a' INTERSECTION GAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFF IC- YEAR 2003 INTERSECTION , ~ LEVEL OF SERVICE IANE GROUPS ' BACKGROUND ! TOTAL SH 119 ! Kalmia (Unsignalized) ~ Eastbound Right Tums ' A(87) A(9.1) Westbound Left Tums I F(86.0) , F(170.0) Westbound Right Turns ~~ C(16.6) , C(18.0) Southbound Left I A(9.9) B(10.2) 47th Street / Kalmia (Unsignalized) ' ' Westbound Left and Right Tums ', A(8.9) j A(9.9) Southbound Left Tums i q(7.5) I A(7.5) Kaimia / South Access (Unsignalized) i ; Eastbound Left Turns j " ~ A(7.3) Southbound Left Tums li " ~ A(9.3) Southbound Right Tums " i A (8.5) SH 119 / East Access ' Eastbound Right Turns " A (9.1) Northbound Left Tums " ~ A(7.7) TABLE 2b INTERSECTION CAPAC1tY ANALYSIS SUMMARY PM PEAK HOUR TFtAFFIC - YEAR 2003 ~ INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GROUPS ' BACKGROUND ~ TOTAL SH 119 / Kalmia (Unsignalized) I Eastbound Right Tums ~i A(92) ~ B(10.3) Westbound Left Tums F(191.7) ; F(416.5) Westbound Right Tums i D(29.2) ' D(30.7) Southbound Left I B(13,4) I, B(13.7) 47th Street / Kalmia (Unsignalized) I ' Westbound Left and Right Tums i B(10,2) B(11.2) Southbound Left Tums A(7.8) A(7.9) Kalmia / South Access (Unsignalized) ! Eastbound Left Tums ~ - I A(7.4) Southbound Left Tums - A (9.2) Southbound Right Tums - A (8.7) SH 119 / East Acxess I Eastbound Right Tums - B(10.5) Northbound Left Tums - A (7.9) KEY: Level of Service (Control Delay in seconds/vehicle) Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page w ~~ Mr. Steve Qurian_ City of Boulder Public Works July 29, 20~1 ` TABLE 3a 1N7ERSECTION CAPACITY,ANALYSIS SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC - YEAR 2020 INTERSECTION , LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GROUPS i BACKGROUND '' TOTAL SH 119 / Kalmia (Unsignalized) ~ Eastbound Right Tums , A(8.9) A(9.3) Westbound Left Tums ~ F(730.6) F(>9000) Westbound Right Turns D(25.9) D(28.6) Southbound Left B (11.7) B (12.2) 47th Street / Kalmia (Unsignalized) ' Westbound Left and Right Tums ~ A(9.4) i B(10.7) Southbound Left Tums I A(7.6) i A(7.7) Kalmia / South Access (Unsignalized) ~ Eastbound Left Tums ~i " A (7.4) Southbound Left Tums ', " ' A (9.3) Southbound Right Turns ' " A (8.8) SH 119 / East Access ' j Eastbound Right Tums " ' A (9.3) Northbound Left Turns " A (7.8) TABLE 3b INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC `- YEAR 2020 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GROUPS I BACKGROUND ' TOTAL SH 119 / Kalmia (Unsignalized) I ~ Eastbound Right Tums ~ A(9.6) ; B(10.8) Westbound Left Tums ' F(>9000) I F(>9000) Westbound Right Turns I F(62.6) ( F(66.4) Southbound Left I C(19.7) C(20.3) 47th Street / Kalmia (Unsignalized) Westbound Left and Right Tums B(11.3) B(12.9) Southbound Left Tums I A(8.2) A(8.2) Kalmia / South Access (Unsignalized) Eastbound Left Tums - A (7.4) Southbound Left Tums - A (9.3) Southbound Right Tums - A (8.8) SH 119 / East Access Eastbound Right Tums - B (11.3) Northbound Left Tums - A (8.1) KEY: Level of Service (Control Delay in seconds/vehicle) Agenda Item #~Page p // ~ Mr. Steve Qurian . ' ~ -- _ July 29, 20~1 City of Boulder Public Works The 3/4 access to SH 119 will require an access permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation. At this location SH 119 is classified as a NRA highway, with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. According to the State Highway Access Code, the following design standards will need to be accommodated: At the 3/4 accpc~ Southbound right turn Northbound left turn At Kalmia/Inde~endence Southbound right turn Southbound left turn 273-foot decel, 162-foot taper 70-foot storage, 273-foot decel, 162-foot taper 273-foot decel, 162-foot taper 20-foot storage, 273-foot decel, 162-foot taper Based on the proposed site plan, these design requirements can be met without any variances or waivers. Based on my analysis, McKenzie Commons will have minimal impact on the surrounding street system. Colorado Department of Transportation requirements for access to SH 119 can be met. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ~/~ Kathleen L. Krager, P, PTOE Transportation Engineer attachments Agenda Item # ~~ Page # ~~ nov Z7 O1 03:59p Auerbach Colo __ 970-871-9362 _ REALTY PARTNERS,LLC November 26, 2~01 Liz I3anson, Planner City of Boulder Planning Deparlment Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Liz I would like to take t}tis opportunity to provide you some thoughts in response to the Land Use Review Results and Comments for McKenzie Junction dated August 30, 2001. We ve encouraged that you have recognized the creativity of our Conceptual Plan. Tlvs creativity is a direct result of cazefully listening to input from a variety of different sources, particulazly Plazu~nig staff. The result is a plan that presents an innovative design, creating a livable new neighborhood center. Your Review Fnidings identifies thtee key issues for us as we proceed with our plans for creating a new neighborhood on this property. The first issue you define is whether this property "can be developed into a livable neighborhood for residents and office workers." The second issue you identify is for our new neighborhood to "project a positive and attractive exterior image as a major gateway to Boulder." The final issue you identify is to create "a successful iraffic mitigation pmgram." The first issue over livability contains two elements, isolation and major roadways. You recognize that our property has become sonlewhat of an island surrounded by roads. But it is not just the roads that create this isolation. Many neighborhoods are adjacent to major roads, even in Boulder. It is also the open space that surrounds this area, which combines with the roads, to foster this sense of isolation. The City of Boulder has purchased major tracts of land in this unmediate azea in order to create an open space entry and but~er into Boulder. This open space creates a strong demarcation of the urban areas of Boulder and Boulder County. Any development at the edge of this demarcation, whether it is the established commercial uses across Kalmia Street from our praperty or the Four Mile Creek neighborhood wil! face the same challenges. Resolving this challenge has required creative design solutions. The first element of our solution is the addition of P.O. Box 77072~ Steamboat Springs, CO 8Q477 1120 South Lincoln Ave. Suite 204 Agenda ltem #~epe ~-~- Tel: 970-871-9368 • Fax. 970-871-9362 ' ~ Nov 27 O1 04:OOp fluerbach Colo _ 970-871-9362 ~ lnllCen~~ .~y ]y ~f11IN~11'.11Uil~P iLaLd~ housing to our plan. Providing a mixture of both residents and offices will create a synergistic vitality to the neighborhood. This mixture will foster the oppoRunity for employees to live within the neighborhood and residents to work within the neighborhood. Our plans provide for the inclusion of services that support the office and residentiai uses. Such support services as day care, sandwich shop, office supply, and dry cleaners will contribute to this development functioning as a new neighborhood center. We do not expect it to function independently, but we do expect this development to become an identifiable neighborhood within the larger city of Boulder. With this as our foundation we can then move into the physical layout and design of the neighborhood. Our design reflects a human scale neighborhood though reduced massing of buildings, orienting buildings to create a sense of glace within the neighborhood, dispersing pazking, and providing about 6 acres of open space, parks and plazas. This hnman scale is one positive reflection of Boulder. Another positive image will be the architectural chazacter oP the buildings. The agrarian theme of the otTice and flex space buildings are intended to be reflective of the outlying agricultural uses, although much work needs to be done to reSne the architecture itself. We have begun to address traffic concerns through the preliminary tcatiic report submiCted with this Conceptual Plan application. We are encouraged that this report demonstrates that practical traffic solutions are available. We do not have all the solutions at this point in time, but we are confident that the our Traffic Impact Report prepared far the Site Plan Review will provide these solutions. Access/Circulation Hwy 119 Access Katlileen Krager is aware of the concerns identified by Steve Durian, City of Boulder and Tess Jones, CDOT and has taken them under advisement. Meetings with Steve and Tess have identified the variance to the CDOT Access Code as the preferred option at this point in time. Our Tra~c Impact Analysis, prepared as part of the Site Plan Review, will provide the necessary details. On-Site Circulation 1. Access to the Four Mile Creek tcail can be provided via the existing 47th Street bike lane. An underpass is not a viable option. Agentla item A ~D ~ Paga #// ° no~ 27 O1 04:03p - Huerbach Colo ~ ~~ 970-871-9362 ~ ~ ~3ii'.AII,~ I~Aff3'Il7~IE~9 IIdILQ; 2. We have not reached a final conclusion on the disposition of the internal roads. Our current thoughts are that the principal roads will be dedicated rights-of-way. 3. Our plans include provisions for transit stops within the development. We welcome an opportunity to work with staff to define specific locations. 4. We understand the critical nature, of the TDM strategies. Our Traffic Impact Analysis will specify those strategies at the Site Plan Review application. Countx of Boutder Comments t. We have not worked out the details of the ttansit connections at this Conceptual Plan level of planning. Our Tra$ic Impact Analysis will specify those connections at the Site Plan Review application. 2. Our TDM will provide for a variety of strategies, including biking and pedestrians. Justifications will be provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis of the Site Plan Review applicaYion. 3. If by "daytime occupancy vs. resident occupancy" they mean workers and residents then - 800 workers and 300 residents, based on one workes for every 250 square feet and 2 residents per housing unit. The general o~ce uses aze expected to generate 1,486 ADT, with 211 trips am peak and 201 pm peak. The "Ilex space" is expected to generate 478 ADT, with 38 trips am peak and 50 pm peak. And the residential uses are expected to generate 527 ADT, with 40 trips am peak and 49 pm peak. 4. It is our understanding that a regional transit stop and satellite centers have been evaluated and rejected for this property. 5. Cut through traffic was raised as a concern in our neighborhood meeting. Our Traffic Impact Analysis will specifically address this concern at the Site Plan Review application. Airport Inlluence Zone We aze aware of the Airport Influence Zones (AIZ-2 & Zone 4) that affect our property. The proposed design complies with the eaosting restrictions on new residential uses within the AIZ-2 wne. The AIZ-2 boundary will be added to the Conceptual Plan to demonstrate this compliance. Aganda Item # ~R" Page ~.,~L.~.- nov Z7 O1 o4:O5p Ruerbaah Golo 970-871-9362 ~ 1NlleAllLll ll 1Ce`S11Nll1V1G1NnY9 LdLdU.. Building Design Architectural Character - The suggested azchitectural character of the office buildings are derived from the agricultural surroundings of Boulder, although we aze looking at options for the architecture for the project. Simulation of Proposed Buildings - It is our intent to prepare a computer based visual analysis of the proposal at the Site Plan Review application. Height ModificaYion - Yes, it is our intent to pursue a building height variance to allow for some rooflines and architectural features to exceed35 feet. DruinuQe 1. We have been advised as to the challenges that this property presents with respect to drainage. Previous engineering plans have identified reasonable solutions. It is our intent to evaluate these previous plans for adaptation to our site design. 2. Our plans have not yet evolved to the point of considering stormwater quality. It is our intent to incorporate these requirements and suggestions as we proceed with our engineering plans. Thank you for this information. 3. We will pursue the suggestion of contacting the ditch company responsible for the Farmers Ditch. Thank you for this informatioa 4. We will evaluate the need for dewatering and drainage facilities as we proceed with more detailed designs. Thank you for this information. 5. The ofl well is not owned nor operated by us. We have no authority to nnpose stormwater protection plans. We will design our stormwater system to avoid conflicts with, or impacts from, the continued operation of the oil well. 6. We will consider the possibility of contazuinated groundwater conveyance with utility line installation. However, our Phase I Environmental study found no evidence of groundwater contamination. Age~Ma Ilem I~Pege i //~ Nov 27 O1 04:O5p fluerbach Colo ~ 1AVt'.nuLell ll 1LY11NU1VL.1Nil~y ll.ellell.. EnQineering 970-871-9362 It is our intettt to subdivide the property. We will initiate the subdivision with the Site Plan Review if possible. 2. Thank you for this information. 3. Thank you for this information. Flood Control l. Thank you for this information. 2. lt is our intent to comply with the City's flood control regulations. Thank you for this information. 3. Thank you for this information. Land Use Site Amenities - It is our intent to incorporate certain support services into our new neighborhood. Those services include day caze, coffee shop, of6ce supply, dry cleaners, and deli. Allowed Land Uses - Thank you for this verification. Possible Use Review - It is our intent to submit use review requests concurrent with our Site Plan Review. Count~of Boulder Comments 1. We have no plans to provide any guarantees that residential units are occupied by workers on the site. 2. Again, we have no plans to provide any guarantees that residential units are occupied by workers on the site. We have no plans to "ivatch resident sldlls" with "work on-site: ' Agenaat~m~_ ~_~ Pep~t~ Mov 27 O1 04:08p Ruerbsch Colo ~ 970-871-9362 ~ 1hVL'EiVL~ll 1i 1CLS11IUll1V.IPe1S6il~9llaL.eU. 6. Our projection that the "flex space" will provide an additional 50 residential units is an estimate that is subject to the market. The concept of the "flex space" would allow for the possibility that it all become either residential use or commercial use. However, we do believe this is a high probability. 7. We are still exploring mechanisms to control the support service space and uses. The n~ost unmediate solution would be deed restrictions placed upon the space. The specifics of the contro1s will be identified in the Site Plan Review application. 8. Our Conceptual Plans have not evolved far enough to include the details of controls for satellite dishes, roof top antennas, and climate control equipment. We anticipate havnig this information available once azchitectural plans have been fmalized. Landscaoinx We will take the suggestion of "a stronger use of landscaping" to provide "a unique entryway" under advisement in our future refinements of the landscaging plasi. Miscellaneous We will take steps to clarify that the northern triangle is part of this application. The park at the center of the neighborhood is about one half acre in size. We haue calculated that our plans provide for about 6 acres of open space, including the 2.6 acres in the northern triangle. Open Space and Mountain Parks The dedication of the 2.6 acre northern triangle is a possibility that we would be open to pursuing. It would appeaz to be consistent with our plans for this parcel to be open space. It is important to note that our plans require this area to serve some drainage functions, the details of which are not determined at this time. Agenda Item A G' ~ Page N 1~_ nov P7 O1 04:1Op Ruerbach Colo 970-871-9362 ~ tALCet1111all ll ~6111Nll1V1Pd1NeYq Ldlld1L Parkin Parking Layout - The parking areas will be included in our visual analysis prepared for the Site Plan Review. Estimated parking Calculation - The parking calculation for the flexible space was based on 100 percent office use-one space per 300 square feet. This calculation may change, based on the final mix of uses, and the number of residential units and bedroom count. It is likely that the final requirement will be less, since residential use, on a space per square foot basis, tends to be less than for office use. The plan does propose that on-street pazking be used to satisfy some of the development's parking requirements, which might require a variance. Plun Documentations Thank you for the commendation of our submittal material. The AIZ-2 will be added to the Conceptual Plans. We would prefer to maintain flexibility with the "flex" space, so that we can vary the balance between residential and non-residential use based on the demands of the market. We understand that, as we finalize plans for specific buildings, we may need to pin down the number of residential units and bedroom count. At the plan review level, however, we would like to maintain as much flexibility as possible. It would be our preference to wait until the Site Plan to illustrate the centerlines of all roads and highways. The survey documents that we have for the e~sting streets do not include delineation of the centerlines. In addition, our Conceptual Pla~i does not include engineered road design, wlvch would typically define proposed road center-ines. Review Proeess Site Desirn "Flex-units" - In general the concept with the flex space is that the ground floor would be used for studio, non-retail commercial or professional space, e.g., an architect's or an aceountant's ofiice, with the upper floor used primarily for residential uses. The upper p~ende Item A~Page B ~- Nov 29 01 04:11p Fuerbach Colo 970-871-9362 _ ~ ~.9II.'!C~ IPAIP3~'iYIG~fl II.ILCC floor and ground floor might or might not be internally connected. In some cases, both floors might be used as studio space. We have not Snalized the architectural concept for the buildings, which not orily require an innovative approach in terms of land use and plaYming, but also require innovative approaches to building codes and access issues, Open Space Requirement - As mentioned above, we have calculated our plan to provide about 6 acres of open space. Open Space Placement/Use - We have not gone to the detaIl of providing a specific use program for each open space area. We will provide those details at the Site Plan Review application. Oil Well - We welcome input on oil well and our plans for a historic park to accommodate it long term. Utilities 1. We have been advised of the challenges that we face in providing water service to our property. Thank you for this information. 2. The Site Plan Review application will contain detailed engineering for sewer service. 3. Thank you for this information. 4. An exchision of trees within 10 feet of all underground utility lines may prove to be a challenging limitation for the quality of our landscape plan. We will be swe that our landscape architect has these limitations in mind when preparing future landscape plans. 5. Thank you for this information. 6. Thank you for this infomiation. Open S ace und Mountuin Parks The location of this ditch is not evident in the field. There is no evidence of its use in recent history. It is unlikely that our development plans can accommodate the option of leaving it open and "in-place" across the property. It may be feasible to "re-route" il by l~qenda ile~n # ~ ~ Page # ~ Nov 27 01 04:13p Ruerbach Colo __ 970-871-9362 ~. __ _-- - .~.. ~ 1t~11CeS111Lll ll lin~in~~yy~~lPaYy 11ell.elL incorporating it into our landscaping plan as an open channel. It would be our preference to e~cplore this option further. Thank you for providing us this opportunity to respond to these comments. I trust that they help to clarify our development plans. If you have any additional questions or concerns please call me at your convenience. I look forward to working with you at the Planning Boazd heazing on Dec. 13`h. Respectfully, V ~ .~-----~ Vince Hooper ASW Realty Partners, LLC Agenda Item A~A Page # l~ 3 nov 27 O1 03:44p Ruerbach Colo 970~871-9362 REALTY PARTNERS,LLC November 26, 2001 Michael O'Keefe 4520 Nassau Boulder, CO Dear Michael and Foar Mile Creek nei$hbors, Thank you for taking the time to come to our neighborhood meeting for McKenzie Junction. We appreciate the effort you have gone to prepazing your questions and concerns oPour development proposal. The following is a point-by-point response to your questions. A. Tra~c We recognize that traffic is a major concem for both our project specifically, and the Boulder community in general. The most significant traffic solution we can offer is ni a fundamental design approach. Our development proposal changes the traffic equafion dramatically by incorporating a mixture of uses to create a new neighborhood. This new neighborhood will not be a single use. Our new neighborhood will contain both residential and commercial uses. It will also contain provisions for services directly supporting the residential and commercial uses. This integration of uses and supporting services will provide the most nnportant contribution to traffic concerns. ln response to your specific questions relating to our traffic study, please understand that we have not prepazed a fu11 traffic report. Traffic impact studies are not required as part of the City's Conceptual Plan application requirements, but aze required for the Site Plan Review application, which is the next step in our review process. The report that was included with our Conceptual Plan was prepazed to address the City staff's specific concern of the access we propose at Hwy 119. It was ttot intended to satisfy, nor replace, the requirements for a full traffic report at the Site Plan Review application. P.O. Box 770720 Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 ~, A ~~> y 1120 South Lincoln Ave. Suite 204 AQe~~~ #-~~~ . ro~• o~n_a~~_o~aa . r..,..~ o~n a~+ o~a~ ~ Nov 27 O1 03:44p Huerbach Colo ~ IF.~IId7CI1' I~AIR'Il'RTI~~9 ILII,CC Questions 970-871-9362 1. When was your traff:c impact study conducted? The preliminary tra~c report was prepared in July 2001. The fixll traffic report will be completed and subnutted as a part of the Site Review Plan application. We anticipate that to occur this winter or spring. 2. How long wus traffic observed for? The preliminary report's traffic counts were conducted on July 20`", 23`d, and 25`" between 7:00 ain and 5:45 pm, 3. What were the traff:c count numbers? The prelnuinary report contains 27 pages of extensively detailed traffic count numbers for 47'~ Street, Kalmia, and the Diagonal Highway. Please refer to this report (attached) for the specific numbers. 4. If it wasn't observed what previous studies are you using to establish the study? The preliminary report's traffic counts were based upon actual counts. S. What aasumptions have you made pertaining to traffrc? Trip generation factors are Uased upon "ITE Trip Generation ReporY' and a 15% Travel Demand Management reduction, as identified in the report. 6. What assumptions have you made ~ertaining to traffre signals? Note that the City regulutlons DCS - Sec. 2.03 (P) (2) discourages new traffre sfgnals. Staff has advised us that the City will not pernut new trai~ic signals as mitigation measures, which is our assumption 7. Has the study been settt to the Colorado Department of Transportation since SH 119 is outside the City limits? An issue of access. We are aware that the CDOT is a controlling agency for accesses onto Awy 119. The full traffic report will be sent to them when completed. 8. What will the impact to 47`" and Jay be since there is no alternative northern access way? There aze alternatives that will be further evaluated in the full traffic report. 9. In the event of an emergency during rush hour, huw will emergeracy vehicles be able to access the site quickly and safely? The preliminary trai~ic report does not address this issue. We will address this question in our full traffic report prepared for the Site Plan Review applicatiott Agenda Item N ~ ~. . P99e # ~ nov 27 O1 03:45P Ruerbach Colo 970-871-9362 _ ~ 1t~Vl~~?~~Le`~i ll 1f'.ff11NU1V~'i~n~~,y, llelld~ 1 D. How do you plan to mitigate traffrc cut through rn the Four Mile Creek neighborhood? The preliminary tra~ic report does not addcess tkris issue. We will address this concern in aur traffic report prepared for the Site Plan Review applicaYion. I1. How do you plan to get the necessary bus hips from RTD to support this concept? The prelunu~ary traffic report does not address this issue. We will address this question in our tratiic report prepared for the Site Plan Review application. B. Four Mile Creek Trail 12. How do you platt to provide access from the trial? There is an e~cisting bike lane and designated bike route from our property at 47`h Street directly to tUe Four Mile Creek trail. It is our intent to tie into this e~dsting facility. 13. What pedestrian access do you plan? Our plans include a fitlly integrated pedestrian circulation system coimecting each use within the project site. 14. Since the complex is on the outskirts of the ciry what number of pedestrians do you estimute will walk to the site daily? From wJzere? One of lhe most obvious origination points f'or pedestrian commuters is from withni the residential component of our own neighborhood. The nearest existing residential neighborhood from which to e~cpect pedestrian commuters is your Four Mile Creek neighborhood. Considering the high percentage of pedestrian commuters in Bouider and their willingness to travel further than the average pedestrian, it is likely tk~at we will see pedestrians from other residential neighborhoods further away to the south and west. I5. Whut rs the pedestrian and cycling count,for other office complexes in the areu? We currently do not have this data, but we will seek it out. Our plans are for a mixed-use neighborhood, not a single use office complex. Our pedestrian and cycling counts will be different than those of office complexes. ' 16. What is the percentage of cyclists and pedestrians versus those traveling by cars? The preliminary traffic report utilizes a 15% reduction for all Travel Demand Reduction strategies. The prelinunary traffic report does not distinguish between the diiff''erent strategies, of which cyclists and pedestrians are a part. 17. Whut percentage of people are estimated to use public transport? The preliminary traffic report utilizes a 15% reduction for all Travel Detnand Reduction strategies. The Agenda Item N ~ ~ Page # ~ ~2.. Nov 27 O1 03:48p _ Ruerbach Colo ~ __ ~ 970-871-9362 ` ~ 1fUlLaCillLd 11 ll 1Ld]11tJ ll 1V 1Calt~pl~9 lldll.a~ preliminary iraffic report does not distinguish between the different strategies, of which transit is a pazt. 18. What percentage use public transport at the office complexes to the south of the praposed development? We do not currently have this data, but we will seek it out. C. Visual We understand that the Boulder community in general, and the 4 Mile Creek residents specifically, are very concerned about retainuig the quality of Boulder's visual resources. Our property is considered a"gateway" to the Boulder community. As such, it is expected to reflect the values of this community. It is our intent to nunimize visual impacts. We will prepaze a visual impact analysis that will be submitted with the Site Review Plan application. This visual impact analysis will contain a computerized 3D model of the property and the view corridors, from which we will be able to evaluate the placement, orientation, and height of each building. Adjustments will be made to the builduigs where possible to maintain view comdors. 19. How do you pdan to ameliorate the destruction of the view corridors? We have taken views into account in our Conceptual P]an site layout. At the Site Plan Review application we will provide detailed analysis of the visual impacts of the project. 20. Do you plart to have exterior lighting of the buildings? If so, what will the impact be at night to the surroundirzg neighborhoods? We do not plan to utilize exterior lighting to accentuate the azchitecture of the buildings on site. Lighting will be used where appropriate for safety. Exterior lighting will utilize high cut-off fxtures so that light sources are directed towards the ground. In addition, we will comply with the City's existing requirements for etcterior lighting. D. Noise 21. How do you ameliorate the noise levels from the highwuy for those living and working in the planned proposal? The Conceptual Plan was prepazed with consideration given to the amount of noise at the site. Our observations are that the northern part of the site is the noisiest and the southern part quieter, Our design responds to this through ihe placement of the residential uses at the southern portions and the office uses at the northern portions. Building orientation, landscaping and berniing will provide additional Agenda I~em A ~O ~ Pa~e ~%~.1-- nov 27 O1 03:49p Huerbach Colo _ 970-871-9362 _ ,,, __ ~ , ~ ~ 1N1CellllLell ll lL'~ll1VlCIlNil~y LdlldlL levels of noise mitigation. We aze currently conducting more detailed studies of the existing noise levels. We will use this specific data to design our noise mitigation measures. 22. If you utilize a wall or berm system, how do you plan to reduce the noise reflected a[ the Four Mile Creek neighborhood? Landscape berms are one option. We do not anticipate using sound walls for noise mitigation. We will evaluate reflected sound when designing our final noise mitigatiou strategies. E. Drainuge 23. What flood control plans do you have? We aze awaze of the ffood hazard zones on the far north portions of our site. Our Conceptual Plan detines most of land within these flood hazard zones to be open sgace. Our plans have not evolved far enough to include detailed engineering for those small portions of the development that are in the flood hazard zones. 'This is a detail tl~a# will be evaluated at the Site Plan Review. 24. What drainage plans do you have? Our Conceptual Plans have not evolved to the point of grading and drainage plans. Past engineering analysis for this site have demonstrated effective solutions to drainage concerns. It is our intent to re-evaluate those solutions as they apply to our Conceptual Plan and adapY them as necessary. 25. How do you plan to handle drainuge in a floodplain area? Again, our Conceptual Plans have not evoived to the point of grading and drainage plans. 26. Are you utilizing 100 year storm events in your plans? We will. F. Environmental 27. What enviro»mental study has been conducted? Numerous environmental studies have been conducted on this site in the past. We have also conducted a Phase I environmental study. 28. ' Is the existing ground water contaminated? If so, what plans do you have in place to address the issue? Our Phase I study did not find any evidence of current ground water contamination. l~enda Item i~ Page # _/~~ Nov 27 O1 03:SSp Ruerbach Colo 970-871-9362 ~ lALLeM\ ~ll ll 1Ld511iVll1VlPe~q 1Le11e\1. 29. What pdans do you have for the oil wedl and storage tattk? What rf ihey ure uctivitated aguin? We do not own nor operate the oil well and tank, which aze owned by a separate ~arty. It is our understanding that the well is currently active und under the regulatory authority of the State of Colorado Oil and Gas Comnvssion. We have made provisions for their continued operation. A group of concerned citizens has provided research documentation that suggests this oil well and tank are of historic significazice, and requested that they be preserved. Our Conceptual Plan accommodates this historic preservation. G. Costs 30. Who will carry the burden for new tra~c lanes, bus stops, traffic lights, etc? We are committed to paying our fair share of itnpact mitigation measures. For those costs associated with improvements on our site, or solely attributable to our develogment, we will bear 100% of the costs. For those costs that correspond to a larger community need, we will pay our proportionate share. H. Business 31. Given the declining economy, and the availabte office space in Boulder, who do you see as potential tenants? We see the prnnary tazget for any new ofTice space in Boulder to be existing businesses that want to remain in Boulder. Our "flex space" is specifically targeted to small businesses that desire their own space. The Boulder offrce market remains much stronger than adjacent markets such as the Highway 36 corridor. 32. YVhat tctY base c1o you unticipute this proposul will generate in a declrning economy? Our Conceptual Plan application has not evaluated fiscal impacts. We do not have any data on this subject at this time. I. Housing 33. What is the ratio of residents to works? The ratio will depend upon the final mix of housing and office space, as well as the type of tenants and households who occupy them. Our preliminary calculations indicate tl~at the Conceptual Plan could accommodate about 800 workers and 300 residents. Agenda Item A,f .~_ Paqe # ~ nov cr ua ua:aip nuercacn coto 970-971-9~6Z ~ ~'n~ ~i .ll ll lll~lu~ll iV 1P.`~s lle1LeU.' 34. What park, facilities do you plan to encorporate as required by Boulder? Your preliminary plans show nothing. Our Conceptual Plan illustrates several parks, plazas, and open space areas totally appro~dmately 6 acres. One of our parks is at the center of the neighborhood. It will be a focal point for the neighborhood. This central pazk is one half acre in size. It has been designed to link the residential portions of the neighborhood to the office portions of the neighborhood. Another park is located to the north of the two main office buildings and is about half an acre in size. This park will serve as a historical pazk for the preservation of the oil well and storage tank. In addition, there are sigriificant areas of park space contained in plazas, and green courts designed witivn the neighborhood. The plaza between the oi~ce buildings and the entry contains about one acre of usable open space. The park space belween the residential buildings totals aboul half an acre in size. There is a pazk on the west side of the flex space buildings that is about l~alf an acre in size. Further, there is a green space of about .7 of an acre on the south end of our property along Kalmia Street. And finally, there is about 2.6 acres of open space contained within the northern parcel. Our plans exceed the City's minimum requirements for parks, open spac;e, and landscaping. 35. Is il uppropriate to put housing in an areu completely surrounded by primary roads? We recognize that the road system adjacent to our property does not make our site ideally suited for residential purposes. We would also point out that having our neighborhood surroimded by open space is very desirable. Does one negate the other7 Probably not. They just present different challenges. The drastic need for housing in Boulder and the lack of avaIlable locations for housing makes this site worth evaluating for addressing Boulder's housing shortfall. 36. Whai percenfage of the housing is pluttned for uffordable housing? Our plan currently calls for a mn~imum of 20% of the housing units meeting the City's definition of affordable housing. It is possible that this percentage may inerease as we refine our design and development plans. d. Boulder Va11ey Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.07 Design of Major Entryways. Question 37. Whut is yuur justification for interfering with the existing panoramic view7 Please refer to our responses to your questions under the heading Visual. Part of this BVCP policy discourages future strip commerciai development. Our plan is specifically designed in response to this policy. The McKenzie Junction concept plan proposes a new neighborhood. A new neighborhood with both residential and commercial uses. The design of the site, with buildings oriented toward an internal open space network, carefully screened parking azeas, along with a mix of uses that specifically excludes regional-serving pgendaltem#~-.Page#. ~3D nov 27 O1 03:Skp Ruerbach Calo ~ ~_ 970 871-9362 y ~ 1A11L' A11L~ 1Cn"^`li1V~+~q ~~~1. retail, will present an appearance that is very different from a strip commercial development. Question 38. How N~ill this plan enhance the existing natural beaury? We would draw your attention to the large areas of open space, which surround not only our property, but also your neighborhood. It is obvious that the City of Boulder has already taken major steps to protect its natural setting and appearance. These surrounding open space areas are the realization of this policy. By its very nature this open space will preserve Boulders setting. Qur Conceptual Plan will help to enhance these steps taken by the City in several ways. First, by respecting the values of the community with an innovative design. Second, by adhering to the City's land use rules and regulations. Third, by preserving the nofthern most 2.6 acres of our property as open space. And finally, by preserving approximately 3.5 acres of open space within our main project azea Policy 2.23 Commitment to a Walkable City. Question 39. Where do you see people walking from since the properry is an the outskirts of the city? We share in the same challenges of walkability and connectivity that your Four Mile Creek neighborhood faces, as well as the ot~ce uses in the immediate area. A positive feature of being surrounded by open space is that there are many opportunities for wallcing and recreation. The negative side of being surrounded by open space is that there are not as many opportunities for easy ac:cess to centers of community activities. To help address this concern we have taken the step of creating a mixed use neighborhood----one that offers opportunities for housing, employment, and supporting services. This mix of uses will become its own new neighborhood center. Question 40. Where is the ready access to community facilities and neighborhood centers? We have designed our neighborhood to be a new neighborhood center. With wallcability, easy and safe access by foot. With community facilities, transit stops, shared public spaces and aznetuties. Not having the opportunity for these features directly adjacent Yo our properfy we have chosen to provide for them wiYhin our neighborhood. Policy 2.30 Design that respects existing character. To suggest that the development of our property must mirror the selected surrounding uses of open space and sport fields is to ignore the real context of this azea. Looking at the broader context of our surrounding area it is composed of open space, office, retaIl, service commercial, multi-family housing, and single-faznily housing. We have chosen the most appropriate mixture of these varied uses and found places for them within our neighborhood We would suggest that the point of this policy is to have development "encouraged to follow sound and innovative land use plaiuung ..., provide a livable built environment and through the judicious use of landscaping, materials and humau scale, to Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page N ~. nov 27 O1 03:56p Ruerbach Colo f_ 970-871-9362 ~ ~, , ~ _ ..- ~ ~~ lrh\IRll11V1Pe1Nil1p L.dL~ll. respect the character of the surrounding area." The language of this policy clearly anticipates development and "built environments." Our mixed-use design reffects an innovative land use plan that includes many elements of the surrounding area. Not just a single aspect of the sutroundings. Question 41. What park space have you allocated,for residents? As outlined above we have provided approximately 6.1 acres of open space within om' new neighborhood. Of this, about 3 acres is park space designed within the developed areas of the neighborhood. Question 42. How do you see this project respecting the existing character of the surrounding area of open space and open sportsfreIds? We are going to respect the eacisting character of the surrounding azea, which includes more than just open space and parks, but also offices, commercial, and residetttial, by mixiug the land uses of open space, pazks, offices and residential into an innovative plan that reflects their character in a humau scale. We wouid like to emphasize that this property was annexed in 1981. It is zoned TB-D which allows for commercial and residential development. In 1998, the Open Space Boazd of Trustees evaluated the purchase of this property for open space. They declined the purchase. We believe we have a good plan for its development. It is an innovative plan. We can make it better by working with you and your neigl~bors. Your questions and concems are an important start. Please let us know when we can get together to talk more about your questions and our answers. Thanks again. We look forward to working with you. Respectfully, c~ ~~_-~~---- Vince Hooper ASW Realty Partners Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page a _~s~~..,