Loading...
7B - Site Review #LUR2001-00033 development of 3 story building, 902 Pearl StreetCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 2, 2002 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: April 19, 2002) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2001-00033, to permit development of a three-story building with a height of up to 44.5 feet. Located at 902 Pearl, the southeast corner of 9'h and Pearl. The request proposes a mixed use development containing an office/commercial area and six residential units. The applicant is seeking creation of vested property rights in accordance with Section 9-4-12 "Creation of Vested Rights," B.R.C. 198I for 9,945 syuare feet of retail, 8,945 square feet of office, and six dwelling units. Applicant/Owner: Maxim United Realestate LLC, Stephen P. Cherner REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Peter Pollock, Planning Director Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Brent Bean, Senior Planner, Presenter OVERVTEW: The applicant is requesting consideration of a three-story building with a height of up to 44.5 feet, which requires Planning Board consideration for a height of greater than 35 feet. The project has been the subject of much debate regarding the location of building height and mass as they relate to impacts on adjacent land uses. The applicant has created a building design that ~vill make the Pear] Street fronta~e appear to be a two-story element, consistent with the existing Pearl Street frontage along the south side of Peari from 9'~' to IO~h streets. A la~ge h•ia~~gular section at the sontheastem corner of the building will not have any striicture above the First floor, providing a view con~idor toward the Flatiroas £or the adjacent property. Six resideniial units are planned to be developed on the second and third floors. An office use will be placed between the residences and the adjacent uses to the east at both the second aud Chird floors. Staff finds that the applicant is proposing a plan that is consistent with the applicable Site Review Criteria. s:\plan\pb-items\memos\bb902pearl.pbm AGENllA 1'PEM N 7B Yaee 1 STATISTICS: Proposal: Site and Height Review consideration of a building with an overall height of up to 45 feet, which requires Planning Board consideration and consideration of a building with more than a two-story in the RB 1-X zone district, which requiring Site Review consideration. Project Name: Maxim Place, 902 Pearl Location: 902 Pearl, southeast corner of Pearl and 9~h Street. Size of Tract: 16,588 square feet ( 038 acre) Building Area: Retail 9945sf Office 8945sf Parking @ls` floor 1177sf Parking @ basement 865sf Residential 13 848sf Total habitable 34,780sf Permitted FAR Non-residential (1.7FAR) 28,454sf Residential (O.SFARI 8369sf Total FAR at 2.2 FAR 36,823sf Zoning: RB1-X, Regionai Business 1- Redeveloping Comprehensive Plan: Regiona] Business KEY ISSUES: Is the proposed site plan consistent witl~ the Downtown Bouldcr Desigu Guidelines? Does [he building present a~~ a[tractive slreetscape and incoiporale design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale? ls the Uuilding design compatible widi the existing character of the surrounding area? Is the requested height of up to 45 feet appropriate for this site as proposed? 4. Have the Site Review Criteria been meet for this request? BACKGROUND: Process This application requires consideration under the provisions of a Site Review because more than a two-story building has beeu proposed, and Planning Board action is required to consider a height of greater than 35 feet. Site Review is also required for consideration of a request for a building with more then two stories in the RB1-X zone. s:\plan\pb-items\memos\bb902pearl.pbm AGEM)A I'CEM N 76 Pn2e 2 History of the project This request was initially submitted in 7une of 2001. City comments (Development Review Committee) were sent to the applicant on June 22, 2001. Staff raised concerns regarding the fit of the proposed building within the west Pearl area. A thrae-story element was proposed at the corner of 9"' and Pearl as well as three-story elements along 9`" and Pearl streets. South Pearl between 9`h and 10`h is predominantly one- and two-story buildings. Significant comments were received from the public regarding the appropriate scale of the proposed building at the intersaction of 9`h and Pearl when this request was first submitted. When this request was first submitted, a building of up three stories could have been constructec3 within a specific building envelop at the corner 9~h and Pearl. As a result of the comments made regarding the this special provision in the downtown area, Planning Board and City Council changed this provision. A by right three story building can no longer be constructed at this location. While the applicant has never planned to use this provision, the current proposal does include a third floar. Only through the Site Review process can a third floar be considared. The applicant submitted a revised plan February 1, 2002. This plan has been reviewed by the Downtown Design Advisory Hoard (DDAB) for architectural content and found to be consistent with the general Downtown Design Guidelines. Existing Site/Site Context: The plan under consideration proposes retail uses on the first floor and office uses on the eastern portions of the second and third floors. Six residential units have been proposed on tl~e west ha1F of the second and third floors. Two units will be placed at the corner of 9'~' and Pearl, one at the second floor ]cvel, and the other setback 20 feet from Pearl on fhe third floor. At the second floor level, a tridngular area (50 feet by 60 feet) l~as l~een left open (unbuilt upon), providing a view corridor toward the Flatirons for the adjacent property (West End Tavern). The total Floor Area Ratio for the site is 2.07:1. A maximum FAR of 2.2:1 could have been requested for this site. When FAR is calculafed a maximum of 1.7:1 FAR may be for non- residential use. An additional FAR 0.5:1 may be added for residential use. In this case, 0.835:1 FAR Uas been proposed for residential use. A minimum FAR of 037:1 Uas to be residential use on U~is site (tha[ portioi~ of the FAR greater than I.7:1). ANALYS(S: Is the proposed site plan consistent with the Do~vntown Boulder Design Cuidelines? Does the building present an attractive streetscape and incorporate design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale? s:\plptt\pb-items\memos1b6902pearl.pbm AGENDA 1TlM q 7B 1'aee 3 The plan is consistent with the basic elements of the Downtown Design Guidelines. The building design presents a two-story frontage along Pearl, which is consistent with the buildings to the east of the site. One- to three-story buildings with heights of up to 35 feet are present along the north side of Pearl. While the architecture is a modern style, the elements proposed include parapets, cornices and brick elements consistent with the traditional elements found on buildings to the east of this site along Pearl. The third floor elements of the plan have been placed a minimum of 20 feet south of the Pearl Street frontage, giving the appearance of a two-story building to the pedestrian using Pearl. The third floor elements help to blend the new building with existing buildings along the north side of Walnut. Pedestrian movements will be enhanced through the provision of a streetscape along Walnut and Pearl. Additionai right-of-way will be dedicated, and the buildings set back from 9`~' Street to provide a 15-foot sidewalk along 9`h Street. The Pearl Street sidewalk and streetscape will be an improvement to the existing streetscape east of the site. Street trees and improved sidewalks will be provided. Additional right of way will be dedicated to permit development of a 15-foot wide sidewalk along 9`h street. A landscaped azea will be provided within the first portion of the alley setback, creating an additional pedestrian amenity for this area. Canopies will be provided at the first floor level to enhance pedestrian use of the walkways along both Pearl and 9~h Street. The addition of new store fronts along both Pearl and 9~~' Streets will also improve the pedestrian quality of this site. Conflicts between cars and pedestrians will be reduced significantly. There were four driveways crossing the sidewalk on Pearl and 9~h Streets previously to serve the gas station The Downtown Design Advisory Board has reviewed this plan several time and found the cun~ent plan is consistent with tl~e intenC of the Downtown Design Guidelines. The architecture as proposed, with some minor adjustmeuts, has received a favorable DDAB approval. See DDAB minutes (attachment C). 2. Is the building design compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area? The applicant is proposing a building that has been designed to blend well with tl~e character of the existing neighborhood in both building massing (height and scale) as well as materials and architectural elements: Two-story elements along the Pearl Street frontage, one s[ory in the south elstern portion of the building, antl three-stoiy elements along the 9'~ Street frontage to blend with the taller bui Idings to the south of the alley. The buildings imuiediately to tl~e east of this site a~-e in the downtown historic distiict. These buildings are a mixture of one- and two-stoiy buildings with heights vaiying fi~om 22 feet to 32 feet. Several new buildings have been constructed along the north side of Pearl between 9'h and 10`h Streets with building l~eights of up to 35 feet. A single story building is present at the northwest corner of Pearl and 9'~' . To the west, across Pearl is a s:\plnn\pb-itcros\memos\66902pearl.pbm ACENDA 1'PEn1 # 7B Yaee 4 new complex of one- [o three-story buildings with heights to 35 feet. Across the 111ey to the south are two newer buildings with heights of 42 feet and 55 feet. Is the requested height of up to 44.5 feet appropriate for this site as proposed? The building will appear as a two-story structure along the Pearl Street frontage, which is consistent with the existing building form along the south side of Pearl. Existing buildings fronting along the south side of Pearl have heights varying from 22 feet to 32 feet. This site will have a building height of 29 feet immediately adjacent to Pearl. The corner element will have a height of approximately 32 feet. The building will step up to a height of approximately 41 feet, 20 feet back from Pearl. Very little if any of the third floor will be visible to pedestrians walking along the north side of Pearl. The 9~h Street frontage will have an initial height of approximately 32 feet, which will increase to approximately 41 feet within 15 feet to 22 feet back from the 9`h Street property line. The building height along 9'h street will provide a transition in building heights between Pearl and Walnut streets. The Maxim Buiiding south of the alley fronting Walnut has a height of approximately 38 feet along 9~h street. The 902 Pearl building will not exceed 32 feet in height along the 9~h street frontage. The 921 Walnut building has a height of up to 55 feet. This application will transition to a maximum height of 44.5 feet along the alley. This transition in building heights will diminish the height of 921 Walnut as viewed from 9~h street. In addition, the southeastem portion of the 902 Pearl building will oiily be a one-story element to provide a view corridor for the adjacent neighbar (West End Tavern). The applicant and the owners of the Tavern have reached a consensus that this compromise will provide a view corridor for the Tavern (see attachment D) The overall building bulk and scale are consistent with thc goals of providing a new building that blends with the existing context of the immedia~e neighborhood. 4. Have the Site Keview Criteria been meet f~or this request7 See attachment A, Site Review Criteria. Section 9-4-11(iii) of this criteria address the height conditions for Site Review. Staff finds that the plan satisfies all of the Site Review criteria. PUI3LIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: This site has been the subject of considerable public comment. Several petitions were received during the first review period in the summer of 2001. Since that time, many of the objections to development of this site l~ave been resolved, but the city has continued to receive comments regarding the appropriateness of tall buildings at the corner of 9`h and Pearl. The applicant has worked with the West End Tavern ownership to resolve the view corridor desires of the tavern. A 60' X 50' triangular area will not be built on in [he southeastern portio~~ 902 Pearl. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bb902peatl.pbm AGENDA iTEM # 7B Paee 5 Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to a(1 property owners within 600 feet of the subject property twice and signs have been posted on the property. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff finds that this request for consideration of a Site Review and height exception meet the city standards based on the following findings: The new building will be in character with the existing buildings along Pearl. The bulk and scale of the buildings reflect elements of the existing n~ighborhood. The building will appear as a two-story building along the Pearl Street frontage. 2. The 9`h Street frontage will be consistent with the character of existing buildings proposed and existing along 9`h Street. A two-story frontage will be the primary elements visible to the street frontage. Three-story elements will be placed 14' to 22' back of the 9`h Street property line. The three-story elements provided a transition to the taller buildings along Walnut. Surrounding land uses have been buffered as much as possible by the effects of increased building height and view corridors where possible. The generation of noise from adjacent sites have been buffered by providing non-residential uses between the activities where possible. 4. View corridors have been preserved where possible for adjacent neighbors through agreement not to build above the second floor level for portions of the building. The building wili also be stepped up away from Pearl street preserving some views for properties north of Pearl. Building heights proposed are consistent with existing height found on adjoining properties. A two story building frontage will be provided along Pearl, consistent with the history building heigh[s along the south side of Pearl. 1'he building will step up to a third floor in the southern portions of the site to blend with the existing three story buildings along the north side of Walnut Street. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Site Review #LUR2001-00033 incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findin~s of fact subject to the following conditions. s:\plmi`,pb-itemsUnemos\bb902pearl.pbm AGP:~'DA ITEM # 7B Faee 6 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated March 18, 2002 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, and all plans required to be approved subsequent to this approval. 2. Prior to application for a building permit, the Applicant shall submit fmal architecriiral plans, including materiais and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the Downtown Urban Design Plan. for the review and recommendation; of the Downtown Design Advisory Board and review and approval of the City Manager: 3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shail submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, and subject to the approval of the City: a. A final geotechnical report addressing soil constraints, groundwater discharge and other site constraints. b. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and yuality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in City right-of-way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester. A detailed plan for the design and placement of outdoor fiirniture within the 15' X 46' landscaped area along tl~e alley. d. A detailed final master utility plan, meeting the City of Boulder Desi~~ and Construction StanJards, showing proposed private end public ulility systems, including water, sewer, electric, gas, drainage, telephone, telecommunications, and any other services that will supply the subject property. e. Dedicate as necessary up to 4' of additional right of way along 9~h Street to provide 4' street tree planters and an 8' sidewalk. 4. Prior to submission of the final lai~dscape plan and the final utilily and laudsc~pe plnn, the Applicant shall coordinTte the two designs to assure that trees and utility service lines do not conflict with each other, while still meeting the requirements of this approval, City landscaping standards, and the City of Boulcler Design and Construction.Standards. The Applicant shall provide and maintain outdoor furniture within the 15' X 46' landscaped area along the alley. s:\plan\pb-items\memos\bb902penrl.pbm ACEND.A ITEM # 7B Pnee 7 Approved By: ~C%~' \ 1~~ Peter Pollock, Director Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: AYtachmenY A: Attachment B: Attachment C Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Site/CTse Review Criteria Checklist Vicinity Map Downtown Design Advisory Board Minutes Westend Tavern letter of support Development Review Results and Comments Correspondence Received Applicant's Written Statements ApplicanYs Proposed Plans s:`pl~n`.pb-itenvs~nemos\bb)02pearl.pbm ACENDA ITEM # 7B 1'aec R SITE REVIEW CRITERIA General Criteria No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan: Attachment A Yes The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The revised plan provides for the development of a mixed-use project within the downtown area, which is consistent with several BVCP policies for mixed use and policy 2.20 role of the Central Area. The p/an has been changed to be consistent with the policies for "Preservation of Community Characterand Historic preservation,"policies 2.27, 2.28 and po/icy 2.31, "Design that respects existing character." A two story fagade has been proposed a/ong Pearl, and the third floor will not have a presence along the Pearl Street frontage. No building has been developed above the first f/oor in the southeastern portion of the building to preserve a v/ew corrldor from the rooftop of the adjacertt building (West End Tavern). X The proposed development shail not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a 300 foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Bou~der Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: The plan does not exceed the expected residential density for an R81-X zoned property. Six units on a 16,588 square foot parcel have been proposed, which is /ess than 1.6 units per acre. (i) the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, (ii) the maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 93.2, "Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981. II. Site Desiqn: It utilizes site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: A. Oqen space, including without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: X 1. Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; most of the at grade open space is accessible and has a limited functionality. This is a downtown commercial sife and large open space areas are not expected. The area adjacent to the alley is a treed portion oi the site which includes a bench and tab/e for expanded outside use by tenants and residents of this site. X 2. Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; roof top decks and porches wil/ be provided to meet this requirement. Each unit has been shown to have at least 72 square feet of deck area. Recommended standards for high-density zones is 60 square feet of private open space per unit. X 3. The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including without limitation healthy long-lived trees, terrain, and drainage areas; No natural features are present in this area. s:`pIan\pb-items~nemos\bb902pearl.pbm :~CENDA I'PEM # 7B Pa~c 9 X X B. X X X C. X X X X X X X 4. The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; Limited relief is provided a/ong the alley and 9~h Street sidewalk. This is a downtown area and open space is not practical to use as a relief for density. 5. If possible, open space is linked to an area- or citywide system. This site is not adjacent to open space. Public sidewalks along 9'h Street provide access to the Boulder Creek trail system. Landscapinp: 1. The project provides for a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the selection of materials provides a variety of colors and contrasts; for a downtown site, the mixture of materials and surface materials is good. 2. The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2 and 9-3.3-3, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements," and "Landscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and Material sizes proposed meet or exceed City standards. 3. The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights- of-way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan. This site is located wlthin a downtown area. Sidewalk improvements proposed will enhance pedestrian use of the area and wil/ create an attractive streetscape. Circulation, including without limitation the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not: 1. High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project is provided; additional sidewalk width and curb extensions at Pearl will be provided to create a more pedesfrian friendly development. 2. Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized; Sidewalks have been widened and a curb extension proposed along Pearl to enhance vehicular circulation in this area. 3. Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including without limitation streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails; This site is within a developed portion of the city and the transportation system within this area has evo/ved to accommodate public needs. 4. On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; There is no transit service along 9'" and Pearl at this time, however the site has been proposed to accommodate future transit service if it becomes availaBle.. 5. The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; Existing street system is not changing. 6. The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including without limitation automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust; and This site is located on an existing street network. Residential units have been placed at or above the second floor level. 7. City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated. City construction standards will be required to be met with the development of this site. s:\plan\pb-irems~nemos\bb902pe~rl.pbm .ACENllA 1"1'E1VI # 713 Paee 10 D. Parkin : X 1. 2. 3. X 4. E. Buildina Desiqn. The project incorporates into the design of parking area measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; under ground-parking access from the al/ey has been proposed. Conflicts with pedestrians should be minimal. The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; Under ground parking has been proposed to reduce impacts on buildab/e land area at grade. Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and Parking and lighting will conform to city regulations. Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Under ground parking lot does not require landscape improvements. Livabilitv, and Relationship to the Existina or Proposed Surroundinq Area: X 1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; The Pearl frontage has been reduced to two story elements as viewed from Pearl. Third floor elements have been located to the southwestern portion of fhe site, to blend with the bui/ding heights along Walnut. A view comdor has been preserved in the southeastern portion of the site by keeping a triangular portion to one story in height. X 2. The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; Building heights have been modified to blend with the prevalent heights in the area. Two stories a/ong Pearl and up to three stories along the alley and 9~h Street frontages. The building will not exceed 44.5 feet in height, which is /ess than fhe existing buildings a/ong the south side of the alley (921 Walnut 55). X 3. The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; The applicant has kept a 60' X 50" triangular portion of the southeastern section of the butlding to a one story elevation, to preserve a view corridor to the southwest for the building(s) to the east of this site (West End Tavern). This effort will preserve a view toward the Flatirons for adjacent properties. In the downtown area, it is very di(ficu/t to preserve view corridors that are presenf for existing properties without sacrificing permitted building area. The applicant has not maximized the allowed building area for this site due to the view and height constraints of this site. X 4. If the character of the area is identifiable, the projecl is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; this area is adjacent to the downtown historic district a/ong its eastern property line. The building architecture proposed reflects the historic, two-story height of the area and general use of building materials. The proposed architecture is an appropriate inte~pretation of heretical architecture and contemporary design elements. X 5. Buildings present an attractive streetscape; incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians. The current architecture is contemporary in style, but creates an appropriate transition to the historic architecture s:\plan\pb-items\memos\bb902pc~rl.pbm AGENllA ITEM # 713 VaRe 11 found in the area with the exception of the building height issues raised above. X 6. To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; Public utilities and services are available in the area. Pedestrian movements will be enhanced in this area through the development of expanded sidewalks and the curb extension at 9'" and Pearl. X 7. For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; this site can on/y provide attached housing units, but wi!! comp/y with the provisions of Inclusionary Zoning. . X 8. For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; the residential units proposed for this have been separated from the adjoining bullding (West End Tavern) to the east by office uses. Both physical (distance) and separation of use (office) will provide sound buffers from existing non-residential uses In this area. X 9. A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Lighting plan proposed will be required to meet city standards for lighting. X 10. The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; No natural areas are present on this site. X 11. Cut and fill are minimized on the site, and the design of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land. This site has 3-4 of feet of fall from the northwest corner to southeast corner of the site. Cut and fill is not an issue on this site. F. Solar Sitinq and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: X 1. Placement of Open Space and Streets. Open space areas are located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natur~l features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. Open space has been proposed along the south side of the building, along 9`h Street and decks at or above the second floor. X 2. Lot Lavout and Buildina Sitina. Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading. The development constraints of this site suggest east west orientation of units, which results in an inconsistency with this criteria. Porches and decks have been orienfated to take advantage of the maximum amount of light and view. X 3. Buildinq Form. The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The downtown area is in so/ar area 3, no protection requirements are required of this site. X 4. Landscaqinq. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. Majority of new landscaping has been placed along the west and south property line. Shading of adjacent uses should be minimaL s:\plan\pb-items\memos\bb90?pearl.pbm AGENDA 1TEM N 713 Paee 12 t__J~ 1 ~ Cit~r of Boulder Vicinity Map_ ~ ti ATTACHMENT B l J ~~ ~~ ,~ ~l~^-~ ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ P ~ r ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . t ~ ~ -~$pi~`u~~•'~'J- ~ ..dt~. ST1 9UBJECT PROPERTY S102 PeARL 9T t 0 ~ } ~" ~•-- r ~- ti~----~ ~,~ e ~ m-~~ 1.---"'"__~- X ~ ~ ~s- 1t ~. 1 ~ s..r-- R~1r'L- t~~ti ~~-s *A4~µ r l ~ ~- ~ h~YiF2'E ~~ ~ ~ ~' ~4~ ~ Ct ~~ i t4 y~ s P- E ~ C Location: 902 Peart ~# ~,/` Review Type: 3ife Review ~ ~ 4F~"'. Projeef Name: Maxim Pl~ce I~1npLink Cily of Beulder GIS Review Numbar. LUR2001-U0033 1:3600 N nwbam+:.~+d.w~nn~~rM ..,.~.~.~:wry,~-~.w. in.urwean~.+..:e ~.a.~-. ~"'""'.'~~" ~~~" ApAlicanf: Sfephen P Chemer w _»~w~. ~. ~M.~.:., d:.,~M,... Agendaltemri ~z~a~~ ATTACHMENT C City of Boulder Downtown Design Advisory Board Minutes Municipal Building Lobby DRAFT 1739 Broadway Wednesday October 17, 2001 7:00 p.m. Board Members Present: Thomas Doerr, Sandi Gibson, Jerry Shapins, John Spitzer- chair Board Members Absent: Kelly Davis Staff in Attendance: Brent Bean, Senior Planner, Neil Holthouser, Planner Applicants Present: Peter Qominick, Terry Willis- architect, Steve Churner- Maxim, Inc. Item 1: 902 Pearl Street; a 37,532 sq. mixed-use project (retail, office and residential) App-icants: isabella Leonczak and Terry Witlis from Urban Design Group, Inc. The board members su6mitted writfen comments as follows: Mr. Doerr -- Street elevations along Peal and 9~h are great. -- Appreciates changes to the office entry. -- Make sure the 3'd story is not too complicated. Likes the way it fades back. -- Good idea to add vines to the east wall or some graphics to dress-up the shared wall until future uses are imposed. Ms. Gibson -- Despite all the political pressures, misses the previous three story massing on the corner. -- The current design's rhythm, texture, articulation and scale are elegant. -- The three story mass in the southwest needs to be integrated with the two story facade, or brought all the way to the street. Hgsnda Item # ~~. ~'G~ # ~~ Applicant Presentation Peter pominick gave a history of the project. He said he was led to believe by previous DDAB meetings that the view is not an issue. He pointed out some revisions to the plans: reduced square footage, now with a 1.9 FAR. They have made concessions to preserve the views for the West End brewery to the northwest, though no official arrangements have yet been made in regards to this. Brent Bean said that these plans are still conceptual. They would like to have the g`n and Pearl building appear as two stories, perhaps pushing back the third story closer to the alley on Walnut. The planning department has not signed off on these plans yet. Terrv Wiilis said he has met with the West End several times. The discussion is now focused on the back corner (on the alley of the property line at the SE corner). Board Discussion Ms. Gibson said the first and second floor elevations have been cleaned up. She said the design now feels more like individual buildings. The corner is better; not so top- heavy. She is still not convinced about the third floor; iYs too massive and impacts the neighborhood too much. Also, the third floor is a bit bland, as is the east wall. Mr. Dominick said the top is intended to be quiet and in the background. The building is meant to be neutral using stucco with little ornamentation. They intend to landscape the east wall area. Ms. Gibson suggested English ivy. Mr. Doerr said he does not mind the massing; Boulder can handle it. He is concerned with the SW corner and mass there. It feels like a third story is hidden; it needs to be integrated better. There is an issue with where the second story element meets the third story wall. Mr. Shapins feels the proposal is pleasantly modest. He likes the 9~h street elevation. The corner where the Pearl elevations meets the 9~h street elevation is a bit harsh. The east wall is oniy there temporarily. Maxim could engage the community, the schools and the West End for some. artwork or something. He doesn't think something 'historic' is a good idea. IYs likely that, with the increased density, the West End wili redevelop someday. He thinks a mix of uses is good. Mr. Spitzer asked about the purpose of the canopy since the north and west don't get much sun. He would like it too be made smaller. It is too obtrusive now. He questioned the relation of the first story and the second story. The first story should be the most important. The second story looks proportionally too tall. He feels there is too much brick between the first and second story windows. Hgenaa (fem p _~~ _ ry~,~, g ~ Mr. Shapins likes the idea of making one building into three. Mr. Spitzer likes the iron supports on the balconies and deck off the alley. He doesn't like the slit windows on the stair tower. However, this building is unquestionably better than the last time. Mr. Doerr said the horizontal slit windows help terminate the stair tower. He is supportive of the project. Item 2: Proposed Changes to the Broadway Bridge Applicant: City of Boulder Transportation Department The board members submitfed written comments as follows: Mr. Doerr -- With subtle curves and battering, it is quite elegant though not overwhelming. -- The railing feels na'ive and ciumsy. Try to develop it with intricacy and sophistication. -- Refine the bridge much more where humans can touch it, including the concrete under the bridge next to the path. -- He feels the older rail design is better. -- As for the streetscape, try denser trees or other vertical elements such as light poles, planters, etc. I.e.: the path on Broadway next to the University (south) Ms. Gibson -- Wants tighter tree spacing, like 30 feet maximum. -- Use brick ramps at the corner instead of concrete -- Don't need the walis at the corners. Use the vertical elements. -- Railing needs work Board Discussion Mr. Shapins recused himself from the discussion because his firm is in charge of this project. Please see the following notes, submitted by transportation staffperson Noreen Walsh, about the board discussion. ngenda Item # ~~. ~'G;t~s ~ _~ ATTACHMENT D February 24, 2002 Stephen Cherner Maxim Financial Corp. 1909 - 9`h Street, Third Floor Boulder, CO 80302 Re: 902 Pearl Street Development Dear Stephen: With regard to your development proposed at 902 Pea;l Street, immediately adjacent to the West End Tavem business, it is my understanding that you agree to the faliowing: 1) sigiifisazit modifications to ehe proposed building as detailed in attached plans, including truncating the southeast comer to permit the West End Tavem a mountain view from the roof-top deck; 2) conversion of the previously planned residential unit over-looking the West End Tavem to a commercial unit in order to avoid noise issues; 3} a delay of the start of construction on the proposed building until November 1, 2002, in order to allow the West End Tavem to complete the summer and fall deck season without construction activity; 4) placing a disclosure into the sales and rental contracts for the residential and business units in tha building addressing the potential noise and smoke issues from the deck; and, 5)1o support any future change of use of the building at 926 -928 Pearl, including mixed use development and/or a request for a variance in order to add additionai floors to the building. In consideration of thase actions on your part, I will not object to the proposed projecf at 902 Pearl Street, and will not induce others to object to the proposed project either in public hearings or othenvise. If this is an agreement, please countersign this letter below. Sincarely, -- - ~.~~% t~., "~=- ' Marc Muuon I agree with the terms set forth in this letter. ~~~_ ~ date Stephen Chemer ~g~ndalfem#_~ r~-, ,~ ~7 ~: J: IP,~ -~.~_ ATTACHMENT E CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: June 22, 2001 Updated 6/28/01 CASE MANAGER: Brent Bean See Landmarks PROJECT NAME: MAXIM PLACE comments LOCATION: 902 PEARL ST COORDINATES: N03W07 REVIEW TYPE: Site Review REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00033 APPLICANT: STEPHEN CHERNER DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW FOR HEIGHT MODIFICATION: Maxim Place at 902 Pearl Street REQUESTED VARIATIO NS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: -Height exception to 45' -Three story building other than at the corner of the property. -Reduced loading area (500 sf required) I. REVIEW FINDINGS Application does not meet criteria for approval of a Site Review; a revision is necessary by August 6, 2001 or a recommendation for denial will be made to Planning Board at this time. The location of this requests is at a primary entrance to the downtown area and aiso serves as an intertace between the downtown area and lower intensity commercial/residential areas to the west of 9`h Street. The bulk and scale of the building proposed are not consistent with the buildings present in this area. Staff would recommend the building be scaied back to reflect the permitted buiiding heights for this site. The building can have a three floor element at the corner that is 50' wide along the Pearl street frontage and 70' along the 9'" Street frontage. Any encroachments outside this envelope will limit the potential for staff support of the request if they can not be substantiated. The site plans indicate a building height of 45' at the corner of 9`h and Pearl. The low point of grade appears to be 5355' in the alley 25' out from the southeast corner of the building. If this is the case, the building would be considered to be 48.4' tall at the corner of 9`h and Pearl. A by right building can not exceed 45' based on the alley elevation and the Site Review elevation can exceed 45' if approved by the Planning Board. Corrections to the building height may be necessary. A buildiny heiyht of greater than 45' requires a total of 20% openspace, however fhe current plan is showing in excess of 20% openspace. The survey shows an encroachment of the West End Tavern building along the east property line. if this is correct, the site is 81 square feet less in total area (16,979 sf, not 17,060 sf), which would permit a maximum FAR of 37,354 sf (2.2 ~AR, including the 0.5 FAR for housing). Staff has received numerous comments from the Downtown Alliance, Landmarks Board members and the public regarding the nature of ihe design for this site. Primary concerns have been expressed about the fi! of the building within the context of the existing neighborhood. The existing buildings along the south side of Pearl are primarily one and two story buildings with height varying from 18 to 25'. This building has been proposed to be a three story building from the perspective of both Pearl and 9'" Sireels, which takes it out of character for the area. By right ordinances permit a third floor element at the corner of 9~h and Pearl, but this element should be carefully designed to fit within the context of this area of downtown. 11. CITY REQUIREMENTS Access/Circulation 1. It is expected that this site will generate significantly fewer trips than the previous use as a gas station. Although a formal Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this site is not needed per the requirements set forth by lhe Cily of Boulder Design and Construction Standards to show that this is a correct assumplion. It is necessary to determine the expected irips that would be generated by the proposed use compared to an estimate of the trips that would have Address: 902 PEARL ST Hgsnda Ifsm ri_?~ i G;~ k_~ been generated with the previous use. This can be provided in the form of a letter to city staff. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 2. No mention of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) was included in the proposal. Please provide information on what will be done to address TDM for this site. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 3. A minimum sidewalk width of 8 feet not including tree grates is required along 9'" Street. This sidewalk width is provided on the plan, however right-of-way must be dedicated to include this minimum 8 foot width. This right-of-way dedication is expected to consist of a 3 foot wide by 82 foot long area along extending from the nortfi property line along 9'h Street. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 4. A bulb-out section of sidewalk will be required along Pearl Street at its intersection with 9~h Street. This section is required to extend 7 feet from the existing curb on Pearl and 20 feet past east of the flowline of 9~h Street. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 5. The handicap ramps on the corner of 9`h Street and Pearl will be required to be reconstructed to align with ramps located across 9'h and Pearl Streets, respectively. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 6. The removal of curb cuts and replacement with new curb will be required along both Pearl and 9~h Streets. A plan and profile for each of these locations will be required at the time of Technical Document Review/Final Plat. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 Building Design The site plan should reflect the "by righY' bulk and scale elements of the R61-X zone district. Third floor elements should occur only at the corner of this site. See Site Review Criteria attached. The building height exceeds the proposed 45' limit proposed. The low point of grade is in the alley at the southeast corner of the site (5355'). Final building elevation should be based on this low point of grade. As currently drawn the building is at least 3.4 feet taller than 45'. This would require a height exception to approximately 49'and a requirement to provide a minimum of 20% open space on site. All building encroachments in to the public right of way need to be defined. The current plans suggest first, second and parapet encroachments into the right of way. First floor canopies and parapet encroachments are supported by the current policy, but other encroachments are not. Brent Bean, Senior Planner (303) 441-3137 Drainage The Drainage Statement needs to be stamped and signed by a State of Colorado registered professional engineer. Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121 Fire Protection Chapter 5.10(A)(3) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards requires that no exterior portion of any building shall be over 175 feet of fire access distance from the nearest hydrant. Proposed fire hydrant locations should be coordinated with the Chief Fire Marshal, Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350. Prior to final inspection, applicant shall install aulomatic fire sprinkler protection throughout proposed structure. Sprinkler system to be monitored by an approved UL-central receiving station. Adrian Hise, 303-4413350. Housing & Human Services ApplicanYs current submittal identifies a total of 9 residentiai units to be developed at 902 Pearl Street, which are subject to 9-6.5 Boulder Revised Code, "Inclusionary Zoning." For the 9 residential units, the Inclusionary zoning requirement is for 20% to be permanently affordable, which results in an obligation of 1.8 permanently affordable units. The expectation is that 50% of those units are to be provided on-site. The remainder of the obligetion can be met through several options, including: cash-in-lieu, dedication of off-site units or land dedication. Applicanl proposes to provide 1 permanently affordable unit on-site, wilh that unit consisting of 1221 square feeL This would meet the 50% on-site Inclusionary zoning requirement, as well as the minimum square footage required for Adtlress: 902 PEARL ST rtqenda Ilem N _~~_ ,"G~:; I; ~ permanently affordable units based on the proposed square footage of the 8 market rate units. Applicant may choose to meet the remainder of the Inclusionary zoning requirement through the options described above. Given recommendations regarding the bulk and scale of the proposed project, should the number and size of proposed residential units change, adjustments would be needed regarding the Inclusionary zoning requirement. ApplicanPs current plans orient the residential units primarily to the north, west, and south, and away from the existing building to the east. However, the proposed permanently affordable unit, Apt. 8, appears to be the only residential unit oriented to the east, where an issue has been raised regarding potentially non-compatible uses between the existing restaurant and the residential project. Applicant is encouraged to consider other possible design options that could mitigate this impact on the permanently affordable unit. Linda Hill-Blakley, Housing Division, 303 4413140 Comments from the Landmarks Board The Landmarks Board does not have formal review authority over this site, but because of the project=s unique setting between the downtown historic district and an individual landmark (the Jacobi House at 842 Pearl Street), the Board would like to comment on its compatibility with the surrounding context. Context This block of Pearl Street between 11th St. and 9th St. is characterized by one-story commercial buildings which historically provided a transition between the more intense, higher scale downtown commercial coreB now the Pearl Street MaIIB and the less intense, lower scafe mixed-use residential character to the west. The site is at the very edge of the historic district, which ends mid-block. The West End Tavern, immediately east of the site, is the last building in the historic district. Across 9th Street to the east is the individuai landmark, the Jacobi House, a two-story nineteenth century multi-family building. The Jacobi House is situated next to a series of one story commercial building, reflective of the historic mixed-use character of the area. Buildings on both blocks are all under 35' in height. This block of Pearl Street is also distinct from blocks on the Mall in its character. The photomontage submitted by the applicant illustrates this very well. W hereas the Pearl Street Mall area is characterized by two and three story buildings with large glassed store fronts, the buildings on this block are both smaller in scale and contain significantly less transparency in the first floor display area and in the upper transom area. This resutts in a greater solid to void ratio than on the Pearl Street Mall buildings. Review of the Proposed Project against the Design Guidelines The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines were approved by the Downtown Alliance. They have been adopted by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and are used in the review of projects in and out of the historic district by both the Landmarks Board and the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB). The following guidelines apply at this conceptual stage of the project: 2_2 Alignment of architectural features and established patterns with neighboring buildings 2_3 Maintaining the line of building facades and storefronts at the sidewalk edge 2`4 Compatibility of scale and massing 2_6 Creating pedestrian interest at the street level 2_9 Maintaining the rhythm established by the repetition of the traditional 25-foot facade widths 1.2.7 Maintaining the proportions of storefront windows and the established pattern of upper story windows The project appears to meet guidelines 2.3, 2.6, and 2.9 related to location of the building, facade widths, and street-level pedestrian interest, but does not meet guidelines 2.2, 2.4, and 1.27 related to scale, massing, and proportions of windows. The proposed building is not compatible in scale or character with this unique block. It is more characteristic of buildings along W alnut between 10~h and 14th or in Downtown Denver. It does not reflect the predominant character of window patterns along the street either in terms of amount of glazing or window proportions. In the proposal the upper story windows read as a horizontal band, whereas the dominant character on the rest of the block includes repetitions of vertical windows set into a solid brick fa~ade. Code Issues: Corner Building While the zoning currently allows a larger building at the corner, the Board questions its appropriateness on this block. Historically, in more intense commercial areas, a taller tower element was found on certain corners, but not for the extent of the area currently allowed (50' x 70') and not in less inlense transition areas such as this block. Given the predominance of one story commercial buildings from 11th ~o gth Streets and the lower scale mixed-use Atltlress: 902 PEARL Sl - rl(!'?II(Ju IiBfli h ~'u~~;; ~f I~~ ~-- character between 9th and 8th Streets, this block serves as a transition, and is not appropriate for taller corner buildings. Land Uses Maximum office/retail square footage can not exceed 1.7 FAR. Current site plan is consistent with this requirement. Brent Bean, Senior Planner (303) 666-9343 Landscaping Please provide a landscape plan that meets the standards of B.R.C. Sections 9-3.3-1, 9-3.3-2, 9-3.33, and 9-3.3- 4. Please note the following requirements for the preliminary landscape plan: Plan drawing at a scale of 1"= 10', 1"= 20', or 1"= 30', to include: • Standard title block including scale 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 utilities and easements, including fire hydrants, water meters, & height and location of overhead lines. • Existing location, size, and type of ali trees 1 1l2" caliper or greater • W here fencing is used for required screening, a scaled drawing of the fence elevation. Planting specifications • Layout and location of all landscaped areas including: - planting strips along all streets - all other landscaped areas • Botanical and common ~ames and sizes of all plant material proposed preliminarily. • Locations of ail proposed plant material, shown at the size they will be within 5 years of initial planting, and appropriately spaced. • Location, size, and species name of any plant materials proposed for removal. • Proposed planting of all ground surfaces. Grass surtaces must be identified as sod or seed with the blend or mix specified. • Location and dimensions of site distance triangles at all intersections of streets and curb cuts Please note the tree grate and planting pit standards outlined in Table 33 of the Design and Construction Standards. Tree grates must be a minimum of 4' wide by 10' in length for large street trees. Bev Johnson, 303- 441-3272. Leyal Documents Please update the title work to within 30 days and submit authorization from the corporate/partnership documents for a person to sign on its behalf. (Melissa K. Rickson - CAO) LotLayout Three lot lines are shown on the plans and these will either need to be eliminated or the owners will need to sign a Covenant to Hold as One Parcel for any building to be built over these lines. (Melissa K. Rickson - CAO) Miscellaneous 1. Any proposed groundwater discharge to the storm sewer system will require both a state permit and a city agreement. The steps for obtaining the proper approvals are as follows: Step 1-- Identify applicable Colorado Discharge Permit System requirements for the site. Step 2-- Determine the history of site contamination (underground storage tanks, groundwater contaminalion, industrial activities, landfills, etc.) If there is contamination on the site or in the groundwater, water quality monitoring is required. Sten 3-- Submit a written request to the city to use the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). This submittal should include a copy of lhe Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) permit application. The written request should include the location, description of the discharge, and brief discussion of all discharge oplions (e.g., discharge to MS4, groundwater infiltration, off-site disposal, elc.) Address: 902 PEARL Si~ - ~yendui'em~ 7~vi'u~58~~ The request should be addressed to: City of Bouider, Stormwater Quality, 4049 75th St, Boulder, CO 80301 Fax:303-413-7364 Step 4-- The city's Stormwater Quality Office will respond with a DRAFT agreement which will need to be submitted with the CDPHE permit application. CDPHE will not finalize the discharge permit without permission from the city to use the MS4. Step 5-- Submit a copy of the final discharge permit issued by CDPHE back to the City's Stormwater Quality Office so that the MS4 agreement can be finalized. For further information regarding stormwater quality within the City of Boulder contact the City's Stormwater Quality Office at 303-413-7350. All applicable permits must be in place prior to building permit appfication. 2. The applicant shall identify the existing monitor wells on the property, in conjunction with the requirements of the ground water discharge permit. 3. All structures (planters) and landscaping proposed in the right-of-way or public utility easements shall comply with the standards as set forth in Chapter 8-5, "Work in the Public right-of-way and Public Easements," and Chapter 8-6, "Public right-of-way and Easement Encroachments, Revocable Permits, Leases, and Vacations," Boulder Revised Code 1981. 4. No portion of any structure, including footings and eves, may encroach into any public right-of-way or easement without approval of a revocable permit, Some of the encroachments that appear to be proposed at the second and third floor Ievels do not appear to be consistent with current policy for consideration of revocable permits in the downtown area. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 Neighborhood Comments Neighborhood comments have been received and the following comments have primarily been made: 1. The buildings are out of scale with the neighborhood. 2. The buildings will block the view from adjacent properfies. 3. Residential use of the site may limit non-residential use (night club, restaurant and bar) located on properties within the area. 4. Additional methods for mitigating impacts between residential and commercial use need to be considered if residential units are developed on this site. A copy of all comments can be made if a request is made to the Case Manager, Brent Bean, Senior Planrier (303)441- 3137 Parking 1. Full-size parking spaces are 9' x 19'. Up to 40% of spaces can be compact (18 x 7.5'). The spaces shown in the parking garage are less than the full-size dimensions and must be corrected. This area also must not be encroached upon by any structural elements or columns. Additionai parking space size cannot encroach on the 24 foot wide back- up area. Options exist for widening the parking drive isle including narrowing the storage and mechanical areas or the narrowing the ramp into the garage from 21 feet to 18 feet which would still leave room for 19 foot long spaces adjacent to the ramp. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 2. Any tlead-end row of parking containing more than seven spaces is required to have a turn-around area equivalent to one full-size parking space. This must be shown on the plan desiynated as no-parking and the parking space count adjusted accordingly. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 Plan Documents Building heights need to be recalculated and shown on the elevation plans based on the low point of grade within the southeastern portion of the site. Review Process Planning Board consideration of this request is required due to the proposal to place a third floor outside the permitted third floor area boundaries for a corner property(50' X 70' area at the comer) and the building heights above 35' ouCside this area as well. Brent Bean, Senior Planner Address: 902 PEARL S I ~ ,~,,~,.~i:i;i liufll ~; ,~._.. ~i,,'~'i ~'~~... Site Design Planning Staff finds the site plan is not consistent with the existing character of the area. Third floor elements are not found in this area. The addition of extensive third floor elements are not appropriate for this area. The design should be reconfigured to reflect the permitted bulk and scale limits of the R61-X zone. Brent Bean, Senior Planner Utilities 1. All water meters are to be placed in city right-of-way or a public utility easement, but not placed in driveways, sidewalks, or behind fences. The plans show a proposed water meter to be located in the 8-foot wide pedestrian way of the sidewalk along Pearl Street. The proposed meter will have to be relocated outside of the 8-foot wide pedestrian way and nearer to the curb and gutter and tree grates. Trees proposed to be planted in city right-of-way or a public utility easement shall be located at least 10 feet away from existing or future utilities, including services. 2. Per Section 8-5-13 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, no person shall excavate an area in the pavement of a public street for a period of 3 years from completion of resurtacing, except in compliance with said section. Pearl Street was resurtaced in 2000, which means no excavation may occur until late 2003 unless certain criteria can be met. 3. The existing storm sewer mains in the alley south of the property are shown incorrectly. The applicant's engineer may contact city staff for locations of the existing storm sewer main. 4. All existing utilities need to be shown on the Drainage and Master Utility Plan, inciuding the existing water main in Pearl Street. Revise the plans as necessary. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Access/Circulation The removal of curb cuts and replacement with new curb will be required along both Pearl and 9`h Streets. A plan and profile for each of these locations will be required at the time of Technical Document Review/Final Plat. Steve Durian Building and Housing Codes Building must meet the requirements of the building code in effect at the time of building permit application. Note the egress from the bedrooms on the east side do not appear to meet the requirements of section 310.4 of the 1997 UBC. Steve Brown Drainage The applicant will be required to continue conveying drainage in a manner which does not adversely affect neighboring properties. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 Utilities 1. The applicant is advised that at the time of building permit application the following requirements will apply: a) The applicant is required to provide an accurate existing and proposed plumbing fixture count to determine if the existing meters and services are adequate for the proposed use. b) Water and sanitary sewer Plant Investment Fees and service line sizing will be re-evaluated. c) If the existing water and/or sanitary sewer services are required to be abandoned and upsized, all new service taps to existing mains shall be made by city crews at the developer's expense. The water service must be excavated and turned off at the corporation stop, per city standards. The sewer service must be excavated and capped at the property line, per city standards. d) If the building will be sprinklered, the approved fire line plans must accompany the fire sprinkler service line connection permit application. Address: 902 PEARL ST il~j2iiw(sl~8f(I~._? ._...;'u~?~i~~ 2. Floor drains internal to covered parking structures, that collect drainage from rain and ice drippings from parked cars or water used to wash-down internal floors, shall be connected to the wastewater service using appropriate grease and sediment traps. Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121 IV. NEXT STEPS Staff would recommend the applicant meet with the staff to review changes needed to be made to this site plan proposal based on the by right limitations of tlie site. Please contact the Case Manager Brent Bean to schedule a meeting. Atldress: 902 PEARL ST . ~ ~,,,,,, ~ ~ ~~:,~, ~ g -- ~ u~~ _ ._ SITE REVIEW CRITERIA Genera~ Criteria No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: Boulder Vallev Comqrehensive Plan: Yes/no The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies ot the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The plan provides for the development of a mixed use project within the downtown area which is consistent with severalBVCP policies; mixed use policies, 2.20 ro/e of the Central Area. However the requesi in opposition to the new policy for the "Preservation f Community Character and Historic preservation policies 2.27,2.28 and pollcy 2.31 "Design that respects existing character. A new mixed use project is very appropriate for this location, however the fit within the existing building character of this area is also very important. The current site plan with the addltion of third floor e/ements outside the permitted building envelop are not providing an appropriate fit with the historic one and two story buildings present a/ong Pearl and the lower intensity mixed use neighborhood west of 9'h Street along Pearl and Wa/nut. X The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley, Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a 300 foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: The R81-X zone does not have a maximum established density. The proposal is to develop at the rate of 23 units per acre. (i) the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, (ii) the maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981. II. Site Desian: It utilizes site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: A. Ooen sqace, including without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: X 1. Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; most of the at grade openspace is accessible and has limited functionality. This is a downtown commercial site and /arge openspace areas are not expected. X 2. Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; roof top decks and porches will be provided to meet this requirement. X 3. The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including without limitation healthy long-lived trees, terrain, and drainage areas; No natura/ features are present in this area. X 4. The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; Limited relief is provided along the al/ey and 9~h Street sidewalk. This is a downtown area and openspace is not practical to use as a relief for density. X 5. If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. Site is not adjacent to openspace. PuBlic sidewalks along 9`" Street provide access to the Boulder Cieek trail system. B. Landscapinq X 1. The project provides for a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the selection of materials provides a variety of colors and contrasts; For a downtown site, the mixture of materials and surface materials is good. no 2. The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2 and 9-3.33, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements," and "Landscape Design Slandards," B.R.C. 1981; and Size of material has not been defined on current plans. Additional information will be required. X 3. The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights- of-way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features,.and to contribute to the Address: 902 F'EARL Sl~ - ., .w„ ;;c;; __ ~~__ "'.' --~ . development of an attractive site plan. There are no landscaped setbacks or yards required in the RBi-X zone. The public sidewa/ks have been enhance, however the corner of 9rh and Pearl should be further emphasized with a recessed entry or display window at the corner. C. Circulation, including without limitation the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not: no 1. High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project is provided; The basic p/an is consistent wiEh this goal, but fhe corner elements of the plan cou/d be adjusted to provide additional pedestrian space at the corner of the property td improve pedestrian movements. X 2. Potential conflicts v~iYh vehicles are minimized; X 3. Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including without limitation streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails; no 4. On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; There !s no transit service a/ong 9t6 Street at this time. X 5. The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; Existing street sysfem is not changing. X 6. The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including without limitation automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust; and X 7. City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicie use is facilitated. D. Parkin : X 1. The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; underground parking access from the alley has been proposed. Conflicts with pedestrians should be minimal. X 2. The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; Under ground parking has been proposed to reduce impacts on buildable land area above grade. no 3. Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and Final p/an details are required. X 4. Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Section 93.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Under ground parking lot does not require landscape improvements. E. Buildinp Desiun, Livabilitv, and Relationship to the Existinq or Proposed Surroundinp Area: no 1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted pian for the area; The third floor elements of the plan are not consistent with the one and two story buildings found along the south side of Pearl. In addition, the three story elements should be brou~ght into conformance with the provisions of a by right project. The buildings along west 9` Street are predominantly two story buildings and this site service as a transition from west Pearl (west of 9~" Street) which ls buildings of less than 35' in height and predominantly less than two stories in height. no 2. The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; Buildings along south Pearl are predominately one and two story buildings. The building needs to transitiott to the two story height along both pearl and 9~h Street. The basic b~r righi solution permitting three stories within 45' of 50' along Pearl and 70' along 9~ Street should generally be met. X 3. The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; In the downtown area, building heights and design constraints do not support the preservation of view corridors from adjoining uses. Address: 502 PEARL Si ~~ ~ X 4. If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; additional information is needed on this criteria. X 5. Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians. The current architecture is contemporary in sry/e, but creates an appropriate transition to the historic architecture found in the area with the exception of the building height issues raised above. X 6. To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; Public utilities and services are available in the area. X 7. For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; this site can only provide attached housing units, but if five or more units are proposed, one of the five units is required to be permanently affordable. X S. For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on- site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; The residential units proposed for ihis site are at least 15' from the adjoining building (West End TavernJ to the east of this site. Compliance with the current two/three story limits of the R81-X zone wou/d place the unifs approximately 50' west of the adjoining property. no 9. A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Additional information is required. X 10. The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to naturai systems; No natural areas are present on this site. X 11. Cut and fill are minimized on the site, and the design of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land. This site has 3-4 of feet of fall from the northwesf corner to southeast corner of the site. Cut and fill is not an issue on this site. Solar Sitina and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: X 1. Placement of Open Space and Streets. Open space areas are located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. Openspace has been proposed along the south side of the building, along 9`h Street and decks at or above the second floor. X 2. Lot Layout and Buildinq Sitinp. Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby sVUCtures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading. The development constraints of this site suggest east west orientation of units, which is resu/ts in an inconsistency with this criteria. Porches and decks have been orientated to take advantage of the maximum amount of light and vlew. X 3. Buildinp Form. The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The downtown area is in solar area 3, no protection requirements are applicable to this site. X 4. Landscapinq. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. Majority of new landscaping has been placed along the west and south property line. Shading of adjacent uses should be minimal. Adaress: 502 PEARL ST ~ , ,,, ~. ....,. ,:SiL h- .~ ~ ~~. ~ / a~G~~~ ~~ ~ ~ CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: February 22, 2002 CASE MANAGER: Brent Bean PROJECT NAME: MAXIM PLACE LOCATION: 902 PEARL ST COOF2DINATES: N03W07 REVIEW TYPE: Site Review REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001•00033 APPLICANT: STEPHEN CHERNER DESRIPTION: SITE REVIEW FOR HEIGHT MODIFICATION: Maxim Place at 902 pearl Street. Applicant is proposing to develop a mixed use project, containing six (6) residential units (13615 square feet) and 19340 square feet of nonresidential use (retailloffice) and 15180 square feet below grade garage.. REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: - Height exception to 44.5' - Three Story building where 2 permitted - Vested rights for 13,815 sf of residential use containing 6 units and 19,340 sf of officelretail floor area. I. REVIEW FINDINGS The plan proposed is much more consistent with current City policy, The two slory elements along Pearl are consistent with the existiny lwo story buildings found along Ihe south side of Pearl between 9f" and 10~" Streets. Increasing the building from two stories to three stories along the 9~" Stmet frontage provides a transition to the three story buildings present along the north side or Walnut. A view corridor has been preserved along the southeastern portion of the property for adjacent properties. The city continues to receive comments from the general public regarding development of this property and the loss of views from the property to the east. Staff feels the applicant has responded positively to the view corridor issues for ihis site. There are minor corrections that need to be made to this plan before it is forwarded to the Planning Board for consideration. There are at least three elemenls of the plans proposed that are not consistent with UBC or ICBO standards. See the Building code discussion section under City Requirements. The basement area appears to include the 8' dedication for 9"' Street. Permanent building encroachments are not permitted in right of way. The balconies for townhouse units 1& 2 will need to be relocated outside the future right of way for 9'h Street as well. Removable structures such as canopies may only be placed over the right of way. 7he parking garage and second floor plans will need to be revised to reflect these requirements. Do the total lot and openspace calculations take into account removal of the right of way along 9"' Street? Calculations will require corrections if they do not. Please schedule a meeting to review the comments made in this document with Brent Bean, Case Manager, Steve Brown, Plan Reviewer to review the corrections that will need to be made. At this time, if revised plans can be provided to the Project Manager on or before March 11, 2002 this request can be scheduled for the May 2 Planning Board. There will be no charge for this review of corrections, if the revisions remain minor in nature. A Planning Board fee of $2900 must be paid to the City prior to scheduling these requests for Planning Board. Brent Bean, Case Manager (303) 441-3137 Adtlress: 902 PEARL 5T ~ ~~~,~t~Jil __-' '-,~~~.,i'....~.__.. ~'lil li ~ ~ The following documents will require "Technical Document Review" prior to applying for any building permits for this projecP' 1. Final Landscape Plan 2. Final Architecture Plan 3. Final Streetscape Plan 4. Groundwater information (Soils report) 5. Utility Connection Plan II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Access/Circulation 1. The letter addressing generated traffic does not account for reduced trips. CAGID surveys indicate that 40% of employees arrive via alternate modes to single occupant vehicle trips. It would be expected perhaps as many as 70% to 80% of the retail trips would be reduced due to pedestrians arriving from other locations and parking at CAGID lots. A re-assessment of the traffic generated needs to consider these types of trips reductions with consideration of the types of uses and how they related to other nearby uses. A letter of correction must be submitted to Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 by March 11, 2002 2. As discussed in previous comments, the sidewaik that would need to be contained in right-of-way needs to be 8 feet wide clear of obstacles including tree grates. This dedication must be shown on the plans in its proper location. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 Staff has reviewed the TDM strategies proposed and supports the proposal for the commercial portion of the development. These include: • Unbundling parking for commercial tenants • Employee Transportation Coordinators • CAGID benefits • Bicycle Parking Additional TDM for residents will be required. TDM solutions for tenants that staff have seen proposed for other similar developments include provision ot residential transit passes, provision of motorized or non-motorized bicycles for residents and additional bike parking to specifically serve residents. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 Building and Housing Codes Same comment as before, your comment regarding the 2000 code and proposed amendment is not correct. The City of Boulder has historically required sprinkler systems as an exception to the UBC or IBC if adopted. The internal bedrooms do no1 meet exiting requirements as drawn, dead end hallways of greater than 20' in length have been shown on the plan and stairway exitiny does not appear to meet the diagonal placement requirements. Tfiese revisions could have significant impacts on the plan proposed for this development if they cannot be corrected simply. Steve Brown (303) 441- 3172 Building Design 1. Building Height: Site Plan information is not consistent. The written document states 45.5', where the Site pian shows 45'. The elevation plans suggest a height of approximately 45.4' (base on the low point of grade 5355 in the alley, the manhole elevation in the sidewalk at 9"' and Pearl and the elevation plans (42' + 3.4' = 45.4'). Please make corrections to the Site Plan and elevations that show the low point of grade 25' out from the lowest point on the buiiding and the proposed buiiding height (44.5'). 2. FAR calculations: It appears that the 8' right of way to be dedicated along 9°i Street has been included in the FAR calculations for this site. Please remove the area and adjust the calculations. 3. Openspace: a. if building height is actually less than 45' as suggested by most of the plan documents, 15% openspace is required. However, If the building height equals or exceeds 45', a minimum of 20% openspace is required. b. The Plan appears to include the right of way dedication for 9~h Street in the openspace area calculations. If this is the case, openspace provided on site will need to be recalculated. If a reduction in required openspace at grade (15% assuming a building under 45') is required, a specific written discussion of the openspace amenities to be provided on site must be provided and a requests to reduce required openspace officially made by the appficant. Atldress: 902 PEAKL ST d, ~.°~-~ R ~ _, ...~,...i~ ~fL_.~~_' ___' 4. Staff has some reservations supporting the intern third floor open deck located between units 2& 3 on the third floor. This area will become a water trap for snow and rain. Enclosure of the area may not be possible in the future if fire codes require the area to remain open. Suggested change to the current floor plan: reduce the north south width of the third floor of townhouse 1 by 4-6'. Add the additional width back into townhouse units 2& 3 to allow the bedrooms to be places against the west wall of the building. This would allow a more desirable width for the bedrooms and meet fire exiting requirements for the third floor bedrooms. 5. The decks on townhouses 1 8 2 will need to be moved east out of the 8' right of way dedication for 9'h Street.. Housing and Human Services 1. Each new residential unit developed on the property is subject to Chapter 9-6.5, Boulder Revised Code, the "Inclusionary Zoning" requirement. The general inclusionary zoning requirement is that each new development contributes 20% of the total units as permanently affordable housing. At least 50% of the obligation is expected to be provided on-site. 2. Applicant has requested to satisfy the inclusionary zoning obligation by making a cash-in-lieu contribution with no permanently affordable units provided on site. The ordinance allows for this variance if it results in an additional 50% or more permanently affordable benefits above the benefit which would otherwise have been provided. 3. For the proposed 6 units with no permanently affordable units on-site, the inclusionary zoning obligation is calculated as foliows: • 6 units x 20% = 1.2 inclusionary zoning requirement • .2 off-site acceptable • 1.0 on-site • .5 (1.0 x 50% additional benefit applies) • 1.7 = inclusionary zoning requirement for all cash-in-lieu • 1.7 x 5= 8.5 x$14,424 =$122,604 cash-in-lieu Note that these are year 2001 cash-in-lieu amounts for attached units, which are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the median sales price for housing based on Boulder Assessor records. This annual adjustment will be made very soon for year 2002; consequently, this cash-in-lieu amount will increase in 2002. Applicable cash-in-lieu contributions must be made prior to application for a building permit. Linda Hill-Blakley, Housing Planner, 4413140 Landscaping The 15' X 46' landscaped area along the alley, should be include landscape furniture to make the space more a more usable openspace. Please show all existing utilities, gas, electric, sewer, water and other utilities that may be present on the Final Landscape plan. Landscape plan may need to be modified to coordinate tree and large shrub placement. Bev Johnson,303-441-3272. Utilities As mentioned in the previous comments, trees proposed to be planted in city right-of-way or a public utility easement shatl be located at least 10 feet away from existing or future utilities, including services. The proposed water service (meter) and fire service lines on Pearl Street must be relocated to accommodate the required 10 feet of separation from the proposed street trees. Revise lhe plans accordingly. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS AccesslCirculation 1. Please install Knox-box for Fire Department use prior to occupancy. Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350. 2. At time of Technical Document review the following access/circulation related elements will need to be provided for review: • Adequate information for the construction of new curbs and sidewalks will be required including spot elevations, dimensions details, contours, etc. • Plans and legal descriptions for the right-of-way dedication for the sidewalk along 9'" Street. Fire Protection M Address: 902 PEARL ST , ~ . ; /~_ ~, „ ~ ~:/ Prior to final inspection, applicant shall install automatic fire sprinkler protection throughout the structure: NFPA Standard 13 protection for commercial areas, 13-R protection for residential sections, with requisite water-flow supervision and alarm notification throughout the structure. Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350. Landscaping Please include the following with the technical document submittal: a separate irrigation plan indicating the nature, scope and location of the automatic system; soil preparation and planting specifications; and tree grate specifications. Bev Johnson,303-4413272. Legal Documents _ 1. Please provide documentation as to who is authorized to sign on behalf of MU II, LLC., and a Colorado limited liability company. 2. The vested rights form needs to be signed and dated. (Melissa Rickson - CAO) Miscellaneous 1. The applicant states that groundwater discharge is not anticipated. At time of 7echnical Document Review, the applicant shall submit information (geotechnical report, soil borings, etc.) regarding the groundwater conditions on the property. Additionally, at time of Technical Document Review, the applicant shall address the existing monitor wells on the property. Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121 2. The applicant is notified that any proposed groundwater discharge to the storm sewer system will require both a state permit and a city agreement. The steps for obtaining the proper approvals are as follows: Step 1-- Identify applicable Colorado Discharge Permit System requirements for the site. Step 2-- Determine the history of site contamination (underground storage tanks, groundwater contamination, industrial activities, landfills, etc.) If there is contamination on the site or in the groundwater, water quality monitoring is required. Step 3-- Submit a written request to the city to use the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). This submittal should include a copy of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) permit appficatlon. The written request should include the iocatlon, description of the d'ischarge, and brief discussion of all discharge options (e.g., discharge to MS4, groundwater infiltration, off-site disposal, etc.) The request should be addressed to: City of Boulder, Stormwater Quality, 4049 75th St, Boulder, CO 80301 Fax:303-413-7364 Step 4-- ihe City's Stormwater Quality Office will respond with a DRAFT agreement, which will need to be submitted with the CDPHE permit application. CDPHE will not finalize the discharge permit without permission from the ciry to use the MS4. Step 5-- Submit a copy of the final discharge permit issued by CDPHE back to the City's Stormwater Quality Office so that the MS4 agreement can be finalized. The applicant shall identify the existing monitor wells on the property, in conjunction with the requirements of the ground water discharge permit. For further information regarding stormwater quality within the City of Boulder contact the City's Stormwater Quality Office at 303-413-7350. All applicabfe permits must be in place prior to building permit application. 3. All structures (planters) and landscaping proposed in the right-of-way or public utility easements shall comply with the standards as set forth in Chapter 8-5, "Work in the Public right-of-way and Public Easements," and Chapter 8-6, "Public right-of-way and Easement Encroachments, Revocable Permits, Leases, and Vacations," Boulder Revised Code 1981. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 4. No portion of any structure, including footings and eves, may encroach into any public right-of-way or easement or across any private property line. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 Streetscape At time of Technical Document Review, the applicant shall submit detailed Streetscape Plans in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Sfandards. Any proposed installation of brick or sands(one paving in the public right- of-way shall be in accordance with city standards and will be reviewed as part of the Technical Document Review. The Address: 902 F'EARL 5~ ' . .,_. ~ , ~ __?~.,~~:,r-.'^~/ ~%~ ' applicant is notified that all work associated with the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees and landscaping materials located, standing, or growing within or upon any City of Boulder public right-of-way is subject to City of Boulder approval or permit issuance as set forth in Chapter 8-5, "Work in the Public Right-of-Way and Public Easements," and Chapter 6-6, "Protection of Tree and Plants," B.R.C. 1981. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 Utiiities 1. Per Section 8-5-13 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, no person shall excavate an area in the pavement of a public street for a period of 3 years from completion of resurfacing, except in compliance with said section. Pearl Street was resurtaced in 2000, which means no excavation may occur until late 2003 unless the criteria of Section 8-5-13 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 can be met. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 2. At time of Technical Document Review, a Utility Connection Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards will be required. Additional support material to address ground water concerns, including soils investigations, engineering calculations and design details, shall be provided by the engineer in order to determine the most effective method to alleviate groundwater infiltration and migration. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 3. Prior to application for any building permits, the applicant is required to obtain approval of the Utility Connection Plan through the Technical Document Review process. All plans must meet ail requirements of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and the Boulder Revised Code, 1981. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 4. The applicant is advised that at the time of building permit application the following requirements will apply: a) The applicant is required to provide an accurate existing and proposed plumbing fixture count to determine if the existing meters and services are adequate for the proposed use. b) Water and sanitary sewer Plant Investment Fees and service line sizing will be re-evaluated. c) If the existing water and/or sanitary sewer services are required to be abandoned and upsized, all new service taps to existing mains shall be made by city crews at the developer's expense. The water service must be excavated and turned off at the corporation stop, per city standards. The sewer service must be excavaied and capped at the property line, per city standards. d) !f the building will be sprinklered, the approved fire line plans must accompany the fire sprinkler service line conneclion permit application. 5. Floor drains internal to covered parking structures, that collect drainage from rain and ice drippings from parked cars or water used to wash-down internal floors, shall be connected to the wastewater service using appropriate grease and sedimen[ traps. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 6. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along the property's frontages may conflict with existinc~ utilities (gas, electric, telecommunications, etc.) not shown on the plans. It is the applicanPs responsibility to resolve such con(licts with appropriate methods conforming to the Boulder Revised Code 1~J81, the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and any private/franchise utility specifications. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 Address: 902 PEARL Sl ~ ~-~- ~ . ~~~ _.'~~;~ti~ : :~_y(_.~„ SITE REVIEW CRITERIA General Criteria No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan: Yes/no The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The revised plan provides for the development of a mixed-use project within the downtown area, which is consistent with several BVCP policies for mixed use and policy 2.20 role of the Central Area. The p/an has been changed to be more consisieni with the policies for "Preservation of Community Character and Historic preservation," policies 2.27, 2.28 and policy 2.31, "Design tiiaf respects existing character." A two story fagade has been proposed a/ong Pearl, and the third floor elements have been moved to the southwestern portion of the building. No buildfng has been developed above the first floor in the southeastern portion of the building to preserve a view corridor from the rooftop of the adjacent building (West End Tavern). X The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Vailey Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a 300 foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: The plan does not exceed the expected residential density for an RB1-X zoned property. Six units on a 16,979 square foot parcel have been proposed, less than 16 units per acre.. (i) the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, (ii) the maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-32, "Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981. II. Site Desiqn: It utilizes site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: A. Oqen space, including without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: X 1. Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; most of the at grade openspace is accesslble and has limited functionality. This is a downtown commercial site and large openspace areas are not expected. The area adjacent to the alley should have a grassed surface, rather than being filled with scrubs, to make the space a more functional openspace for tenants of this site. X 2. Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; roof top decks and porches will be provided to meet this requirement. Each unit has been shown to have at /east 72 square feet of deck area. Recommended standards for high-densiry zones is 60 square feet of private openspace per unit. X 3. The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including without limitation heallhy long-lived Irees, terrain, and drainage areas; No natural features are present in this area. X 4. The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; Limited relief is provided along the alley and 9~h Street sidewa/k. This is a downtown area and openspace is not practical to use as a relief for density. X 5. If possible, open space is linked to an area- or citywide system. Site is not adjacent to openspace. Public sidewalks along 9~h Street provide access to the Boulder Creek trail system. B. Landscapinq: X 1. The project provides for a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the selection of materials provides a variety of colors and contrasts; for a downtown site, the mixture of materials and surface materials is good. Atldress: 902 PEARL 5~ ~ ' ~ , ~~ ' .. ._,r~---. . l~~~ X 2. The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2 and 9-3.3-3, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements," and "Landscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and Material sizes proposed meet or exceed Ciry standards. X 3. The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights- of-way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan. This site is located within a downtown area. Sidewalk improvements proposed will enhance pedestrian use of the area and will create an attractive streetscape. C. Circulation, including without limitation the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not: X 1. High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project is , provided; additional sidewalk width and curb extensions at Pearl wUl be provided to create a more pedestrian friendly development. X 2. Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized; Sidewalks have been widened and a curb extension proposed along Pearl to enhance vehicular circulation in this area. X 3. Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including without limitation streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails; This site is within a develaped portion of the city and the transportation system with(n this area has evolved to accommodate public needs, X 4. On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; There is no transit service along 9~^ and Pearl at thls time, however the site has been proposed to accommodate future transit service if it becomes available.. X 5. The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; Existing street system is not changing. X 6. The project is designed for the types of iraffic expected, including without limitation automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust; and This site is located on an existing street network. Residential units have been placed at or above the second floor level. X 7. City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated. City construction standards will be required to be met with the development of this site. D. Parking X 1. The project incorporates into the design of parking area measures to provide safety, convenience, and separetion of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; underground-parking access from the alley has been proposed. Conflicfs with pedestrians should be minimal. X 2. The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; Under ground parking has been proposed to reduce irnpacts on bui/dable land area at grade. X 3. Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and Parking and lighting will conform to city regulations. X 4. Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Under ground parking lot does not require landscape improvements. E. Buildinq Desiqn. LivabilitV and Relationship to the Existina or Proposed Surroundinq Area: X 1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; The Pearl frontage has been reduced to two story elements as viewed irom Pearl. Third floor elements have been located to the southwestern portion of the site, to reflect the building heights along Walnut. A view corridor has been preserved in the southeastern portion of the site by keeping a triangular portion to one story in height. X 2. The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; Building heights have been modrfied fo blend with the prevalent heights in the area. Two stories along Pearl and up to three stories along the south 9'h Street irontage. The building will Atltlress: 9U2 PEi~RL Sl - 76_'~ 3y not exceed 44.5 feet in height, which is less than the existing buildings a/ong the south side of the alley. X 3. The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; The applicant has kept a portion of the southeastern section of the building to a one story elevation, to preserve a view corridor to the southwest for the building(s) to the east of this site. This effort will preserve a view toward the Flatirons for adjacent properties. In the downtown area, it is very difficult to preserve view corridors that are present for existing properties without sacrificing permitted building area. The applicant has not maximized the al/owed building area for this site due to the view and height consistency limitations of this site. X 4. If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; this area is adjacent to the downtown historic district a/ong its eastern property line. Tlie building architecture proposed reflects the historic two-story height of the area and general use of bui/ding materials. The proposed architecture is an appropriate interpretatlon of heritical architecture and contemporary design elements. X 5. Buildings present an attractive streetscape; incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians. The current architecture is contemporery in style, but creates an appropriate transition to the historic architecture found in the area with the exception of the building hefght issues raised above. X 6. To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned pubiic faciiities; Pubiic utilities and services are avaflable in the area. Pedestrian movements wil! be enhanced in this area through the development of expanded sidewalks and the curb extension at 9rn and Pearl. X 7. For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; this site can only provide attached housing units, but wil/ comply with the provisions of Inclusionary Zoning. . X 8. For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on- site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; the residentia/ units proposed foi this have been separated from the adjoining building (West End Tavern) to the east by office uses. Both physical (distance) and separation of use (office) will provide sound buffers from existing non-residential uses in this area. X 9. A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Light plan proposed wil/ be required to meet proposed city standards for lighting.. X 10. The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates imp~cts to natural systems; No natural areas are present on this site. X 11 Cut and fill are minimized on the site, and the desic~n of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land. This site has 3-4 of feet of fall from the northwest corner to southeast corner of the site. Cut and fil/ is not an issue on this site. F. Solar Sitinq and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: X 1. Placement of Open Sqace and Streets. Open space areas are located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natural fealures and constraints may justiFy deviations from this criterion. Openspace has been proposed along the south side of the building, along 9`h Street and decks at or above the second floor. X 2. Lot Lavout and Buildinp Sitinq. Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading. The development constraints of this site suggest east west orientation of units, which results in an inconsistency with this criteria. Porches and decks have been orientated to take advantage of the maximum amount of light and view. X 3. Buildinq Form. The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Chapter 9-8, Address: 902 PEARL 57 . ~~ ?b ~ 3S , , _ . "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The downtown area is in so/ar area 3, no protection requirements are required of ihis site. X 4. Landscaoina. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. Majority of new landscaping has been placed along the west and south property line. Shading of adjacent uses should be minimal. Address: 902 PEARL 5~ - - ~ ~ , ; 'O . ~~:.;,;;,,,~,~ . . ~.. ,~~~Z~ ATTACHMENT F ~ NOTE to Planning Board: In June of 2001, Planning Staff received a 241 Page Petition from opponents to this request. The petition contains approximately 3600 signatures. The content of this petition can be reviewed in the Planning office prior to the May 2 meeting. Staff have a copy of the petition at the May 2 meeting. The plans under review at this time were completed after this petition was submitted to the city and a different plan then originally proposed for this site. ~~ ~~~ ~ Agend~ Ilem # ~~_'~~ ~.~ - ~T~ PROPERTIES, LLC March 14, 2002 Mr. Brent Bean City of Boulder Planning Department 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 8030? RE: LUR-2002-00005 (902 Pearl Stree[) Dear Mr, Bean, As the owner of property located north and across Pearl Gom the project, I would like to comment on Ihe current proposal. I own property located and addressed as 4 i 9,921,929,935,939,943,947 and 951 Pead StreeL The application incoTrectlv shows 929 Pearl Street as 4R feet tall when i[ is actually no more than 35 feet tall. Also, 939 Pearl Street is shown as 38 feet tall when it is actually no more than 25 feet tull. This is important only in that that lhese buildings were both built wilh no height vanances as proposed by the applicant of 902 Pead Street. Tha proposzl.has two residen[ial units facing directly on Pear1 Street across from the pa[io for Chipotle (nill and Bacuro Italian Restauranl a[ 921 Pearl Stree[(l~oth ground level and rooftop patios) I am concemed that amone ocwpyin~ these [wo residential uniis would object to legitimqtc noise naturally produced by these ]egally approved res[auran[ spaces. Additionally, the windows which fuce Pearl Street from those units are the bedroom windows. I balieve [hat these units shoufd be replaced wi[h office space to prevent problems similar [o the problems cumentl}~ existing with the West End Tavem. Furthatxnore, if lhe plans for the residential units ~eoes forward, nll prospectiJe tenanu or buyers of [hose units should affirtnatively accept, in writing, that they have been forewamed that there are 3 restauranWar patios within earsho[ of the badroom windo~vs. It is very imporlant that a clean and unobs Wcted pedesVian corridor be provided along 9th Street tiom the alley to Pearl Street. I believe it should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, similar to other sidewalks in Downtown Boulder. This was not provided between Walnut and the alley and this needs to be rectified before Ihe hotel is built at 9th and Walnut. I am not opposed to the buildmg of an appropriate building ac 902 Pead SVeet. In fact, I beiieve it car, and should be a posidve addition to the West End pearl SVeet area. FinaUy, no new building at 902 Pearl Street should nse over 3~ teet above the Yead Strect sidewalk. "1'his would allow for a notmai downtown buiiding in this area and allow for a 3 floor building format. The towl height tiom the alley would be approaimatel}' 38 feet ~ ~ Thanl: you for the opportunity to provide input on this proposal. s~n~Te~}, ,~`~ R E C t( Y E D ,~, ~ `. ~ ~~ -_ / Roba ~ MAR 2 0 2002 1350 Pine Screec, Suice #2 • Boulder, Colorado 80302 •(303) 444-6060 • Fax (303) 444-1999 Ngenda ftem k~. Pa~n S~6 ATTACHMENT F Brent Bean - 902 Pearl Street From: "S G SMITH" <sybilgsmith@msn.com> To: <plandevelop@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 2/13/2002 7:36 PM Subject: 902 Pearl Street Att: Brent Bean I have just received notification of resubmission of this development application and must state that I am deeply apposed to any type of development which exceeds 35'. The Pearl Street Mall have been a very successful and lively downtown are and up until now reasonably compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The historic building heights have allowed a reasonable amount of sun to enter the area and have preserved some of the possible views. A 45' building at this corner will be out of scale with it's surroundings (my neighborhood and adjacent Historic buildings), will block the sun on the side walks, and spoil the long views. This development will have considerable impact on the historic environment in this area if developed at 35'; at 45' it will be devastating. I have lived at 820 Spruce Street for more than 20 years. I like living downtown for the same reason that others enjoy visiting the area. I will not enjoy it if it becomes a dark, icy, wind tunnel in the winter and baking hot, viewless tunnel in the summer. Colorado is about sky---IeYs see as much of it as we reasonably can. I appreciate the opportunity to express my views. Sincerely, Sybil Gillett Smith ~;: ;,~r,:~ . 7~-` u~n .ii'~ ~ ' ' ~~ L..Y file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\beanbl\Local°/a20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 2/14/2002 Page 1 of 1 Brent Bean - Petition From: <micheilegoren@yahoo.com> To: <beanb@ci.bouider.co.us> Date: Ol/29/2002 5:36 PM Subject: Petition Dear City Council members: I am writing to encourage you to support the planning boards recommendation to eliminate the conditional height provisions on downtown corner lots. I believe the following to be true: 1.People shouldn't have the right to come afterward and sort of make your use illegal 2.We want a public process for downtown property owners who build above two stories and city planners must apply different rules for different applicants. 3.We don't want the West End Tavern or any other late night entertainment establishment to have to change its character or cut back on its hours to accomodate new property owners living in these commercial/entertainment areas. 4.We hope the developers would respect our local businesses long history in our community and build to a reasonable scale. LeYs not become Anyplace, USA. 5.Protect our views, our skyline, our historic character as well as the rights of already established local businesses. 6.There are opportunities to build other projects elsewhere in Boulder without destroying the charm and appeal of Downtown Boulder. 7.1 would like to see the local media investigate and analyze these developments and report who is behind these proposals. 8.We're concerned about the current sound ordinance with residents in commercial/entertainment districts and the possibte conflicts that wouid be created. Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue. Comments: Contact Information Name: goren Address: 844 19th st City: boulder State: Colorado Zip: 80302 Phone: Email: michellegoren@yahoo.com riC;e~l::i: I?~Pil ~r ..~~ __. ~a i~' ~ ~ file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW }00021.HTM Ol/30/2002 rage t ot 1 Brent Bean - Petition From: <michellegoren@yahoo> To: <beanbQci.boulder.co.us> Date: O1/23/2002 5:15 PM Subject: Petition Dear City Council members: I am writing to encourage you to support the planning boards recommendation to eliminate the conditionai height provisions on downtown corner lots. I believe the following to be true: 1.People shouldn't have the right to come afterward and sort of make your use illegal 2.We want a public process for downtown property owners who bui~d above two stories and city ptanners must apply differe~t rules for different applicants. 3.We don't want the West End Tavern or any other late night entertainment establishment to have to change its character or cut back on its hours to accomodate new property owners living in these commercial/entertainment areas. 4.We hope the developers would respect our local businesses long history in our community and build to a reasonable scale. LeYs not become Anyplace, USA. 5.Protect our views, our skyline, our historic character as well as the rights of already established (ocal businesses. 6.There are opportunities to build other projects elsewhere in Boulder without destroying the charm and appeal of Downtown Boulder. 7.1 would like to see the local media investigate and analyze these developments and report who is behind these proposals. 8.We're concerned about the current sound ordinance with residents in commercial/entertainment districts and the possible conflicts that would be created. Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue. Comments: We really like the skating rink there. Can the city buy that property from the developer so that we can perserve the historic character, wonderful views from downtown, and the beautiful community we want to hold onto, which is about the people who share, play, and talk to their neighbors in this vibrant, unique west end neighborhood? Some of the most intelligent, creative people call Boulder home. We have the resources to come up with good solutions that benefit everyone in our community! Contact Information Name: michelle goren Address: 844 19th street City: boulder State: Colorado Zip: 80302 Phone: Email: micheilegoren@yahoo .I1;t(?, i!a(n ~ __~y~ __ ~E:'? k~~~___, file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00019,HTM 01 /24/20d2 Page 1 of 1 Brent Bean - Petition From: <donleybalt@aol.com> To: <beanb@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: Ol/21/2002 11:25 AM Subject: Petition Dear City Council members: I am writing to encourage you to support the planning boards recommendation to eliminate the conditional height provisions on downtown corner lots. I believe the following to be true: 1.People shouldn't have the right to come afterward and sort of make your use illegal 2.We want a public process for downtown property owners who build above two stories and city planners must apply different rules for different applicants. 3.We don't want the West End 7avern or any other late night entertainment establishment to have to change its character or cut back on its hours to accomodate new property owners living in these commercial/entertainment areas. 4.We hope the developers would respect our local businesses long history in our community and build to a reasonable scale. LeYs not 6ecome Anyplace, USA. 5.Protect our views, our skyline, our historic character as well as the rights of already established local businesses. 6.There are opportunities to build other projects elsewhere in Boulder without destroying the charm and appeal of Downtown Boulder. 7.1 would like to see the local media investigate and analyze these developments and report who is behind these proposals. 8.We're concerned about the current sound ordinance with residents in commercial/entertainment districts and the possible conflicts that would be created. Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue. Comments: We are frequent visitors to Boulder and have thoroughly enjoyed our evenings at the West End, especially rn temperate weather with the view from the outdoor deck. It would be a p+ty to replace the natural beauty the mountains offer to thousands of us with bricks and mortar that are overwhelming our nationwide landscape. Let the developers find other locations! Contact Information Name: Donna & Stan Jacobs Address: 4500 Chaucer WAy #202 N/A City: 0 St e:`aryland Z i p~211 Phone: 410•902-1818 Email: donleybalt@aol.com .,....,..I:'iiii:,,_I~V~G~P~ ~ file://C:\WINDOW S\TEMP\GW } 00020.HTM O 1/22/2002 Page 1 of 1 Brent Bean - Petifion From: <srrez@aol.com> To: <beanb@ci.boulder.co.us> Date; 12/17/2001 6:17 PM Subject: Petition Dear City Council members: I am writing to encourage you to support the planning boards recommendation to eliminate the conditional height provisions on downtown corner lots. I believe the following to be true: 1. 2.We want a public process for downtown property owners who build above two stories and city planners must apply different ru~es for different applicants. 3.We don't want the West End Tavern or any other late night entertainment establishment to have to change its character or cut back on its hours to accomodate new property owners living in these commercial/entertainment areas. 4.We hope the developers would respect our local businesses long history in our community and build to a reasonable scale. LeYs not become Anyplace, USA. 5.Protect our views, our skyline, our historic character as well as the rights of already established tocal businesses. 6.There are opportunities to build other projects elsewhere in Boulder without destroying the charm and appeal of Downtown Boulder. 7.1 would like to see the local media investigate and analyze these developments and report who is behind these proposals. 8. Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue. Comments: Please do not block the view from the West End Tavern roof terrace. It is beautiful--~keep it that way. Contact Information Name: Sandy Reznick Address: 12103 Greenleaf Avenue City: Potomac State: Maryland Zip: 20854 Phone: (301)279•2889 Email: srrez@aol.com _ _-~ _.~~/--''`;`~-'~~.~~ f1F•~~r•~W~IIWS~TETvTP~GW}00019.HTM 12/18/2001 Fage 1 of 1 Brent Bean - Petition From: <davidr@rfs.com> 70: <beanb@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 12/17/2001 6:23 PM Subject: Petition Dear City Council members: I am writing to encourage you to support the planning boards recommendation to eliminate the conditional height provisions on downtown corner lots. I believe the following to be true: I.People shouldn't have the right to come afterward and sort of make your use illegal 2.We want a public process for downtown property owners who build above two stories and city planners must apply different rules for different applicants. 3.We don't want the West End Tavern or any other late night entertainment establishment to have to change its character or cut back on its hours to accomodate new property owners living in these commercial/entertainment areas. 4.We hope the developers would respect our local businesses long history in our community and build to a reasonable scale. LeYs not become Anyplace, USA. 5.Protect our views, our skyline, our historic character as well as the rights of already established local businesses. 6.There are opportunities to build other projects elsewhere in Boulder without destroying the charm and appeal of Downtown Boulder. 7.1 would like to see the local media investigate and analyze these developments and report who is behind these proposals. 8.We're concerned about the current sound ordina~ce with residents in commercial/entertainment districts and the possible conflicts that would be created. Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue. Comments: What has already been created for Pearl Strret is very special in this great country. Please preserve it. Contact Information Name: David Reznick Address: 12103 Greenleaf ave City: Potomac State: Maryland Zi p: 20854 Phone: 301 657 7704 Email: davidr@rfs.com ~ . _~l~~_.<<;~ ~yZ_ r,~~~ ~~r~~~~~r~m~~~~e~TF~vTp~C',W 1 nno20.HTM 12/18/2001 r ue~c i vi ~ Brent Bean - Petition From: <evan@vote.org> To: <beanb@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 11/27/2001 5:41 AM Subject: Petition Dear City Council members: I am writing to encourage you to support the planning boards recommendation to eliminate the conditional height provisions on downtown comer lots. I believe the following to be true: 1. 2.We want a public process for downtown property owners who build above two stories and ciry planners must apply different rules for di£ferent applicants. 3. We don't want ihe West End Tavern or any other late night entertainment establishment to have to c6ange its character or cut back on its hours to accomodate new property owners living in these commerciaUentertainment areas. 4. W e hope the developers would respect our local businesses long history in ow communiry and build to a reasonable scale. LeYs not become Anyplace, USA. S.Protect our views, our skyline, our historic character as well as tha.rights of already established local businesses. 6.There are opportunities to build other projects elsewhere in Boulder without destroying the charm and appeal of Downtown Boulder. 7.1 would like to see the local media investigate and analyze these developments and report who is behind these proposals. 8. W e're concerned about the cucrent sound ordinance with residents in commerciaVentertainment districts and the possible conflicts that would be created. Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue. Comments: Contact Information Name: Evan Ravitz Address: 1130 l lth St. #/3 Ciry: Boulder State: Colorado Zip: 80302 Phone: Email: evan@vote.org ___ _, ~•,., file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW }00019.HTM 11/27/2001 ra~e i oi i Brent Bean - RE: 9th and Pearl From: "suzi" <suzi@frii.com> To: <beanb@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 11/Ol/2001 2:13 PM Subject: RE: 9th and Pearl CC: <algunter@home.com>, <mruzzin@igc.org>, <tmpa@ci.boulder.co.us>, <tmpa@co.boulder.co.vs>, <pommerco@aol.com>, <ado-ecos@indra.net>, <macon@SEEDColorado.org>, <toorw@ci.boulder.co.us>, <eldridget@ci.boulder.co.us>, <morzell@ci.boulder.co.us>, <mockd@ci.boulder.co.us>, <havlicks@ci.boulder.co.us>; <poinsattef@ci.boulder.co.us>, <corsond@ci.boulder.co.us>, <lopezr@ci.boulder.co.us>, <riggleg@ci.boulder.co.us> • To Whom It May Concern: Let's stop for a moment and envision this: The Flatirons on any day, whether it is in spring, summer, fall or winter. What a sight to behold; so real, so powerful, magical and beautiful. That's what you see when you visit the rooftop of the West End Tavern. How lucky we are to have such a great place to sit and relax with our friends. What a tragedy it would be to have that taken away from us because one "good guy" wants it all for himself. It's real simple. It's all about selfishness and greed, And not only that, Maxim's willing to dishonor a truly good man by slamming a 45-foot brick wall in the face of his life long dream. Steve 'Beaver' Goren was a man who believed in a true old fashioned handshake. His word was his honor and he lived to teach that. Too bad there may be so few left. Let's maintain the integrity of old town Boulder. What a shame it would be to ruin it. We don't need or want monstrosities built by high-powered "who-evers" on ANl' corner of downtown Boulder. Keep the views that nature intended and shut these guys down. Now leYs stop for a moment and just try to envision this: the Flatirons from the rooftop of the West End Tavern on the actual "picture perfect postcards" stuck in between the salt and pepper shakers. 5usan Sweeney 20 year Boulder resident 7~__ ~.. _...~ file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00O15.HTM 11 /O1/2001 This is not a Game. Sunday's Editorial, Jerking the rug, started out correctly when it said that the proposed 902 Pearl St. project is getting a lot of attention, and not without reason. Though it tries to dismiss the reasons for examining the project, i'm sure the Camera's readers were not fooled by its misleading arguments. The tone and content of this editorial is offensive to the people of Bouider in that it proposes that the City Planning Board should not respond to the people they represent: The editorial focuses on the effect the project will have on the West End Tavern, but this is just one of many restaurants and small businesses in the affected neighborhood. It would not only have an impact on them, but on the residents who live nearby. It is their concerns that the Planning Board is responding to. The editorial's main point is that by passing an ordinance that revises the height allowances for parts of downtown, the Planning Board is changing the rules in mid-game, that this is unfair and singles out the proposed 902 Pearl project. What the writer of the editorial does not understand is that this is not a game between the City and a developer. It is a serious look at the effects of specific projects on the neighborhoods in which they are proposed. It is not unfairly targeted at 902, it is that the 902 Pearl project with its out of scale plans and its towering projected appearance brought about a reassessment of this specific ordinance and called into question other aspects of the city's zoning policies. The editorial tries to make us believe that the vote on the ordinance was designed to mollify public opinion. I would say that the questioning of the ordinance was rather a response to the genuine concern of citizens about the future of their neighborhood. It was also a questioning about the future of downtown Boulder, in general. The Planning Board's regulations are not set in stone. As buildings are built and neighborhoods change, the City reevaluates their zoning in the best interests of the city and its residents. The Camera's editorial tried to rouse our sympathy for the developer, Maxim Financial, by saying that they had gone to the Planning Board before purchasing the property and that the price was affected by what Maxim believed was possible to build. Every purchase of property, residential and especially commercial, is a risk. Checking with the Planning Board before purchasing is not a substitute for due process and site evaluations and certainly not a reason to ignore the opinions of the citizens who already live and work in the neighborhood. Perhaps Maxim paid too much for the property? ., ~ r• ~ -- ~ ' . ~: ~.~.. The Planning Board may, as was stated, drive developers nuts, but they are trying their best to do what is right for Boulder and its citizens. The goal of the rules and zoning regulations that guide development in Boulder is to preserve the quality of life here and to add development that will enhance that quality. It is not a game. This is a process that serves all citizens and the public good. Ted Ringer 8923 Sage Valley Road Longmont, CO 80503 303-245-1010 eM 129 .~,-.c ` _7~. _ l':.::.`~ Mary Lovrien - Our opposition to allowing the height exemption for three stor.~ St-- From: "Michael Banks" <michael.banks@prodigy.net> To: <]ovrienm@ci.boulder.co.us? Date: 8/16/2001 12;59 AM Sub,ject: Our opposition to allowing the height exemption for three story buildings on Pearl St- CC: <macon@seedcolorado.org> Please distribute copy to ali board members: Dear Boulder City Planning Board; I would like to express my opposition to allowing the height exemption for three siu buildings on Pearl St: -especially for the proposed condos in the new building on I_ Street next to the West End tavern. I believe that this policy of granting an extra floor to developers in exchange for residential development is short-sighYed and seriously destroying the special char~= and Flatiron views from downtown Boulder. In addition, the exemptions amount ~~ special privileges for the developers, often in exchange for token affordable housi~ ~ The new WestPeak building that is being constructed across from the Boulder po~t office is a prime example of the results of this bad policy. It is a SiTV of a buildino dwarfs the site and surrounding structures. In contrast, the new Borders bookstore building on Pearl Street is an example of , structures without residential housing that complement Boulder's special charactC~, I I hope that you will rethink your policy about these exemptions. It is destroying 1- special character of Boulder that you seek to preserve. Sincerely, Michael Banks, MBA Investment Advisor MBA Financial Services 1634 Walnut Street, Suite 111 Boulder, CO 80302-5400 PH: 720-201-2858 ;,. ..~4 _ ; '.~ file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00002.HTM 8/1 C~ From: Michael Banks, MBA <m.banks@prodigy.net> Date: Monday, August 13, 2001 1:37 AM Subject: Our opposition to allowing the height exemption for three story buildings on Pearl St-- go~ R~CEIVED Dear Boulder City Planning ~;- AUG 2 4 2D01 I would like to express my opposition to allowing the height exemption for three story buildings on Pearl St--especially for the proposed condos. in the new building on Pearl Street next to the West End tavern. ! believe that this policy of granting an extra floor to developers in exchange for residential development is short-sighted and seriously destroying the special character and Flatiron views from downtown Boulder. In addition, the exemptions amount to special priviledges for the developers, often in exchange for token affordable housing. The new WestPeak building that is being constructed across from the Boulder post office is a prime example of the results of this bad poiicy. ft is a SUV of a building that dwarfs the site and surrounding structures. In contrast, the new Borders bookstore building on Pearl Street is an example of structures without residential housing that complement Boulder's special character. I hope that you will examine and rethink your policy about these exemptions. It is destroying the special character of Boulder at you were elected specifically to help preserve. Sincerely, .. Michael s, MBA (nvestment Advisor MBA Financial Services 1634 Walnut Street, Suite 111 Boulder, CO 80302-5400 P H • 79(1-9(11-9R.r,R , - ?4_. -.. . ~f9__. Rm~~.:errU 1A~t~ W v %~~ _ r VIA Fr1 CSIMILE 303-441-3241 31 July 2001 Mr. Brent Bean Senior Planner/Case Manager Dept. of Communiry Design, Planning & Development Park Central Building, Suite 300 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Ra: Ma~cim Place at 902 Pearl Street (LUR 2001-00033) Site Review Revision Extension Request Daar Brent: In your comments on our Site Review application for Maxim Place at 902 Pearl Street (LUR 2001-00033), you state that a revision is necessary by August 6, 2001, or a recommendation for denial will be made to the Planning Board. We hereby request an extension of that date until October I, 2001, or later. As you know, application comments by staff suggest the Site Plan should reflect the "by righY' bulk requirements. However, subsequently the Planning Board has commanced a newly proposed ordinance change, which would eliminate the conditional height provisions. Under these changing circumstances, the project team finds it difficult to expeditiously progress the design of the project within the timeframe provided by staff and requires additional time to evaluate the Owner's design options. Please confirm by return letter before August 6, 2001, acceptance of this request for extension and the new date on which a revision shall be due. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Terry Willis, AIA Senior Associate U2BAN D-51GN G~OUP/ INC= ArchltecturelPlanninglDeslgn cc: Stephen P. Cherner - Maxim Financial Corp./Boulder Peter H. Dominick, Jr., FAIA - UDG/Denver Heidi Fletemeyer -Johnson Repucci & Berg I.LPBoulder File 20759/3.1 M:1802 Pead St\Site Review~DOCUments\Cortespondenee~8 Bean Itr 31 Jul 01.tloc FL No. AA F000131 FL No. AA C002203 1627 EigMeenih Siraet Suite 200 Denver, Coloredo 80202-1267 U.S.A. voice 303 292-3388 faz 303 292-3113 utlgd @urbantlesigngroup.crom www. u rbandesign9roup.cam r,;;`„~.,. .i~~;;Atlan~~ca9d~?,pal,les ~~r • Tulse YIA FACSlMlLE 303-~~]-32~1 31 July 2001 Mr. Brent Beun Senior Planner/Case Manager Dept, of Community Uesign, Ylanning & Dcvclopmcnt Park Central Building, Suite 300 1739 Arnadwey Aoulder, CO 80302 Re: Maxim Piace at 902 Pearl Sueet (LUR 2001-OD033) Site Review Revision Exlension Request l~ear T3rent: ln your comments on ow~ Site Revirw npplication for Maxim Place at 902 Pearl Streec (LUR 2001-00033), you state [hat a revision is necessary by August G, 2001, or a recommendation for denial will be made to the Planning Board. We hereby request an extension of that datc until Occober 1, 20D1, or later. As you know, ~pplication comments by swFf yuggcst thc Si~e Plan shnuld reflcct the "by right" bulk rcyuiroments. Howcver, suUsequ~ntly the Plarming Buard has cummeuccd a ncwly proposed ordinance change, which would etiminaln the conditional height provisions. Under these changing cin:umstances, the project team tinds it difficult to expeditiou~ly progress thc dcsign of dic project within the timeframe provided by statTand requires additional time to evaluate the Owner's design options. Please contimi by return letter heforc Augusl 6, 2UU 1, accCplancc o( this ruquest for extension and the new date on which a revision shall be due, 'fhank yuu for yuur prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Terry Willis, AfA Senior Associate IRB~AN D=51GN G~OUP~" INC. arenlleclurdPlanning/Dosipn cc: Stephen P. Chemer - Maxim Ginaneial Corp./Bnuldnr Peter 1 L Dominick, Jr., FAIA - lJ DC.i/Denver Heidi Nletemeyer.-Johnson Repucci & Berg LLP/Boulder Pile 20759/3.1 FL N0. AF F000131 FL No. AA CPqYl03 1UG7 Eghteenm titlRPl SWIB 400 l7~nvur, Cubrada 8020242fi7 U.fi A vorce 303 .^02•3380 1:~. 303 2a2•l113 udgdQOurt~n~ rouu.COm . r, ,' ' viN~W:4!Gande ' uP~~lfl!,-.:; ___yZ ~ _ RECEIVED JOHNSON REPUCCI &~ BERG LLP ATTORNEYS AND GOUNSELORS AT LAW EORCE V. BERG.~R. ':CN.1RD A.~OHNSON icNne~ ~. Rerucci EIL C KMG ~iBERLY E. LORP JVANNI M. RUSCITTI Of COUNSfL 1401 WALNUi STREET, SUITE 300 BOUIDER. COLORADO 80J02 TE6HPHONE ?OJ-442-{900 TELEfA% 30J-442-0191 www.jr6law.cam July 13,2~01 Via Facsimi[e & U.S. Mai! City of Boulder Planning Board P.O. Box 791 Soulder, Colorado 80306 ~TTN: Mary Lovrien lUl 1 7 2001 HEIDI G FIEiEMEYfR W,N. IKE KRASN~EWICZ $TEPHEN C. L,~RSON HE4nINE B. RESNICK Re: Elimination of Canditional Height Provisions for the RBI -E and RBl -X Zoning Districts set forth in Section 9-3?-4, B.R.C., 1981 o the City of Boulder Planning Soard: On Wednesday, July 11, 2001, the Planning Board (the "Board") held a public heanng on the elimination 'conditional height provisions fpr the RB 1-E and RB1-X Zoning Districts set forth in Section 9-3.2-4, B.RC., ~81. Despite the fact that the public hearing was held for the purpose of the proposed ordinance change only, ~ Board took voluminous testimony regarding the site review Qpplicatton for the 902 Pearl Street project. iring the proceedings, one of the Board members requested that testimony taken during the 3uly I 1, 2001 ~rin; be made part of the 902 Pearl Street site review application record. As you are aware, the notice for this pubiic hearing explicitly stated that the matter to be heard and :ussed was the elimination of conditionai height provisions For the RBl-E and RB1-X Zoning Districts set forth ~ection 9-3.2-4, B.R.C., 1981. No notice was published regarding a public hearing on the 902 Pearl Sheet site ~ew application or project. While we believe that the 902 Pear] Street project is the target of the proposed nance change and is the only reason that this ordinance proposal was recorrunended by staff, the fact remains the 902 Pearl Street site revietv application was not before the Board for its review on Wednesday; Juiy I 1, l. Therefore, to allow testimony from the July I 1, 2001 hearing to become a part of the 902 Pearl Street site .w application record is to deny the applicant and any other interested citizen equal right to participate and ~ heard in the cotttext of this pubfic forum. _ ~ ;.. sz ~"' Yage 1 oY 1 ~j-s~~ Vanessa Bonner -1712 Pearl St. From: "JEAN WESTBY" <septschool@hotmail.com> To: <BSCComment@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 7/10/20D1 2:15 PM Subject: 1712 Pearl St. To Whom This May Concem, I am opposetl to lhe ciry's grenting a variance to increase lhe height of a proposed commercial building al 1712 Pearl St. If a service organization had a multi-use need to requlre extra height, lhis might be a reason to grant a variance, but for a for-profi! development7 Perhaps the applicant should consider cutting costs by building something lower and smaller than 42000 sq. ft. I undersWnd that lhe lalest trend in commarcial tlevelopment Is to recoop offlce space investment wilh high-end condos, but the tact remains that downtown tloesn't need more office space. We already have a very high vacancy rate there. Please consider this. The 35 foot requirement is in place for an excellent reason: to ensure that all of Boulder's citizens will see and enjoy our most precious resource of our mountains. It Is really disheartening to see how many "box" commercial buildings now loom above the mandated requirement. Please don't allow developers to conlinue to raise the heights of buildings to make a buck, or we'll all pay in the end. Sincerely, Brus Westby 2531 5lh St. Boulder Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at htto•//explorer msn com file://C:\WINDOWS\TEIvIP\GW } OOOlO.HTM - ~~_ ~.: 63 ~ ~~11~2~~~ t'11 1tf1,111V1P.1\ 1 U CtTY OF BOULDER ~%~:~~~ Planning and Development Services Center .~ ~ 1739 Broadway, third floor • P.O. Box 791 • Boufder, Coiorado 80306 Phone: 303-041-1880 • Fax: 303-441-3241 • Web: boulderptandevelop.net LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION FORM ~ APPLICATION DEADLINE IS 12:00 NOON THE FlRST AND THFRD MONDAY OF EACN MONTH. I rnis apptication fortn contatns severat sections, Please provide generai data be(ow. The types of reviews for which this fam is used and a fee schedule are listed on page 2. A fist of the applicaGon requirements for each review lype is found on page 3. On page 4, ihe names of all owners (and lessees, etc.) of the subject propeAy must be listed and afgnatures provided. Also, there are separate attachments to this application form for each reWew type (page 3). Submittal of i~accurate or tncomptete Information wiii ~esult in rejection of the application. GENERAL DATA n (To be completed_pY tha a pl(canL • Name of Development: m~IM ~L~~~ ~IOl p L STI~~(-J~,97.~( • Existing Zoning: ~3~ ~' X • Lot Area (in square feet or acresj: S MR7' . St~eet Address or General Location of Properly: R02 ~EJ~KL ~r ,$~UW~, C~ 80302 . Legal Description: Lot Biock Subdivision rattad,description. • Existing Use of Property: V~rf'~2~Y/DUSLY _~LY•O ~A59~A710N~-~19D (5H ~ . Type of fteview Request(s) (see Pase 2 tor i~G): `v1T ~' ~'~/~~t~{1/14f7DlFl lb~ • D@SCflpll011 Of p~OpOSB~ (Include proposed use and summarize number end size of units/buildinpsllots. as appflcable}: ix ~ ~ ~P 5 o~j=ic~ s ~~ ' ~~~-~- • Name of Appitcant: /Vl 1 • Address: IqDU,~IN'1'~1 ~ 7elephone: " . City: B0~1 L1~j2. State: ~ Zip Code: 8 802 FAX: ~ q" • MameofContact: Ul28A'j~! UFS(G~~l ~kUUT'~ rNG.___/~~j Gt11Ui1S)_ . Address: Irv21 d(J,fff~'FT(fif ~if~'T Telephone: 3P~,^2RZ'"338:g . City: i~NV~2 State: _~ Zip Code: 02 Fax: 3rrb'2~s-31! 3 STAFF USE ONLY Application received by: Date/Time: Review # Case Manager: 7rack #: ~le Name: Subcommunity: Project Name: Coord.: Fee: Receipt #: Check #: /lgenda Nem N~_ Page;~ SS CITY OF BOULDER I.AND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS Responses from applicant have been included !n bold itallcs. 02/04/02 Responses to City comments dated February 22 are in italics. 03/20/02 DATE OF COMMENTS: June 22, 2001 Updated 6/28/01 CASE MANAGER: Brent Bean See Landmarks PROJECT NAME: MAXIM PLACE comments LOCATION: 902 PEARL ST COORDINATES: N03W07 REVIEW TYPE: Site Review REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00033 APPLICANT: STEPHEN CHERNER DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW FOR HEIGHT MODIFICATION: Maxim Place at 902 Pearl Street REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: -Height exception to 45' -Three story building other than at the corner of the property. -Reduced loading area (500 sf required} No reduction In load)ng area requested. I. REVIEW FINDINGS Application does not meet criteria for approval of a Site Review; a revision is necessary by August 6, 2001 or a recommendation for denial will be made to Planning Board at this time. The location of this requests is at a primary entrance to the downtown area and also serves as an interface between the downtown area and lower intensity commercial/residential areas to the west of 9th Street. The bulk and scale of the building proposed are not consistent with the buildings present in this area. Staff would recommend the building be scaled back to reflect the permitted building heights for this site. The bulk of the bufldinq has been scaled back, especfally as apparent from street level, by a) reductlon in floor area, and b) setting the 3rd floor back from the building face af both Pearl and Ninth Streets. The building can have a three floor element at the corner that is 50' wide along the Pearl street frontage and 70' along the 9th Street frontage. Any encroachments outside this envelope will limit the potential for staff support of the request if they can not be substantiated. This provlsion of the zon-ng ordlnance has been recently modified/eilminated. M:\9~3 PmI6M1¢qMmMAR 3001WSPa15iitllMtxAWIY-SOMMOl.da Agenda Item # _~ Page #~,~,,,,, The site plans indicate a building height of 45' at the corner of 9th and Pearl. The low point of grade appears to be 5355' in the alley 25' out from the southeast corner of the building. If this is the case, the building would be considered to be 48.4' tal( at the corner of 9th and Pearl. A by right buiiding can not exceed 45' based on the alley elevation and the Site Review elevation can exceed 45' if approved by the Planning Board. Corrections to the building height may be necessary. A building height of greater than 45' requires a total of 20% open space, however the current plan is showing in excess of 20% open space. The overall building hefght has been reduced fo approxfmately 44.5' above the low point at fhe alley, or 41' from the sldewalk ai Pearl/Ninth Streets. The survey shows an encroachment of the West End Tavern building along the east property line. If this is correct, the site is 81 square feet less in total area (16,979 sf, not 17,060 sf), which would permit a maximum FAR of 37,354 sf (2.2 FAR, including the 0.5 FAR for housing). Noted. Staff has received numerous comments from the Downtown Alliance, Landmarks Board members and the public regarding the nature of the design for this site. Primary concerns have been expressed about the fit of the building within the context of the existing neighborhood. The existing buildings along the south side of Pearl are primarily one and two story buildings with height varying from 18 to 25'. This buiiding has been proposed to be a three story buiiding from the perspective of both Pearl and 9th Streets, which takes it out of character for the area. By right ordinances permit a third floor element at the corner of 9th and Pearl, but this element should be carefully designed to fit within the context of this area of downtown. The number of sto~ies along Pearl Street has been reduced from fhree to two. The 3rd floor has been sef back from the bullding face at both Pearl and Ninth Streefs. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Access/Circulation 1. It is expected that this site will generate significantly fewer trips than the previous use as a gas station. Although a formal Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this site is not needed per the requirements set forth by the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards to show tha# this is a correct assumption. it is necessary to determine the expected trips that would be generated by the proposed use compared to an estimate of the trips that would have been generated with the previous M:19@ PM N51k RMSw MM SP03\9113PM51~ W MewRepIYSO MAR ~34w Agenda Ifem q~~ pa~ ~ S7 use. This can be provided in the form of a letter to city staff. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493. Drexel Barrell - The esfimated trips generated by the origlnal use (gas statlon) and thfs proposal !s provtded In. the form of a letter that accompanles this submlttal. Revised letter il/usirating further reductions in generated tratfic on the site due to developmentlocation within CAGID and its proximity to Boulder powntown is provided as an attachment. 2. No mention of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) was included in the proposal. Please provide information on what will be done to address TDM for this site. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441- 4493. Drexe/ Barrell - A narratlve explalning the Transportation Demand Manage ment accompanles this submfttal. Addifiona! information regarding TDM strategies for Maxim P/ace residents is provided as an attachment. 3. A minimum sidewalk width of 8 feet not including tree grates is required along 9th Street. This sidewalk width is provided on the plan, however right•of-way must be dedicated to include this minimum 8 foot width. This right-of•way dedication is expected to consist of a 3 foot wide by 82 foot long area along extending from the north property line along 9th Street. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493. Drexel Barrell - Dedication tvfl/ be provided at tfine of Technfca! Document Review. The dedication area is shown on the Site Deve/opment P/an. 4. A bulb-out section of sidewalk will be required along Pearl Street at its intersection with 9th Street. This section is required to extend 7 feet from the existing curb on Pearl and 20 feet past east of the flowline of 9th Street. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303•441•4493. Noted. Refer to revised site plan. The tntersectlon radius is 25 : 5. The handicap ramps on the corner of 9th Street and Pearl will be required to be reconstructed to align with ramps located across 9th and Pearl Streets, respectively. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303•441-4493. Nofed. Refer to revised site plan. 6. The removal of curb cuts and replacement with new curb will be required along both Pearl and 9th Streets. A plan and profile for each of these locations will be required at the time of Technical Document Review/Final Plat. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303•441-4493. Drexe/ Barre!! - Acknowledged. M:\911i PM &KNS RMm MM A03~3PmI5IieAdleMkplY-EO MAR OS.dx AgendaNemN~~page~ ~ Building Design The site plan should reflect the "by right" bulk and scale elements of the RB1-X zone district. Third floor elements should occur only at the corner of this site. See Site Review Criteria attached. This provislon ot the zonfng ordinance has been recently modlfied/eliminated. The building height exceeds the proposed 45' limit proposed. The low point of grade is in the alley at the southeast corner of the site (5355'). Final building elevation should be based on this low point of grade. As currently drawn the bui(ding is at least 3.4 feet taller than 45'. This would require a height exception to approximately 49'and a requirement to provide a minimum of 20% open space on site. The overall building height has been reduced fo 45' above the /ow point af fhe alley, or 42' from the sldewalk at Pearl/Nlnth Sfreets. The building height has been recalculated and further reduce to not exceed 44.5' above the lowest point within 25', elevation 5355'. As a result of that decrease, the acfual buildrng height along Pearl Sfreef (assumrng 3.5' difference in site elevation) is now 28'and 31 'af fhe corner. The 3•story part set back from 9th St. is 40' ta!!. See building elevations. A!I building encroachments in to the public right of way need to be defined. The current plans suggest first, second and parapet encroachments into the right of way. First floor canopies and parapet encroachments are supported by the current policy, but other encroachments are not. Brent Bean, Senior Planner (303) 4413137. Encroachments into the righf of way have been reduced to a maximum 2' projecflon along a portion of Pearl Street and a portion of 9th Street at the second floor cornice. One balcony along 9"' Sfreet projecfs just fo the current R.O. W., but would project lnto fhe fufure R.O.W., should thaf strip of land be dedicated to the city. This balcony serves also as a canopy for the ground floor retall space. All building encroachments into the future R.O. W. dedication that are of permanent nature like walls and balconies have been set back. See basement plan and 2"d floor plan balconies along 9fh Street. Also, the F.A. R. calculations based on the site area that included future R.O.W. square footage have been adjusted to reflect the above dedication. R,O.W. area was removed from both F.A.R. and open space calculations. See sfarea fables on Sife Deve(opment Plan and Open Space Plan. M:\903 PM SfSlu ppkw MA0.lJOS\91Y1PU~I511tllM~wRapty-ID M~0. Oi.Aoc Acic;id,r Item N, ~_ Pa~e B~ Drainage The Rrainage Statement needs to be stamped and signed by a State of Colorado registered professional engineer. Scott Kuhna, 303-441•3121. Drexel Barrell - Four slgned/stamped Drainage Stafements accompany this submittal. Fire Protection Chapter 5.10(A)(3) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards requires that no exterior portion of any building shall be over 175 feet of fire access distance from the nearest hydrant. Proposed fire hydrant locations should be coordinated with the Chief Fire Marshal, Adrian Hise, 303-441•3350. Drexe/ Barrel! - According to Adrlan Hlse, no add/tiona! fire hydranfs are required. Prior to final inspection, applicant shall install automatic fire sprinkler protection throughout proposed structure. Sprinkler system to bs monitored by an approved UL-central receiving station. Adrian Hise, 303- 441-3350. Noted. Housing & Numan Services Applicant's current submittal identifies a total of 9 residential units to be developed at 902 Pearl Street, which are subject to 9-6.5 Boulder Revised Code, "Inclusionary Zoning." For the 9 residential units, the Inclusionary zoning requirement is for 20% to be permanently affordable, which results in an obligation of 1.8 permanently affordable units. The expectation is that 50%0 of those units are to be provided on•site. The remainder of the obligation can be met through several options, including: cash-in-lieu, dedication of off-site units or land dedication. Applicant proposes to provide 1 permanently affordatale unit on•site, with that unit consisting of 1221 square feet. This would meet the 50% on-site Inclusionary zoning requirement, as well as the minimum square footage required for permanently affordable units based on the proposed square footage of the 8 market rate units. Applicant may choose to meet the remainder of the Inclusionary zoning requirement through the options described above. M:1M PM S~~Si~e RMm MAR NOEW IIPa~I51~eRMmRrylY.fO MAR03.tl¢ p~onda Item N ~ pa~ ~ ~ Given recommendations regarding the bulk and scale of the proposed project, should the number and size of proposed residential units change, adjustments would be needed regarding the Inclusionary zoning req u i rement. Applicant's current plans orient the residential units primarily to the north, west, and south, and away from the existing building to the east. However, the proposed permanently affordable unit, Apt. 8, appears to be the only residential unit oriented to the east, where an issue has been raised regarding potentially npn•compatible uses between the existing restaurant and the residential project. Applicant is encouraged.to consider other possible design options that could mitigate this impact on the permanently affordable unit. Linda Hiil•Blakiey, Housing Division, 303 44I-3140. Refer to your letter dafed October 31, 2001 whereln the calculafion for fully satisfyfng the incluslortary zoning odligation by making a cash-In-lleu contribution is ouflined. Note that the revlsed plans fnclude only 6 unlts. It is noted thaf a cash-in-lreu contribution accordrng to 2001 rates for the project would be $122,604. Also, it is acknowledged that those rates are adjusted annua!!y and, consequently, the due amount will rncrease to reflect a current cash-in•lieu rate. Comments from the Landmarks Board The Landmarks Board does not have formal review authority over this site, but because of the project's unique setting between the downtown historic district and an individual landmark (the Jacobi House at 842 Pearl Street), the Board would like to comment on its compatibility with the surrounding context. Context This block of Pearl Street between 11th St. and 9th St. is characterized by one-story commercial buildings which historically provided a transition between the more intense, higher scale downtown commercial core (now the Pearl Street Mall) and the less intense, lower scale mixed-use residential character to the west. The site is at the very edge of the historic district, which ends mid•block. The West End Tavern, immediately east of the site, is the last building in the historic district. Across 9th Street to the east is the individual landmark, the Jacobi House, a two-story nineteenth century multi•family building. The Jacobi House is situated next to a series of one story commercial building, reflective of the historic mixed-use character of the area. Buildings on both blocks are all under 35' in height. M:\9113 pe~ I SM1tlle 0.Mw MM 30.Y]\N13Pa1511 W McwRtplY'f 0 M.~R Ul.tlrc Agenda kem a~~_ ~~~, ~ G~ This block of Pearl Street is also distinct from blocks on the Mali in its character. The photomontage submitted by the applicant illustrates this very well. Whereas the Pearl Street Mall area is characterized by two and three story buildings with large glassed store fronts, the buildings on this block are both smaller in scale and contain significantly less transparency in the first floor display area and in the upper transom area. This results in a greater solid to void ratio than on the Pearl Street Mall buildings. Review of the Proposed Project against the Design Guidelines The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines were approved by the Downtown Alliance. They have been adopted by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and are used in the review of projects in and out of the historic district by both the Landmarks Board and the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB). The following guidelines apply at this conceptual stage of the project: 2.2 Alignment of architectural features and estabfished patterns with neighboring buildings. 2.3 Maintaining the line of building facades and storefronts at the sidewalk edge. 2.4 Compatibility of scale and massing. 2.6 Creating pedestrian interest at the street level. 2.9 Maintaining the rhythm established by the repetition of the traditional 25-foot facade widths. 1.2.7 Maintaining the proportions of storefront windows and the established pattern of upper story windows. The project appears to meet guidefines 2.3, 2.6, and 2.9 related to location of the building, facade widths, and street-level pedestrian interest, but does not meet guidelines 2.2, 2.4, and 1.27 related to scale, massing, and proportions of windows.' Refer to revised e/evaflons that address fhese commenfs. The proposed building is not compatible in scale or character with this unique block. It is more characteristic of buildings along Walnut between lOth and 14th or in Dowr~town Denver. It does not reflect the predominant character of window patterns along the street either in terms of amount of glazing or window proportions. In the proposal the upper story windows read as a horizontai band, whereas the dominant character on the rest of the block includes repetitions of verticai windows set into a solid brick fa~ade. Refer to revised elevations that address these comments. M:\9~2 PM bM~u Rw~m MM Li-0SW I1PM9ie0.dlewRW~Y'~~ ~ 02dx 4ponda kem # - AaA~ ~_.~Z_`. Code Issues: Comer Building While the zoning currently allows a larger building at the corner, the Board questions its appropriateness on this block. Historicafly, in more intense commercial areas, a taller tower element was found on certain corners, but not for. the extent of the area currently allowed (50' x 70') and not in iess intense transition areas such as this block. Given the predominance of one story commercial buildings from l lth to 9th Streets and the lower scale mixed•use character between 9th and 8th Streets, this block serves as a transition, and is not appropriate for taller corner buildings. The necessary plan corrections were done to make the project comply with a current building code (UBC) Cify of Boulder operates under. See Floor Plans. Land Uses Maximum office/retail square footage can not exceed 1.7 FAR, Current site plan is consistent with this requirement. Brent Bean, Senior Planner (303) 666-9343. Landscaping 1. Please provide a iandscape pian that meets the standards of B.R,C. Sections 9-3.3-1, 9~3.3•2, 9•3.3-3, and 9•3.3-4. Please note the following requirements for the preliminary landscape plan: Plan drawing at a scale ot 1" = 10', 1" = 20', or Z" = 30', to include: • Standard title block including scale 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 utilities and easements, including fire hydrants, water meters, & height and location of overhead lines. • Existing location, size, and type of all trees 1 1/2" caliper or greater. • Where fencing is used for required screening, a scaled drawing of the fence elevation. Planting specifications • Layout and location of all landscaped areas including: • Planting strips along all streets. - All other landscaped areas. • Botanical and common names and sizes of all plant material proposed preliminarily. • Locations of ~II proposed plant material, shown at the size they will be within 5 years of initial planting, and appropriately spaced. M tml ean snslN ae.iew M.rs ma:auxrunSY~af eNewrsab•m MAR oxeoc Agendaitem ~ . 7,~_. f'u~u ~ ~ • Location, size, and species name of any piant materiais proposed for removal. ~ Proposed planting of all ground surfaces. Grass surfaces must be identified as sod or seed with the blend or mix specified. • Location and dimensions of site distance triangles at all intersections of streets and curb cuts. Refer to revised Landscape Plan. Additiona! landscape furniture along 9th St. is illustrated on Landscaping Plan to make the provided landscaped open space more usable and suifable for passrve enjoyment, while in proximity to the street activity. 2. Please note the tree grate and planting pit standards outlined in Table 3-3 of the Design and Construction Standards. Tree grates must be a minimum of 4' wide by 10' in length for farge street trees. Bev Johnson, 303~441 •3272, Noted. Legal Documents Please update the title work to within 30 days and submit authorization from the corporate/partnership documents for a person to sign on its behalf. (Melissa K. Rickson - CAO) In process. Lot Layout Three lot lines are shown on the plans and these wi(I either need to be eliminated or the owners will need to sign a Covenant to Hold as One Parce! for any building to be built over these lines. (Melissa K. Rickson - CAO) Noted. Miscellaneous 1. Any proposed groundwater discharge to the storm sewer system will require both a state permit and a city agreement. The steps for obtaining the proper approvals are as follows: Step 1•- Identify applicable Colorado Discharge Permit System requirements for the site. Step 2•- Qetermine the history of site contamination (underground storage tanks, groundwater contamination, industrial activities, landfills, etc.) If there is contamination on the site or in the groundwater, water quality monitoring is required. MiW3PW AlSliePwiexMM10L3W1IPMS1ieRwlM0.eply-30MARO3.Ex k~n,entla Nem #.~ Page i~ ~ - Step 3-- Submit a written request to the city to use the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). This submittal should include a copy of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) permit application. The written request should include the location, description of the discharge, and brief discussion of all discharge options (e.g., discharge to MS4, groundwater infiltration, off•site disposal, etc.) The request should be addressed to: City of Boulder, Stormwater Quality, 4049 75th St, Boulder, CO 80301 Fax: 303-413-7364. Step 4-- The city's Stormwater Quality Office will respond with a DRAFT agreement which will need to be submitted with the CDPHE permit application. CDPHE will not finalize the discharge permit without permission frorn the city to use the MS4. Step 5-• Submit a copy of the final discharge permit issued by CDPHE back to the City's Stormwater Quality Office so that the MS4 agreement can be finalized. For further information regarding stormwater quality within the City of Boulder contact the City's Stormwater Quality Office at 303-413•7350. All applicable permits must be in place prior to building permit application. Groundwater discharge is nof anticipafed. 2. The applicant shall identify the existing monitor wells on the property, in conjunction with the requirements of the ground water discharge permit. 3. AI! structures (planters) and landscaping proposed in the right-of•way or public utility easements shall comply with the standards as set forth in Chapter 8•5, "Work in the Public right•of•way and Public Easements," and Chapter 8-6, "Public right-of-way and Easement Encroachments, Revocable Permits, Leases, and Vacations," Boulder Revised Code 198i. Noted. 4. No portion of any structure, including footings and eves, may encroach into any public right-of-way or easement without approval of a revocable permit. Some of the encroachments that appear to be proposed at the second and third floor levels do not appear to be consistent with current policy for consideratibn of revocable permits in the downtown area. Scott Kuhna, 303-441•3121. Refer to rev-sed e/evafions. Encroachments are limlfed fo a 2' x i9' cornlce along Pearl Street and a 2' x 18' cornice along 9`" Street. M:\W3PW Sh511aRaWewMM3P011903PM51~tllMM0.WIY'~~01.6x Ar~~n~a item ~ ~Pa~e S~. Neighborhood Comments Neighborhood comments have been received and the following comments have primarily been made: 1. The buiidings are out of scale with the neighborhood. Revised des-gn reduces the apparent scale by setting the 3`tl floor back from the bullding face at both publlc streefs. 2. The buildings will block the view from adjacent properties. The 2nd and 3"' floors have been shaped to preserve a vfew of the Flat Irons from fhe neigh6oring rooftop, at an angle esfablfshed and agreed by the Wesf End 7avern representatives. . 3. Residential use of the site may limit non•residential use (night club, restaurant and bar) located on properties within the area. Resldential units have been located on fhe West side of fhe s/te only, with commercial offlce space providing an acoustlc buffer to the adjacent tavern rooftop terrace. 4. Additional methods for mitigating impacts between residential and commercial use need to be considered if residential units are developed on this site, See above item. A copy of all comments can be made if a request is made to the Case Manager, Brent Bean, Senior Planner (303)441•3137. Parking 1. Fuil•size parking spaces are 9' x 19'. Up to 40% of spaces can be compact (15' x 7.5'). The spaces shown in the parking garage are less than the full•size dimensions and must be corrected. This area also must not be encroached upon by any structural elements or columns. Additional parking space size cannot encroach on the 24 foot wide back-up area. Options exist for widening the parking drive isle including narrowing the storage and mechanical areas or the narrowing the ramp into the garage from 21 feet to 18 feet which would still leave room for 19 foot long spaces adjacent to the ramp. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441 •4493. Refer to revfsed parking layout. 2. Any dead-end row of parking containing more than seven spaces is required to have a turn-around area equivalent to one full-size parking space. 7his must be shown on the plan designated as no-parking and the parking space count adjusted according(y. Steve Durian, Pubiic Works, 303-441-4493. Refer to revised parking layout. M:19~3 Ptxl SASIIe NMew MAR NO3 W 1Pa1511tlteWMf W IY-~0 MAit OS.tloc h,acn.?;:Ilern ~___~~_.Pa~~ ~~: Plan Documents Building heights need to be reca(culated and shown on the elevation plans based on the low point of grade within the southeastern portion of the site. Refer to revlsed elevations. Review Process Planning Board consideration of this request is required due to the proposal to place a third floor outside the permitted third floor area boundaries for a corner property(50' X 70' area at the corner) and the building heights above 35' outside this area as well. Brent Bean, Senior Pianner. Noted. Site Design Planning Staff finds the site plan is not consistent with the existing character of the area. Third floor elements are not found in this area. The addition of extensive third floor elements are not appropriate for this area. The design should be reconfigured to reflect the permitted bulk and scale limits of the RB1•X zone. Brent Bean, Senior Planner. Third floor elements have been sef back from the public streets, and /ocated fo the Southern portions of fhe site, as suggested by plannPng staff, and in keepPng wlth the third floor elements prevalent In thls area, especially Including buildings directly across fhe alley, and across Pearl Sfreef, Utilities 1. All water meters are to be placed in city right-of-way or a public utility easement, but not placed in driveways, sidewalks, or behind fences. The plans show a proposed water meter to be located in the 8-foot wide pedestrian way of the sidewalk alang Pearl Street. The proposed meter will have to be relocated outside of the 8-foot wide pedestrian way and nearer to the curb and gutter and tree grates. Trees proposed to be planted in city right•of-way or a public utility easement shall be located at least 10 feet away from existing or future utilities, incluciing services. Drexel Barrell - The proposed meter fs relocated outsfde the 8' wide pedesfrlan way closer to the curb and gutter and tree grates. The water mefer was relocated further fo keep a minimum c/earance of 10' from proposed trees. See Landscaping Plan and Utilities plan. M:\9o3 PM Si16i~e RMea MM NMl\MItPmI5lieAMewR~p1Y-'p ~~.~ ,,;,.„c"e I±!trr~ 4.~.._ Pa!~! t ~~, 2. Per Section 8•5-13 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, no person shall excavate an area in the pavement of a public street for a period of 3 years from completion of resurfacing, except in compliance with said section. Pearl Street was resurfaced in 2000, which means no excavation may occur until late 2003 unless certain criteria can be met. Drexel Barre!!-Acknowledged. 3. The existing storm sewer mains in the aliey south of the property are shown incorrectly. 7he applicant's engineer may contact city staff for locations of the existing storm sewer main. Drexe! Barrell - The utllFffes were relocated accordfng fo informatfon supplied by the City. 4, All existing utilities need to be shown on the Drainage and Master Utility Plan, including the existing water main in Pearl Street. Revise the plans as necessary. Scott Kuhna, 303•441-3121. Drexel Barrell - All existing utilitles are shown. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Access/Circulation The removal of curb cuts and replacement with new curb will be required along both Pearl and 9th Streets. A plan and profile for each of these locations will be required at the time of Technical Document Review/Final Plat. 5teve Durian. Noted. Building and Housing Codes Building must meet the requirements of the building code in effect at the time of building permit application. Note the egress from the bedrooms on the east side do not appear to meet the requirements of section 310.4 of the 1997 UBC. Steve Brown. Noted. It is anticipated that fhe buflding code !n effect at the time of building permit wl!! be the 20001BC, whfch excempts sprFnklered bu11d1ngs. Drainage The applicant will be required to continue conveying drainage in a manner which does not adversely affect neighboring properties. Scott Kuhna, 303- 441•3121, M: W Il Pml 51151~e RMaw MAR H W i\NI3PMLIdIMewR~ply30 MM OI.EOc ~nenda i~em # ~ p~~, ~~~M Noted. Utilities 1. The.applicant is advised that at the time of building permit application the following requirements will apply: Noted. a) The appiicant is required to provide an accurate existing and proposed plumbing fixture count to determine if the existing meters and services are adequate for the proposed use. b) Water and sanitary sewer Plant Investment Fees and service line sizing will be re-evaluated. c) If the existing water and/or sanitary sewer services are required to be abandoned and upsized, all new service taps to existing mains shall be made by city crews at the developer's expense. The water service must be excavated and turned off at the corporation stop, per city standards. The sewer service must be excavated and capped at the property line, per city standards. d) If the building will be sprinklered, the approved fire line plans must accompany the fire sprinkler service line connection permit application. 2. Floor drains internal to covered parking structures, that collect drainage from rain and ice drippings from parked cars or water used to wash•down internal floors, shall be connected to the wastewater service using appropriate grease and sediment traps. Scott Kuhna, 303-441•3121. Noted. IV. NEXT STEPS Staff would recommend the applicant meet with the staff to review changes needed to be made to this site plan proposal based on the by right limitations of the site. Please contact the Case Manager Brent Bean to schedule a meeting. Done. SITE REVIEW CRITERIA General Criteria No site review.application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: M 1911E puA SM1SI~e RMw MAR 1U~01\91~SPaISileRwlrnReplY'p ~ 01drc Fr~nd: fl~;m #_.SZ_ Paae 8~._ i. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: Yes/no The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The plan provides for the development of a mixed•use project within the downtown area which is consistent with several BVCP policies; mixed use policies, 2.20 role of the Central Area. However the request is in opposition to the new policy for the "Preservation of Community Character and Historic preservation policies 2.27,2.28 and policy 2.31 "Design that respects existing character. A new mixed•use project is very appropriate for this location, however the fit within the existing building character of this area is also very important. The current site plan with the addition of third floor elements outside the permitted building envelop are not providing an appropriate fit with the historic one and two story buildings present along Pearl and the lower intensity mixed use neighborhood west of 9th Street along Pearl and Walnut. Third floor elements are set back from Pearl and Nfnth Streets. Aroject dens-ty is reduced. X The proposed development shaN not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a 300 foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: The RB1-X zone does not have a maximum established density. The proposal is to develop at the rate of 23 units per acre. (i) the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, (ii) the maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981. II. Site Design: It utilizes site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: A. Open space, including without limifation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: X 1. Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; most of the at grade openspace is accessible and has limited functionality. M: W 3 PM SfS11e RMqv MM 3P01 W~tPM51 ~ W MmR~yly-30 MAR OI.Oec F.,..,,rl., u.,~pi fl ~~ (~.~rfn {! ~ This is a downtown commercial site and large openspace areas are not expected. X 2. Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; roof top decks and porches wiN be provided to meet this requirement. X 3. The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including without limitation healthy long-lived trees, terrain, and drainage areas; No natural features are present in this area. X 4. The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; Limited relief is provided along the alley and 9th Street sidewalk. This is a downtown area and openspace is not practical to use as a relief for density. X 5. If possible, open space is linked to an area• or citywide system. Site is not adjacen4 to openspace. Public sidewalks along 9th Street provide access to the Boulder Creek trail system. B. Landscaping: X 1. The project provides for a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the selection of materials provides a variety of colors and contrasts; For a downtown site, the mixture of materials and surface materials is good. no 2. The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9•3.3-2 and 9•3.3-3, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements," and "Landscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and Size of material has not been defined on current plans. Additional information will be required. Refer to revised landscape plan. X 3. The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights- of-way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site pian. There are no landscaped setbacks or yards required in the RB1~X zone. The public sidewalks have been enhanced, however the corner of 9th and Pearl should be further emphasized with a recessed entry or display window at the corner. C. Circulation, including without limitation the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not: no 1. High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project is provided; The basic plan is consistent with this goal, but the corner elements of the plan could be adjusted to provide M1903 PM &ASib Revl~r MM ]IHIT911lPOh5l~tllMnReply-M MAR Ul Erc An~~tla Item k~~ page #~~ additional pedestrian space at the corner of the property to improve pedestrian movements. Add/fional pedestrian space af the corner has been provided by the `bulb- out' of the curbline, and the storefronf recessed approx(mately fwo feet from the property line. X 2. Potential confticts with vehicles are minimized; X 3. Safe and convenient connections accessibfe to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including without limitation streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails; no 4. On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; There is no transit service along 9th Street at this time. X 5. The amount of land devoted #o the street system is minimized; Existing street system is not changing. X 6. The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including without limitation automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust; and X 7. City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated. D. Parking: X 1. The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; underground parking access from the alley has been proposed. Conflicts with pedestrians should be minimal. X 2. The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; Under ground parking has been proposed to reduce impacts on buildable land area above grade. no 3. Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and Final plan details are required. Refer fo Lfghting Plan. X 4. Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Section 9-3.3~12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Under ground parking lot does not require landscape improvements. M~.\903 Pml &V41k RMev MM NW 1\903PevI5luAMewR W b•30 MM 01 Loc ~~n _ ~Ir.nnn~n Il,~w. N n9nr. a ~ E. Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area: no 1. The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted pian for the area; The third floor elements of the plan are not consistent with the one and two story buildings found along the south side of Pearl. In addition, the three story elements should be brought into conformance with the provisions of a by right project. The buildings along west 9th Street are predominantly two story buildings and this site service as a transition from west Pearl (west of 9th Street) which is buildings of less than 35' in height and predominantly less than two stories in height. The building helghf along Pear! and 9"' Streefs !s now predomfnatefy 29' above the sldewalk or just 32,5' above the low point of the site. Third floor elements have been set-back from the building face. no 2. The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; Buildings along south Pearl are predominately one and two story buildings. The building needs to transition to the two story height along both pearl and 9th Street. The basic by right solution permitting three stories within 45' of 50' along Pearl and 70' along 9th Street should generally be met, See ifem 1. above. X 3. The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; In the downtown area, building heights and design constraints do not support the preservation of view corridors from adjoining uses. _X_ 4. If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; additional information is needed on this criteria. _X_ 5. 8uildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians. 7he current architecture is contemporary in style, but creates an appropriate transition to the historic architecture found in the area with the exception of the building height issues raised above. X 6. To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; Public utilities and services are available in the area. X 7. For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi•family, townhouses, M:\W3 Pal&WU PeNewMM AUl\WIPeaISNtlIMCwRapIY30 MAROl.tla ~~rr..v.~~ii'.~V~1~ {~ ~ I' f7~"i ti ~, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; this site can only provide attached housing units, but if five or more units are proposed, one of the five units is required to be permanently affordable. X 8. For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; The residential units proposed for this site are at least 15' from the adjoining building (West End Tavern) to the east of this site. Compliance with the current two/three story limits of the RB1-X zone would place the units approximately 50' west of the adjoining property. no 9. A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Additional information is required. Refer to Lighting Plan attached. X 10. The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; No naturai areas are present on this site. X 11. Cut and fill are minimized on the site, and the design of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land. This site has 3-4 of feet of fall from the northwest corner to southeast corner of the site. Cut and fill is not an issue on this site. F, Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of sofar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: X 1. Placement of Open Space and Streets. Open space areas are located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. Openspace has been proposed along the south side of the building, along 9th Street and decks at or above the second floor. X 2. Lot Layout and Building Siting. Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north lot iine to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading. The development constraints of this site suggest east west orientation of units, which is results in an inconsistency with this criteria. Porches and decks have been orientated to take M:1~3PW ShSMeRevlewMM31WSW11PO~151~<RMewR~p1Y.]UMAROlOOc ~i' ~~.~li;~.L{~'~5'i~~'~l'i`i~~'. advantage of the maximum amount of light and view. X 3. Building Form. The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The downtown area is in solar area 3, no protection requirements are applicable to this site. X 4. Landscaping. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. Majority of new landscaping has been placed along the west and south property line. Shading of adjacent uses should be minimal. M:UOIPW &WkRwkwMARDO-0IWIPMSI~tlIMmRqIY'pMMOZJOc ~.~^r~~fl ~tnn1 it ~ _ i'ti~c ~I ~ ..___ . .___ = Drexel Barrell & co. v /T\ March 18, 2002 Mr. Steve Durian City of Boulder Public Works EngineerslSurveyors P•O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Boulder, Re: Masim Place development (902 Pearl Street) Colorado Springs, Greeley Dear Mr. Durian: 6365 Corporace Drive Per City comments contained in the Land Use Review of the aforementioned Colorado Springs, development, Drexel, Barrell & Co. is providing information regarding site- Colorado 80919-1968 g~nerated traffic for both the proposed and previous site developments: 719 260 0887 719 260 8352 Fax 'rhe Maxim Place development is proposed to contain appmximately 9,500 gross squaze feet oF office space, 9,100 leasable squaze feet of retail space, and six condominiurr~/townhouse units. Previous development of the site included a gas starion with four Vehicle Fueling Positions (VFP). The traffic generated as a result of the proposed Maxim Place development and the previous development has been estimated based upon trip generation rates contained in the 6'~' Edirion, 1997, of Triu Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the results of which are presented in Table 1. In order to account for significant Trausportation Demand Management (TDIv~ measures taken in associarion with this development, as well as the proximity of the development within the City of Boulder CAGID and downtown area, reductions to estimated trip generations were applied. These reductions aze presented in Table 1 and range from 20 percent for the residential development, to 70 percent for the retail development. These reductions are in accordance with estimates from City of Boulder staf~: As indicated, traffic ganerated by the proposed developmant will decrease from that generated by the previous development. 1'his decreasa is expected to occur in both the AM and PM peak-hours, and the average daily traffic associated with the development is expected to decrease as well. If you have any questions or desire additional information please feel free to contact me at 729-260-0887. Sincerely, Dreael, Barrell & Co. ~~~~%~ ~ Je fery A. Maxwell, P. . Regional Director ```~~~~~PpO : O ;i p1: ~:,WQ U OZ .. „. ,~ ~`~ ~':!, ~.+'~ ITE Code qrea #844 GasolinelService 4 VFP Station ~sed 1k820 Uses Shopping Center 9.9 KSF #710 Generei Office Building 9.5 KSF #232 High-Rise ResideMial Condominium/Townhouse 6 UNITS Vehicle Fueiing Posifions Thousand Square Feet Table 1 EsUmated ProJect-Generated Traffic Weekday Trip Generation Rates AM PM Weekday 1227 14.56 168.56 1.03 3.74 42.92 Trip Reduction: 70% 1.56 1.49 11.01 Trip Reduc6on:50% 0.34 0.38 4.18 7rip Reduction: 20°/, Totat(Proposed) Difference in Trip GeneraUon: Proposed vs. Previous Land Use AM Peak-Hour aae ne~o-~..... Weakday Inbound Outhound Inbound Outbound Trips %Trips TriPs %Trips Trips %Tdps Trips %Trips Trips 674 51% 25 49% 24 51% 30 49% 29 391 61% 6 39% 4 48% 16 52°/, 18 -274 -4 -3 -11 -13 117 2 1 5 5 105 88% 13 12°,b 2 17°/n 2 83% 12 -52 -6 -~ -~ -6 53 7 1 1 6 25 79°k 0 81°/, 2 62% 1 38% 1 -5 0 0 0 0 20 0 2 1 1 190 8 4 7 12 ~484 -16 -20 23 -17 ~ooz ii:i~ nna TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT FOR MAXIM PLACE BOULDER, COLORA.DO ~IUaz Transportation Demand Management, TDM, for Ma~m Place will work towards the following concepts: 1. Because the site is eontained within t6e downtown district, CAGID, Eco Passes will be provided for the employees of the commercial use space. In addition, to furEher encourage public transportation, Mazim will work with RTD and escrow funds, if such faciIity is available, for resident Eco pass funding for each resident unit for a 3-year total period. 2. Parlang permits for the underground parldng spaces will be unbundled from the lease for the commercial spaces to encourage empioyees to take public transportation to work . 3. To further motivate commercial tenants to utilize public transportation, parldng rental charges will be inverse to usage monthly. Namely, • a commercial tenant that uses public tran,sportation or bike traasportatioa one or two days per week • wil! get a rebate on their parldng rate charges. 4. Bicycles: a) 'I~vo bicycles will be provided free to each resident un'rt with complete transit map and information for Boulder. b) Bike parldng racks will be provided both outside and inside the garage for commercial and resident use and safety. 5. Maxim will extend all ETC iaformation to resident un'tts in addifion to commercial tenants. hn^,~+dl'3f03~ ~~ {~7~i.'~ 03/19/2002 TCJE 11:20 [T%/R% NO 7736] ~002 WRITTEN STATEMENT 902 Pearl Street, Boulder, Colorado Site Review Appiication introduction This written statement is submitted as required by the City of Boulder's Land Use Review Application. By way of introduction, the proposed project, Maxim Place (the "Projecf"}, will be located on the southeast corner of Ninth and Pearl Streets in downtown Boulder, Colorado in what is commonly known as the "West End" of Pearl Street. Nestled beneath the foothilis, the West End is a popular destination for shopping, dining and entertainment. As set forth in more detail below, the proposed Project is an attractive mixed-use development featuring residential, commercial and retail space over an underground parking structure which will enhance the character and vitality of the area. Ownership The Project is owned by Maxim United Real Estate LLC, a limited liability company consisting of Stephen Cherner of Maxim Financial Corp., Lloyd Claycomb of United Builders, and the Cherner Trust (the "Owner"). Project Summary Previous Use and Conditions of Project Site The Project is located on the southeast corner of Ninth and Pearl Streets at 902 Pearl Street, Boulder, Colorado. The Project site is currently vacant as a result of the Owner's recent demolition of the old structures on the property, Prior to demotition, the Project site was used as a service station. Proposed Project The Projecf is zoned R61-X and is ptanned to be a mixed-use development which includes retail, office, and residential uses, ail permitted land uses by right. The development is a single building of three stories in height. The total gross r. ~: ,. ~ ~,,,~ ,~ ,, ;`~rr~ is _ ~~ - , ._..._ .. Written Statement 902 Pearl Street Site Review Application area is approximately 34,780 s.f., including 865 s.f. applicable to Floor Area Ratio ("F.A.R.") of storage and other habitable (non-parking, mechanical) basement space. The overall F.A.R. is less than 1.7 times the site area of 16,738 s.f., not inciuding 0.5 F.A.R. for residentia~ uses per Title 9 Paragraph 3.2-18(b)(3) B.R.C 1981. The first floor is 13,550 s.f. of gross flaor area, including retail space with common lobby and back-of-house space and parking garage entry ramp. The second floor is 11,945 s.f. gross floor area, including five residential condominiums and 4,471 s.f. of office space. The third floor is 8,420 s.f., including one residential condominium and the upper floor of three two-story town homes, as well as 3,260 s.f. of office space. Maxim Place is at the intersection of two significant streets in Boulder's urban fabric. Ninth Street is a major pedestrian and vehicular route, accessing dowrttown from both Arapahoe and Canyon Boulevard on the south and Mapleton Heights on the north. In contrast, Pearl Street is the central spine of the pedestrian, retail-oriented downtown historic district. As such, the architectura! character of the Project embraces the contrast of these two streets. Moreover, by creating an attractive, mixed-use building on the corner of two of the major downtown streets, the Project will strengthen the links between the Downtown Boulder Mall and West End area, as well as the Civic Area, and will help foster downtown's north/south pedestrian system. Traditional Fagade Elements The Pearl Street facade is composed of two parts. Each part is predominately brick on the upper level of the two-story expression, terminating in a cornice line in keeping with the one- and two-story historic buildings lining the west end of Pearl Street. The ground floor is predominately retail dispiay windows with solid base below and glass over-door transoms or clerestories above. The display windows and their awnings are broken or separated by brick pilasters. The retail display windows continue around the corner along Ninth Street, broken by an intimate iandscaped courtyard announcing the lobby entrance. The brick expression continues on the upper floors along Ninth Street, broken by recessed baiconies and residential terraces. The southern end of the facade, as well as the set-back third floor, is rendered in stucco, establishing a dialog with the lighter materials of the adjacent structure across the alley. ~ n:.nilr. Iigr:s F, .~°i~°'~°" ~t:rr+, ~~.-~ __ .. c.1~b~I~W M:1B02 Pear18115Ye ReNewFE804mWbnSDOr.umeMa~Y03Pee~WMen6Wemm1-01FEBIeV.EOc Written Statement 902 Pearl Street Site Review Application Facade Alignment In addition to continuity of the historic a~ignment of architectural features such as base, display window, transom and cornice, the Project also aligns the fa~ade at fhe sidewalk edge where appropriate (i.e., along Pearl Street). Along Ninth Street, the building steps out from the corner, generally following the splayed west curb and property line, providing opportunities for landscaped open space. Height Mass Scale By strategic location of set-backs of the fagade, the perceived height, mass and scale of the building are reduced. Along Pearl Street, the third story is set back 20 feet to give the fapade a two-story appearance. The third story is also set back from the adjacent building to the east, diminishing its perceived mass from the neighboring roof-top terrace. Along Ninth Street, the mass of the bu+lding is broken down into two primary building forms separated by a courtyard. The mass is further broken down or articulated by the set-back terraces serving the residential units on the upper floors, and the stepping of the building footprint, generally following the curb line. Visual interest is enhanced at the roofline by the vertical projection of the vaulted living spaces with clerestory windows along Ninth Street, maintaining a human scale, and transitioning to the residential neighborhoods to the west. The Project has been purposefully designed to fit into the existing West End neighborhood, which is a popular shopping, dining and entertainment area. In order to work with and accommodate neighboring uses, the following steps have been taken to assure a successful interface between the existing uses and the Project's mixed uses, particularly the residential component. (1) The property immediately adjacent to the east side of the Project is the West End Tavern. The West End Tavern is a singie story building with a roof-top restaurant/bar. In order to address the interface befinreen the Project and the West End Tavern, Urban Design Group and the applicant have met with the West End's owners many times, culminating in a meeting on January 10, 2002, wherein the West End Tavern's representative confirmed support for the project and gave verbal assurance that the project, as depicted, was satisfactory and acceptabie. fr...,~ 8.I`.~P~ ~ _~~ ~~`,'~ i ~ ,~ .~., M:U01 Pe~~ qlSNe ReVbwFE80/-roWbns~Daamre~M1W2PC&WiN1e~3~tl~~MMA1fEBRV.GOc Wriiten Statement 902 Pearl Street Site Review Application (2} Design changes made to accommodate neighboring uses include: (a) Location of commercial office space immediately adjacent to the restaurant/bar terrace on the second and third floors to act as an acoustical "buffer" to the residentiai units. (b) Setting back and shaping the southeast corner of the second and third floors so as to provide solar exposure and views of Boulder's Flatirons. This shaping has created a terrace for the commercial space slightly below the elevation of the roof-top restaurant/bar, providing an attractive landscaped open space foreground. (c) Orienting all of the residentiai condominium windows toward the streets or alley and, thus, away from the roof-top restaurant/bar. (d) Consulting with a nationally recognized acousticat consultant to determine materials, textures and building profiles which enhance sound absorption and dispersion while reducing reverberation and sound transmission to manageable levels and incorporating those findings into the Project design. (e) It should be noted that during the evolution of the design, an important relationship between building mass and F.A.R. relative to mitigation of the impact on the adjacent roof-top restaurant/bar became clear. The ability to sculpt the building shape to allow for maximum views from the West End Tavern is made possible by locating more of the allowable floor area on the third floor. If the Owner were to proceed with a merely by-right development, in order to maximize the development potential of the site, the shaping of the southeast corner of the building and the creation of the resultant terrace would not be possible, thereby eliminating the potential of a south/west mountain view from the roof- top restauranUbar. (3) The Owners have also discussed the Project with other neighboring property owners who have indicated that they are in full support of the Project and believe it wil~ enhance the West End area, creating a retail "bridge" to the Pearl Street Mall. ~' ~i.".1'c$. ~l~~~l) ir _~i.~C,_ 1 id~~ ~~ M:1W2 Po~~ b1lSMe RevbwFE804rovbbnf'DOCUments~BUneeNJiAen6lelenqnl-0/FEBiw.doe Written Statement 902 Pearl Street Site Review ApplicaNon (4) The Owners have studied other mixed use developments in successful areas like LoDo in Denver, Colorado and believe that residents who choose to live in urban environments do so because they wa~t to be close to their favorite shopping, dining and entertainment establishments. At present, the Owners already have a waiting tist of persons interested in living in the Project. Development Schedule Design February 2Q01- January 2002 Site Plan Review February 2002 Construction Documentation 2002 Construction 2003 Occupancy Spring 2004 Conclusion As stated in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, "[c]reating livable centra! places is a hallmark of many successfu! cities nationwide." Bringing mixed uses which include a residential component into the downtown area will help assure the long-term economic vitality of downtown Boulder by creating places where people can live as wel! as work. Attractive mixed-use projects, such as the one proposed here, can improve public safety, increase the use of alternative modes of transportation, and build strong community ties. It is with these goals in mind that the Project has been designed and submitted. 1~r~..~~~ ~~,.rri~ _ ~ ~-,,~,,~ ~. ,:~ f„~~,~ ~ M:~002 Pae~ 61WYe ReMenFEfiUl~nNebnsbownwnl~~BP1PeaM'~MenBUlemeM-0IiEOm.tlx Vu/LU/LVVL YO:YV Pf1A VJ/LV/VL uo.u.~ yvvv co~ vaao ~,ry ..w ,..,...,,.~ ~IUUly __ Vestad Riahts O~ion Form and/ur Waiver S'l~ ~v15liU J(~/[47 /INI~~~?~ ~f,~klt~' LGG - Ty{K, pF R~rlew Prope~ly Owners Neme g02 ~c- ~~`~fi a ^ Address of Property ' Appliranfs Name .4P710N Ikl Updatad 7/18/85' ~~~ yviuus !. $/~!f ~~~' "~/`YY i'/\. indend b qra~e IFie eneaKion of a Yested ProPa-b f~t ~ P-ovided fof b Sc~tla~ B~I-12. B,RC.1881. M ortler to aa~wnp~ ~mt. ~ an+ mquesting tlwt mp+ eppGcalz«t be heCe~t~d b 11ta Planntng Board tw' a Pubti~ heark~e pu~acd ro Ser~on 9,4.3(bxtl. B.R4.1981. 1 undets4nd dtat If ~ development Is arypwed dy tl~e 6oard.l chap ceuse a ratk6 ed~is6i9 9ie gmneral pubAv d1f~ Planning goard'o ppproval and ih~ ae~t7on ~ e+reslsd P~oP~Y ~t to ba ptbli9h6d in 0 nevva~'~aPe~ d penerdl dra~ladi0n rto later Uisn 6ourfaoh daYs W~owk~ fptal approval and 61iAA W'uWdO tl18 Piaonin9 Okeota' w~h tha r~evr~s qttkxel notice aF P~b~ioaUott no later than Een d~ya fo~iotn~tt~ the dats of,pUbficadon, tn otsJer 1o peKect my ves~d rtght. Said ~ight wp! be vc~ted tor Ux~ee years from the d~e of Ncwl apprvvel and wAI cover tl~e foaovW~q elemerds of tho aPP~oY~; 1 undetstand arn! advwwledge tliat certain delaYa b~^Y Prol~ ~~ fime may resdt in vMer to meet ihe hearlRg pnd notiaC feq~lrement& of state law for the cresdon of a Ves-tad propetty tt9hf- ~ Pmperiy O er ~ ~ gr ' Date __ VYaness' - ~~ /D Z, . ~. , unaersfana E,ae ~ mav rw~sue u,a aeaaon of a ves~ea aa~r rigM es provided tor in SBClion 94-12, B.R.C_ 1957, snd 3eat'ion 2488-103~ C.R.S.1973, 2(Id I Ch00se io vduntar(ly wa(vo Ihis right 1 have pean edNSed by tha Ciqr m ooneult M nGOmey prlor to signing ih~ vraiver. Further, I understsnd thet U~s waiver does rq{ a6ddge anY cottunan (aw vestetl H~ht9 Whiah I rt~ eaqulre no~' does it dminish eny Aght wNoh may e~ist under the Cily's la~d ~sa reg~aaaonc, except tor scctlon 9~a-tz~ s.R.c. 1ss1. . Praperb Owner BY - ~~" Date DatO SIT~ REV16W : .:.C~~r: .~,~ f:;,ssi_~`L 03/26/2002 TUE 08:43 [T%/R% NO 7819] f~001 m,oe of ~sa: nun,ber or unns tiaano raoh~rk~ a,id'u,o sauere toutaae: etc.l PROJECT FACT SHEET For Land Use Roview Applleatlons Accurate and complete fnfwmaGon about a project fs integral to a timely and thorough aty review. Please type or print complete answers to the items listed under the boxes that relate to your projac4 While some of this infortnation may be indudad on the project ske plans or dGscussed in the wr3tten statement, please aiso enter ft here. If you choose to recreafe lhis document, please only indude the Hems that relate to your project. M electronic version of this documeM Is available on the Web at www.d.houlder.co.us/butldina~gp~ices. ALL PROJEC7S Key Information sut~eotPropertyaadrassnooation: .~1f~2 P~A~ZL ~ST . P~DU1.n~R CO ~0302 owner name and address: MA'XIM UNII~i~ ~k7i 11.L~/ 1~ I.I.G. Iqoo Ktnc st: . sovwER co ga3o2 tege~ oas«trxia, (a ettaa,): R-T~f}GftED ~oK 7?~1~. SII~ SvK,G~iY) Age of ex(sting structures: ~~ l y/~1~~-' ~~ Size of ske in square feat and acres. Gross: , 3~ Net (after public dedicalions): curcent zoni~s oesisnatio~: R.P~ I-X I K.~1 t7(~IA'(i BUSp~(~S ~F.V~7.0~'l/~t C~) For rezoning and annexalion applica6ons, A~ e.. Proposed Zoning DesignaUon: I `~,~! ~' BoulderValleyComprahensive R8 ~~.~O~aNf~ ~~~~ Plan Land Use Designation: Pre,~,s n~e~ ~~~ Kc'NE ,~ ~~, -~v~ ri~r. Solar Access Area DesignaGon (cirde one): Area 1 Area II ~ Does the proJecl inciude the demotition of any structures? ~~ ff yes, what year was the structure buiN? Please list any requested variations to the land use regulations (specffic variance inTortnation (s requested later fn the projecl facl sheet): ~(.~~~f ~O~I F(CATIO~, ,.,,;,,~~; ,~ ~-.~~.._~.,~,;._7 ~~t~„~, Please 1ndlcate with a checkmark 1f your property is affeded by any of the folbwing: wea~oa eree Airport Influence Zorre Histor)c landmark designatloNdistrid Boulder Valley Regbna! CeMer (BVRC) 70U Year Fbod Zone Nath Boulder Subcommunity Plan CAGID parktng distrid UHGIp parkhig disdrd Other bcai improvement dishict _ Land tJse Please describe the proposed use(sj of lha property, fnduding acttvtties corMuded on site, number of seats, number of guest rooms, nwnber of restdents, number of empbyees, hours of operation and any other unique operaHng d~arederisUcs. Also, please speGfy which land use caYegory(Ies) M Ure SchedNe M Permitted Land Uses {Section 9-3.1-1) that most dosely descrlbes the proposed use: ~ A~ M1X~ -v~ t~~oPnar~rr oF.~ ~.~TI~tL ~~r~sr FGoo,~) - GomM~act~t- o~rc~' ~S~'conrp ~'coo~ ~~f~i~n ~tr.~.) /~ . .~ 17e~7'wn/_7.ilfd.a /~/fAeAifMi~ ii..Ml /l~AA/h Q~ 9'll/~/I~ I'~/MH • fi~r,~ ~Y~ vF ~c- ts rv ~e D~m~n~D • P~vm cv l~vm~x dF ~mPCo Y~ ;~ ^ R~m-i~ --i 3~3. - oP~i~ ~ ~-' f •('fL~"S~vIYt~F~7 M/A1P~'J~ DF R~~ETt~ 0~l (a coKDo ~N/f~ --~ ZO • Ovn~FrY ,lco. r~i~k' Isx A~~nan~..~~ rn rtrc c~.~crs~~~ c r~F s~b...,~~.~n I~H~lO Ut!lities ~ ~ 9 3, I-I ) ; Are ~isting buildings hooked-up to city water? Are exlsting buildings hooked-up to city sewer7 Are thare Gty water mains adjacent the property? Are there city sewer mains adjacent fhe properry? Please name any utility districts that curcenUy serve the proparly: ;.. ~~ .. _,.,':fi;,_~._. ~;"" :-~ Parking Totat # oif~street parking spaces exlsUng Total # off-sbeet parking spac~s pmpared VNIVSKShL SIZ~' ste~darc! size (dimensions: 9' x 18' ) smatt car (dimensior~s: 7'9" x 15 j accessible (~mensions:l2'x18'+3' ) bicycle (type: ; oiher (dimensions:~) TOTAL standard ske 6 (dimensions: 9' x!9' ) ~ amall car ~ ~dimensbns: 7'9" x t5' ) accessibte (dimensbns:l2'x79'+3' ) - - bicycle ~ ~. ~_(lype: ,~l~~~l~ other O (dimensions:86 X176' TOTAt Z~ ~{. ~} ~~ Specify % of parking redudion requested `%spaces where _ are required Specify % of parking deferral reGuasted .~-_ _%._spaces where _ are reqWred Setbacks Certain streets are cetegorized in ihe city code as Major Streets and have more restrictive setbadc requirements. Does your properly abut a MaJor.Street? ~_ Whats the setbadc requiremeM? Are any setback variaUons requssted9 ~_ Please specify request ~feet for the yard seYbadc, where feet is requlred ,feet for the yaM setbadc, where feet is required ~feet fw the yard setbadc, where_feet is required _feet for the yard sel6ack, where_feet is required Are you requesting any othar variations lo the Land Use Regulations? ~ If so, please list ihe specific variation(s) requested: ~ 1.7 FR~ Attaur~eGE PWS 1NE d.5 ~~~ ~ lhl7 N~ INGWD~ lH ~'f~ Ff~K CftGGIlJN7oN5~ fib ~i~ovlvE ~1/LIl'lioNt' GfNl~~l' P~' ~ ' $ULtG. ~7l7Y'D ~Y ~1~ONf. v~ze~iv vrr~tufY a~u ~&rDE1Vn~ M~~D- ~tle 6vl~O~N~ ~~lY eE ~1~P~n-T~ : - - - ~-- - /r~l6tl~l~ ~ mo~ ~l~t.E ,nrT~"aro~ ~rro ~l'~S r /FND ~f~~l~lDE ~~ ~I~N~T7F,~ T~K. va~ aF N~YN~ ct6Hr ifNb v~~l~A7~oN i~~. s-vst~rN~YPiLrT}'' ud~s, ~s p n-~ l.~5 ~ss~ vE P ~_:.~~ ".~ ~ ~ _. ~ Projects with residential dwelling units (existing or proposed) Existing Total # of lots Size of lots Total # of buildings Size of each building Total # of dwelling uhKs Toia~ # of kitchens Total floor area Number of stories Maximum building height Specify the number of unRs ivith each bedroom conflguration * efficiency living unft Project density: Gross units/acre Net units/acre Lot area/unit Total useable open space Useable open spacelunit Floor area ratio Proposed ~ ' 1 yl: (p p~~~ Iv~rv 1~ ~ Floor Area/unit '~ ELU* ~ 1 BR '~$0 2 BR ~~3BR ^ 4 BR -- other Proposed _ .~5.g ux~~//IGeS ---~-~ Is open space reduction requested"1(If yes, speciFy %) ~a ~) ~~~-) `" Open space reduction requests may only be made for properties in the HR X or HZ-E zoning district. Existing D ELU• ~ 1 BR ~_ 2 BR 0 3 BR ~ 4 BR other Extsting 73 ~ Proposed O ELU* 0 1 srt ,~ 2 BR ~_ 3 BR ~ 4 BR 0 other '~;' ,, , ;,1" ° ~~ ,~•:. ~. • ~ ~ Projects with non-residential uses (existing or proposed) Total # of lots Total # buildings Size of each building Total floor area ~(~ON ~ ~5~~ Floor area ratio Total building coverage Number of sto~ies Maximum building height Ratio of non-residential floor area to number of parking spaces Ratio of norr-residential floor area to residential floor area Existing Proposed ~ ~- ~ W 6~c~~ - N~ VFi (I~/~'f~i' 3 ~_ ~'-5 --r~~- T ~87 ~~ .36% What type of building code occupancy classification is required7 S 7i.~^~-~ ~ E ~ N Projects with a mix of non-residential and residential uses In addition to the information above, please describe the proposed project, and any proJecl characieristics or requested variations of the mixed-use project. '~"t}~' P~vPo~Eh P-~o~~f' Is~ MUr~v-vsE P~~r o~ R~1_.~n~rt, coMn~tE22cU-L OA=ic~' ~~1'!~!D l~et'71?~ sfytt,~' oi~'~C ~n rmD~~vno~p~,.~N~ snwav~' Tfr~ t~v~,o~,~r ~.s A- s-N61.~ ~1-~P1~l~ n~ 7~I~~N~V6" 61ChG r~. T~~' b~COUI~Dftn~~t,. tS PI~GM/Mb~'7'ZW R~l7~lV UJS~ '~JB Z~t~/' ~' ~1'r6~DRt LNIP~1M~i ~t'JV G~IGE~ SPIIG~'.~p ~ _ l~SID~FMfL~ cONOOM/NIUM,S . _ - ~D ~i~U/DE' 7~T t/R8~(_d.IfI~F,UTx ~ ~C51D~[l1/tl.r M/k~- v~~ ~- VA~ct~mvN ~s l~,'ur~r~ 7~2~s1~1~u ~ r~t~ PFGO~~j' q,lilstTY v1+~ 1N~P y'ftll~p ~,~ ~<45~ , .. ~a ,~