5A - Annexation and initial zoning, #LUR2002-00068, Concept Plan Review #LUR2002-00069, 6287 ArapahoCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 9, 2003
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: December 24, 2002)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of annexation and initial zoning #LUR2002-00068, and
Concept Plan Review #LUR2002-00069, for a property located at 6287 Arapahoe Road
comprising 5.52 acres. Requested initial zoning is "IG-E" Industrial General. The proposal is
to develop an east campus for Naropa University, including consideration of dormitories.
Owner: 6287 Arapahoe, LLC, Eric Golting
Applicant: Naropa University
Representative: Vince Porreca
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Bob Cole, Manager of Land Use Review
Brent Bean, Senior Planner, Presenter
OBJECTIVE:
1. Hear Staff and Applicant presentations
2. Hold Public Hearing
3. Planning Board discussion
-Find the request is consistent with the requirements for annexation
-Determine appropriate zone for the property
-Review and comment on the Concept Plan (no formal action required for this
discussion).
4. Planning Board take action to approve, approve with conditions or deny the
request for annexation and zoning.
s:\plan\pb-items\memos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 1
STATISTICS:
Proposal: Annex and zone a 5.52 acre parcel for the development of a satellite
campus for the Naropa University. The property is currently located in
Boulder County and is zoned for both commercial and light industrial use.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan designates this area as
Community Industrial, which is supported by the IS (Industrial Service)
zone. The applicant is requesting IG (Industrial General) zoning. In
addition, the applicant has requested that a provision be made within the
annexation agreement that university use inclusive of limited retail, cafe.
and dormitories be permitted on the site.
The applicant is not proposing to add additional buildings to the site at this
time, which is reflected in the concept plan submittal which only shows
the existing improvements, including parking, building location and
landscaping. Because this site is greater than five acres in size, a Concept
Plan Review and Comment is required. Should additional development be
proposed for this site, the applicant will be required to complete a Site
Review.
Project Name: Naropa University West, 6287 Arapahoe
Location: Northwest of the intersection of Arapahoe and 63`a
Size of Tract: 5.52 acres, 240,649 square feet
Comprehensive Plan: This area is designated Community Industrial on the BVCP.
Zoning: The property is currently zoned County Commercial and Light Industrial.
The applicant is requesting IG (Industrial General) zoning, and the staff is
recommending IS-E (Industrial Service-Established) zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Community Industrial
KEY ISSUES:
1. Does the request comply with applicable State annexation requirements?
2. Does the request comply with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)
policies for annexation?
3. Is the requested zoning, IG-E, appropriate for the site?
4. Is a university appropriate at this site?
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\6287arpbb-annex AGEIYDA ITEM # SA Paee 2
BACKGROUND:
Existing Site / Site Context:
Naropa has been looking for an expanded campus location for several years. They desired to find
a site that would complement the existing campus at 23rd and Arapahoe. Easy access to the site
from transit providers was critical. This site became available in early 2002, and Naropa has
been working with the landowner to annex and develop the site for the university during the past
year. The property is served with city utilities through an out-of-city water and sewer agreement.
The agreement requires the owners of the property to seek annexation when eligible, or a change
of use occurs. The previous use of the site was for a computer related provider (light industrial
use, Breece Hill Technologies Inc).
Project Description
The applicant is requesting annexation, zoning and Concept Plan Review and Comment for a
5.52 acre property. A 35,585 square foot building is present on the site, and 123 developed
parking spaces. Naropa's intent is to create a center for the arts at this location and move out of
the Dairy Center for the Arts. The arts center will incorporate classrooms, studio space, practice
space, and an auditorium for seating up to 500 people. The first phase of this arts center will
consist of development of less than 20,000 square feet within the existing building. It is
anticipated that this floor area will develop in the near future, and the additional building area
witl be constructed in the future. Expanded space may include new classrooms, cafB, book store,
studio space, dormitories and similar uses.
ANALYSIS:
The following review has been split into two sections--the first reviews the Annexation and
Zoning Request, and the second is the Concept Plan Review and Comment, including the
Objectives for a Concept Plan.
1. Does the request comply with applicable State annexation requirements?
Staff has reviewed the annexation request and finds that the requirements of Section 31-12-105
(1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) C.R.S. are met. No land held in identical ownership will be divided into
separate parts or parcels by this annexation. The owners of 100 percent of the property have
signed the annexation patition (Attachment C). The subject property is at least one-sixth
contiguous to the city limits (enclave, fully surrounded). No part of the annexation area has been
part of an annexation proceeding to another municipality within the last twelve months, and the
annexation will not result in the detachment of area from any school district. The parcels are
within the Boulder Valley School District. All urban services will be available to the site upon
annexation.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Pase 3
2. Does the request comply with the Boulder Valiey Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)
policies for annexation?
The property is located within the Boulder Valley Planning Area IIA. Area IIA is identified by
the BVCP as the area of immediate focus for annexation to the city within the first three years of
the BVCP planning period. Annexation of this parcel is consistent with the policies of the
BVCP, including the following policies:
Policy 1.20 "Annexation of area IIA is the primary focus for the next three years." This
site is in area IIA of the BVCP.
Policy 1.22(a) "All new residential, commercial and industrial development and
redevelopment within the city." This site is currently served with city water and sewer
and the change of use will constitute a new use for this site, which should be developed
within the city.
Policy 1.25(c) "Annexation of existing substantially developed areas will be
offered in a manner and on terms and conditions which respect existing lifestyles
and densities, and the city will expect these areas to be brought to city standards
only where necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the subject
area or of the city." The applicant is planning to develop only within the existing
building for the first phases of development. Improvements to access and
pedestrian movements have been required as conditions of this approval to assure
that minimum safety improvements are made to this site,
Policy 1.25(d) "In order to reduce the negative impacts of new development in the
Boulder Valley, the ciry shall annex Area II land with significant development or
redevelopment potential only on a very limited basis. Such annexations will be
supported onlv if the annexation provides a special opportunitv of benefit to the
c~." Development of this site will provide a special benefit to the city in the
form of expanding educational services within the city. In addition, expansion of
the Naropa campus at this location provides a special opportunity for Naropa to
coordinate transit access to both campuses through existing transit service
available on Arapahoe. If housing is provided on site, a reduction in the jobs to
housing goals wiil also be met.
Policy 1.25(e) "Annexation of substantialiy developed properties that allows for
some additional residential units or commercial square footage." This site is
partially developed and will meet the arts center needs for Naropa. Future
additions can accommodate the university needs, including the addition of
dormitories.
Policies 3.16 & 3.17 "Performing and Visual Arts & the Arts." The city,
acknowledges in these policies the need to recognize and support both the
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 4
performing and visual arts. The primary uses proposed for this site are for
teaching and providing studio space for both the performing and visual arts.
Policy 5.03 "Balance of Employment and Housing." The addition of housing at
this location is encouraged by this policy in that the addition of housing will
reduce the amount of employment available at this site.
The subject property currently has a 52,000 square foot industrial building, formerly "Breece Hill
Technologies Inc." The building has both small and large spaces that are easily convertible to
classrooms, lab space, studio space and larger places of assembly. A specific plan for the
conversion of this space has not been provided at this time. However, the applicant is not
intending to convert more than 20,000 square feet of the existing building to university use at this
time. The remaining 32,000 square feet of building area will be leased to permitted industrial
uses.
Adult education of less than 20,000 square feet is a permitted use in all industrial zones. Private
university uses have some similar characteristics to adult education facilities but are not
permitted in industriai zones. It is anticipated that the 52,000 square foot building and additional
building(s) will be constructed in the future far "university" use. The site is greater than five
acres, which requires a Site Review for any further development. The applicant has filed a
concept plan consistent with the Site Review requirements. Eventually the applicant will have to
file a Site Plan and Use Review for expanded adult educational facilities.
Summary of benefits of annexing this property:
A. The site is adjacent to the city., it is partially developed and eligible for
annexation.
B. City services are already being provided to the site (water and sewer), which
require the property to be annexed when eligible for annexation.
C. The site will be developed for educational purposes, providing expanded
educational services to the city.
D. Significant public improvements, including construction of new sidewalks,
reduction of access to public rights of way and access improvements will be made
as a condition of this annexation.
3. Is the requested zoning, IG-E, appropriate for the site?
The BVCP designation for Yhis site is Community Industrial. This designation is intended to
support smaller service industry, not larger individual industries. Page 114 states "The
Community Industrial classification is shown far those areas where the predominant uses provide
a direct service to the planning area. These uses often have ancillary commercial activity and are
essential to the life of the Boulder community. These uses include smaller scale auto-ralated
uses, small printing operations, building contractors, building supply warehouses, small
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 5
manufacturing operations and similar uses." The IS-E zone supports this designation, not the IG-
E. Staff is recommending that the IS-E zone be applied to this property.
The distinction between IG and IS zones is that larger industrial uses are supported by right in the
IG zone and not in the IS zone. In addition, the three office types, computer design, data
processing and telecommunications uses, are not permitted in the IS zones, but are permitted uses
in the IG. Both the IS-E and IG-E have the same FAR of 0.5:1. Allowing these uses in this area
will limit if not prevent smaller service industrial uses from location in the area. Recent
discussions with developers has shown that there is a greater demand for locations for larger
industry to locate, but if the city only provides areas for larger uses, new service industrial uses
will not have anywhere to locate. There already is a limited amount of land zoned far service
industrial use. The applicant has requested IG zoning because it supports the broader spectrum
of land uses, but this is not a compelling reason to support a zoning designation that could
remove this area from service industrial use.
The existing building is only 52,000 squaze feet in area. Up to 120,324 square feet of building
could be constructed at this site based on an FAR of 0.5:1. As pians are developed by Naropa
for future campus expansion, the uses of the IS-E zone should be considered. Smaller buildings
designed for classroom space should be considered such that they could be converted to service
industrial use if a sale of the property becomes necessary.
4. Is a university appropriate at this site?
The IS-E zone permits adult educational facilities, but in the commercial districts, this category
of use adds "university and colleges." There are some distinctions between an adult educational
facility and a university or college. Several of these distinctions inciude: 24-hour use of the
campus including dormitories, cafe, book store, and other support services. Housing is not
commonly found in adult educational facilities, but is very commonly found at universities or
colleges. Residential use is not currently supported in the IS-E zone, but limited retail, food
service and similar accessory activities are permitted. Given this information, the difference
between adult education and university are not that significant. As a condition of annexation,
City Council can acknowledge use of this site for "University" as a condition of the annexation
ordinance.
The current location supports a university campus for the following reasons:
- The site is greater than five acres in size and is less than 50% developed.
- The existing building is convertible to educational and performing arts uses. There is
approximately 32,000 square feet of two story office space (convertible to class rooms)
and 20,000 square feet of clear span space with heights of 20 feet or more (studio and
theater space).
- Arapahoe is a major transit corridor providing transit service to the site with 20 minute or
less headways. Transit service is available along Arapahoe, both the Long and Short
Jumps (Arapahoe route) serve this area. Access to community services in the Crossroads
and downtown areas is easily accessible through existing transit services. Bike/trail
connections present along Arapahoe and Boulder Creek are easily accessible at
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 6
Cherryvale. The rail tracks along the north property line could become a part of a rail
transit line in the future. •
- Surrounding land uses are of a general light industrial nature to the east, west and south of
the site.
Dorms typically have been developed as rooms with outside food services. A cafe is planned to
be developed at this site, which could serve as the cafeteria for dorm rooms. However, the
cunent trend is to develop independent living quarters, containing 3-4 bedrooms, a shared
kitchen and living room. Either type of unit is acceptable at this location, provided they are
designed for the potential conversion to industrial service use should the "university" use leave
this site. The FAR for the site cannot be exceeded and will serve as a limiting factor for the
number of units that can be developed at this location. However, as a direction to the
development of housing and assurances that the units meet reasonable housing expectations for
open space, parking and other housing standards, staff is recommending that the basic bulk
requirement of the IMS-X zone for housing be applied. The specific conditions have been listed
in the conditions of approval and will be included in the annexation agreement. Naropa's plans
are primarily far educational services; dorm use is a secondary use. The site can accommodate a
total of 120,324 feet of building area at an FAR of 0.5:1. Only 52,000 square feet of building
area exists on this site at this time, leaving 68,324 square feet of additional building area.
Some site improvements are needed to make this site acceptable for university use. The number
of parking spaces needs to be adequate to meet the needs of the university. Naropa has
historically operated with a high transit user student body. The site is currently providing just
less than one parking space per 400 square feet of floor area (reyuired parking for the IS-E zone).
The 52,000 square foot building requires 130 parking spaces, and 123 designated spaces are
available on site. If a place of assembly (theater) for seating 500 people is developed on site, 167
parking spaces are needed (one space per three seats) plus parking for other uses on the site.
With some revisions to the existing parking lots and service areas, 170 parking spaces could be
provided on site. Prior to issuance of building permits for the first phase of development
(20,000 square feet), a parking plan will need to be provided showing that the minimum parking
spaces needed for the proposed will be met. First phase parking plans will need to address
parking needs for both the universiTy and the remaining industrial space. If a theater is to be
developed on site and is to be used at different times than when classes are held, maximum
parking for the campus could be based on the number of spaces required for the theater, for
example 500 seats, 167 parking spaces.
There is no sidewalk present along Arapahoe. Many of the students and faculty will be using
Arapahoe to make connections with the existing transit services. A sidewalk connecting 62nd and
63`d Streets along Arapahoe is needed to make this a safe area for students and pedestrians. In
addition, a transit shelter and a temporary walkway to the edge of Arapahoe Road surface will
need to be developed. It is anticipated that improvements will be made to Arapahoe by the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in the next few years. Naropa may have to
make the improvements to the sidewalks along Arapahoe if improvements to Arapahoe do not
coincide with the opening of the university at this location. Staff will work with CDOT to
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 7
determine an appropriate location for sidewalks in this area prior to the road improvements being
made to Arapahoe.
In summary, providing opportunities for educational uses is supported by the BVCP. This site
has good transit access needed for a university. Development of a university, possibly with
housing (dorms) may be responsive to the jobs/housing policies. Finally, annexation of the site
is required by the outside city utilities agreement. Given these facts, staff supports development
of a university and its associated uses at this location. This recommendation will include the
provision of allowing housing to be developed as an accessory use to the university. Staff is also
recommending that housing associated with the university not be required to comply with the .
requirements of Inclusionary Zoning. If the site is sold and the housing units are no longer
associated with the university, they will be required to meet the applicable Inclusionary Zoning
requirements at that time.
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT:
The existing site plan (improvement survey) has been provided as the concept plan document for
this site. No plans have been made for development of more than the existing building at this
time. Parking will need to be upgraded to meet the needs of the new development. At the
present time, there are 123 parking spaces represented on the concept plan. The existing building
has an area of 52,000 square feet, which requires 130 pazking spaces. Revisions to the existing
parking lots and conversion of the service court to a parking lot will provide the additional
parking needed to meet minimum standards. Parking needs for general educational use at this
location should be adequate with the provision of a minimum of one parking space per 400
square feet of educationa] use, because this site is located on Arapahoe, a major transit conidor
connecting both campuses. Depending on the hours of operation, major spaces for assembly will
add to the total parking requirements.
Naropa plans to develop a place of assembly (theater/auditorium) which may seat up to 500
people, requiring 167 parking spaces. Site plan documents will need to be provided
demonstrating that parking needs can be met prior to issuance of any building permit including
an auditorium. It is anticipated that the auditorium would be used at times when classes are not
occurring. If this is the case, the requirements of parking for theater use of the site could be the
maximum needed at any one time. Naropa has indicated that only one auditorium will be
developed on the site. If no more than one theater is developed, parking will be based on that
use. If additional auditorium spaces are developed, parking will be based on the combined
auditorium needs.
There are currently four driveways along 63`d Street. This number of drives will need to be
reduced to two. The northernmost access will need to be improved if two-way traffic flows are
to continue at this location. A connection to 62"d street from the northwest parking lot will need
to be constructed with the first phase of development. A cross connection between 62"d and 63`a
streets is recommended by the Transportation Division to link 62"d Street to 63`d Street. This
cross connection would help to relieve traffic movements along Arapahoe.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 8
Staff is recommending that a site plan be approved prior to issuing any building permits for the
second phase of development. Site plan submitted will be required once the university
development plans exceed 20,000 square feet of floor area, require more than 170 parking
spaces, or total assembly seating exceeds 500 seats (inclusive of one or more places of assembly).
The site plan should incorporate buildings that could be converted to industrial buildings such
that a simple transition could be made from a university to an industrial service center.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
No comments were received regarding this development from adjacent neighbors as of the date
of writing this report.
Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property
owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10
days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Annexation/zoning:
Planning staff finds that the request for annexation and zoning to Industrial Service - Established
(IS-E) be approved, finding:
The property is consistent with state requirements for annexation. No land held in
identical ownership will be divided into separate parts or parcels by this annexation. The
owners of 100 percent of the property have signed the annexation petition (Attachment
C). The subject property is at least one-sixth contiguous to the city limits (enclave, fully
surrounded). No part of the annexation area has been part of an annexation proceeding to
another municipality within the last twelve months, and the annexation will not result in
the detachment of area from any school district. The parcels are within the Boulder
Valley School District. All urban services will be available to the site upon annexation.
2. That the zone for the site should be Industrial Service - Established (IS-E), consistent
with the BVCP designation of CommuniTy Industrial.
The site should be approved for development of a University and its associated uses
including, but not limited to, cafe, book store and dormitories. This site is located on a
major transit corridor, both Naropa campuses are located on Arapahoe, Naropa has a high
transit user faculty and student body, and the site is large enough to sixpport expanded
university needs.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 9
Concept Plan:
There is no formal action required on a Concept Plan Review and Comment. Planning Board
discussion should be based on the concept plan objective's review provided by the staff
(Attachment B). Additional comments, issues or suggestions are encouraged regarding the
concept plan. A summary of Planning Board comments and staff comments will be forwarded to
the applicant for consideration in the final site plan document. Concept plan review comments
are not binding on an applicant but intended to give the applicant direction on the proposed plan.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE ANNEXATION AND
ZONING:
Prior to making application for any building permit to convert up to the first 22,000
square feet of building area to a university use or to add any additional floor area to the
property, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval of the City of Boulder
Planning and Development Services Division, as part of technical document review
application, the following plans, demonstrating compliance with Title 9, "Land Use
Regulations, B.R.C. 1981 and City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and
construct the improvements that aze shown on such plans:
A. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to ensure compatibility
with the surrounding area if exterior architectural changes are proposed;
B. A detailed parking plan showing the arrangement, locations, dimensions, and type
of parking stalls (inciuding any areas of the property for bicycle parking or
reserved for defened parking) to ensure compliance with the city's Parking Design
Standards;
C. A fire hydrant in a location that is approved by the Fire Department;
D. A sidewalk connecting 62"d and 63`d Streets on Arapahoe Avenue in a location
and a design that is approved by the Director of Public Works;
E. A transit stop and shelter on Arapahoe Avenue, west of 63rd Street in a location
and a design that is approved by the Director of Public Works; and
F. Street trees along Arapahoe Avenue, 62"d Street and 63rd Street.
2. Removal of any tree must receive prior approval by the City Forester.
3. In addition to the uses set forth in the IS-D zoning district, the property may also be used
as a university use and its associated accessory uses. Uses that are accessory to the
university use include student housing, dormitories, retail, and restaurant uses that are
designed and used to serve the university.
4. Any student housing or dormitory uses shall only be created as part of the university use
and shall not be constructed independent of the university use unless the underlying
zoning is changed to permit such residential land use. In the event that the use of the land
ceases to be a university use and the housing is used as market housing, the Applicant
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 10
shall be required to comply with the provisions of the city's Inclusionary Zoning
ardinance. If the Applicant chooses to use some or all of units that may be designated as
affordable housing units for rentals, the Applicant agrees to convey an interest in such
units to the city or the city of Boulder Housing Authority or similar agency, in an amount
that satisfies § 38-12-301, et.seg. C.R.S. to allow such entity to control the rents and
make the dwelling ixnits available to households with incomes in the ranges described in
the city's Inclusionary Zoning ardinance.
5. The Applicant shall be entitled to use 22,000 square feet of the existing building for
university uses. The remaindar of the building shall be used for land uses that are
otherwise permitted in the underlying zoning district. Any expansion of the use beyond
22,000 square feet or the addition of any new structures shall require approval under the
city's site review process.
6. A site review approval shall be required prior to any of the following:
A. Use of more than 22,000 square feet of floor for university, adult education or
vocational school activities;
B. The seating capacity of any assembly area, which may include, without limitation,
a theater, auditorium, or piace for gathering devoted primarily to showing motion
pictures, or for dramatic dance, musical or other live performances, exceeds 500
seats;
C. Any building area expansion beyond 52,000 square feet;
D. Any increase in use that requires a supply of parking greater than 170 spaces; or
E. Development of any student housing or dormitories on the property.
The Applicant shall submit a master plan for the property, complete with a phasing plan
for future construction, in any site review application or any site review approval. The
master plan shall include the future plans for development on the property for at least ten
years into the future, including pians far streets, circulation ways, utilities, buildings,
parking, open spaces, land uses and other site features and improvements.
8. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement and construct improvements for a public
vehicular and pedestrian cross connection between 62nd and 63rd streets in a location and
the size of which shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public
Works.
Appr v d By:
eter llock, D rector
Planning Department
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee ll
ATTACHMENTS: .
Attachment A: Vicinity Map
Attachment B: Concept Plan Review Objectives
Attachment C: Concept Plan and Annexation map
AttacHment D: Annexation Petition
Attachment E: DRC comments
Attachment F: Applicant's Written Statements
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 12
ATTACHMENT A -
of Boulder Vicinity Ma
~
...~.
~
J
~'
H
v
Location: 6287Arapahoe Rd
Project Name: 6287Arapahoe Rd
Review Type: Annexation ! Initial Zoning
Concept Plan Review & Comment
Review Number: LUR2002-00068, 69
Applicant: Naropa University
~
NoR~rH
1 inch equals 300 feet
~ry ~r -~ ~
$oulder
7Yie IrGOrmatlon aeplc[e0 ontnls map Is pmvl0ed
as g~aphical representation anN~ he CI[y o( Boulaer
prWitles now ar:nry. e~Presietl or Imp11e0, as to
Ihe accuracyand/or completmess of Ihe IKOrmaqon
contalnetl heieon.
Agenda Item # .~H Page #1,~
ATTACHMENT B
CONCEPT PLAN OBJECTIVES
Concept Plan Guidelines for Review and Comment.
(~Guidelines for Review and Comment: The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board's
discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be
iden[ified as part oT the concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the
Tollowing guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan.
(1)Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its Iocation, surrounding
neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known na[ural features of the site including, without
limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the
site; The site is adjacent to Arapahoe on the south side, which has vacant lands (JCC site), existing residences and
smaller industrial service uses (automotive service, storage, etc). The east of 63`d has similar uses, but in larger
buildings. The west is Cross Link, White Wave, Black roofing and similar industrial use. To the south of the
railroad tracks are the Recycle center and the Public Service plant. This site is about half developed. There is a
52,000 square foot building located on the southem half of the property. Two parking lots containing about 123
parking spaces, undeveloped landscape areas and a one-quarter-acre paved service area. There are no environmental
constrains present on this site. Primary access m the site is from 63rd Street. No access presently exists to 62"a
Street.
(2)Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of
the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies,
and ptans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; The site is located within an area
designated for CommuniTy [ndustrial on the BVCP. This zone is supponed by an Industrial Service zone, but the
applicant is requesting an Industrial General designation, which is not supported by the staf£ Development of this
area should be for smaller industrial support services. A campus development of several smaller buildings would be
appropriate for this site. Adult education/University campus is an appropriate use for this site. In fact, the
development of housing (dormitories) is supported by policy discussions currently under considera[ion (jobs to
Housing).
(3)Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; Additional detail
will need to be provided with the final site review documents showing the location, number, general architecwre, and
use of proposed buildings to be added to this site. The initial site needs to define how the site will be developed
consistent with current policy. Development of housing is encouraged to occur at this site to support the universiry
uses proposed for this site. Maximum density is not a per unit basis for industrial land, but based on the maximum
FAR applicable to a site. The maximum FAR (0.5) cannot be exceeded for all structures constructed, whether
housing or industrial use.
(4)Permi[s that may need to be ob[ained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, wncurrent
with, or subsequent to site review approval; Permits for less than 20.000 square feet of building area may be
processed for the adult educational use, if occurring within the existing building. Development of more building area
for adult education may not occur without final Site Review approval and approval of a Use Review for adult
education.
(5)Opportunities and constraints in rclation to the transportation system, including, without limitation,
access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems
serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a
traffic or transportation study; The primary access to this site is from 63rd Street. No access will be supported to
Arapahoe, but an additional access should be developed to the parking lots from 62nd Street. In addition, the Traffic
Network Plan encourages an east-west access across this site connecting 63rd and Ben Place. The purpose of this
s:\plan\pb-items\memos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 14
connection is to give local traffic access to the 63rd Street intersection to make left turns onto Arapahoe. This access
could be a connection through the existing parking lot in the northwestern section of the site, connecting with 63'd at
the northeastern corner of the site. Sidewalks along 62"d, 63`d and Arapahoe need to be developed to accommodate
pedestrian movements to be generated from the educational use of this site. Arapahoe will be a major transit
connection, and a lot of pedestrians wi11 use this sidewalk as access to bus service.
6)Environmental opportunities and wnstraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands,
important view corridors, flood plain and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and
protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories oT the site and at what point in the
process the information will be necessary; No environmental constraints are present on this site.
(7)Appropriate ranges of land uses; and Staff would encourage residential
(8)The appropriateness of or necessity for housing.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\6287arpbb-annex AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee IS
ATTACHMENT C
E I/4 COq. SECTION 27
1~axo nax rosi
W/BPA55 GP) M 1999
fOUNP N ~ X[Bep
R/RWN. C~P
M69R0"L5. ii~,p
FI
" 3~
~ (FORM£R(Y ~
Vry ~RT~RrV Rq
p
/LRpq~
,~RADp89~jj°Hf~~, R-O-W
~ saix
m~ ~~, S°°°~ af o~Po AiJ/LRDAD q. p_
~
~
'- 8z°21'35"E a aou ~,, nuiaao
~'~e4 _"____,1 424.09'
YIILIiY E/SEYMLIO M~I~ ~eyra~
-PUBIIC 9FPYIC[ W. ~ ~~~ ~~[ ~"'~
~
fOW1o~Y < qFdfl
MlNUM.t4G
flI.Yfl1~AFCFYNO
_ M51P3- ~
a~AV~K ' n ~
~~~~ .
k . .~4MfY"LS.dI<9
i
.L
~
-~es..~o _ _ ~. ASPMyU~E
. .
...
~ r-}3
~. I ~
~68
01;
- \
~~
~
~~ .
~
_ ~
~~
~
~
~ ~ ~ l~
~
~
,- A
e SPHALT r.w
x<~.. V ~ ~ ~
~ ~~, ~ ~ ~
~
~
AV1~~~~ b °
~- '~~{
~
°$~ I'
a _ __ _ ~
~~
.
~ ~~ ~
,
~
~
~
~
~ ~
„
- ~ ` A..~
\
~~
? q~~`~
~'~ .
~
~~
-
~ `~ ~ , \ ~. \ ~~ ~~ ~ I s
6H~5 I
-~ e No ~ ~
.
~ ' ~ OMF~SI(pY WICI4iE ~,
060~K \\ Il~aumk
woueniMU~i.
~ \ \IOYJBI£~i~WNSI) \
mI0 W
.
~ : MML&aFM'AMMNFGIN4l10.
1 ~
I '
-
\~\~ta.:~• ~
\ A ~ ~ 6t81 MAfANCE ME \\, \
\
\\\ ~d
\
\ \\ \•':'~
\
\\\\ \
ta~ I
~
- ~. \
y
\
:
~ ~ ~\ \ '~
'
~
' ~ ' I
V
\
f[YI ~ \ \ \'
~-.L,-~ I ~ 1 A \ ~ 'V ~ s~ ~ v :, ~ ,
.p~>,.r.,~,
k ': p~~_ u,..~.,~, ~ '~ ` ~~ \ \ ;1 °~
~~. , ~ ~
r ~ \
m .~~:.~~. ~
~ ~ :. r mr..~nn
.~~1~ \`t \ ..-__...--1~~...~.1.....--
'•40~,~.,
BEN : PLAC£ o ~o„~.,,. `, ~ iwd~sram ~ - ~ ~.^~• .
f0 ~ ~66APWIE NLOIXG \ ;~'
~ ~~~~ V~~j o~,
_ ~.u. no.u.µ+wr a`~`~~~~~~ A~~~~ e~u~
\
~ t \ ~ \~~
\
~: ~~ ~\~ \ i ...
=i LRA55- '. .~\\ \' ~`~\~b''~ASPNACT~
'~ `. ~
~ ~ '
~ ~~ 6° ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~+~ ~ ~arorarrxc-~
~ ~ ~~ ~~ o~~•~ ~ ~ ae. x (t~e~ ~ox
Z I51.1~ 6 .r~
oa , W - -- ~
j ; AflEF•5.525 ACpES 240,659 ~~, FT ~ NpqE 01{ IESS
IMCW~ESkOWEISp1EN1RNORESEMMWN~ '~ I I I
~ ?
41 ~r
~ ~ ASPNA
h ~" ~
`' ~
N _ p °s _ _
m - - - i
~ r~' F ~inx.~o~~'.. a
M `~ u E _
e °~ - °-
4 ASPNALf ~
q .i -
¢ .• ..'. coeeaumu.
~uxrr srur -'-
~ "_'__... ._ _ . r
~~ n xun irc
~
- 6B- FWpq ~ PfBOR
I ~W/ILIItl.tdV
M4ARFL~LS.}N9~ vox
~«<mox~wy S89°40'45"W 420.00'
3 ao:ao~3
~
COLORADO SrA7'f N/6NWAYNO.T (ARAPAXDE AVENUE)-
IASGMI[/ OVFR GOMRE)f) ~
51/40FSECTION27 _~ w__ w rrs"ncrce~ree
I~auw S i5a~ wsr w/z Ve" W-
GIVM ~IMC01%~IN A4ryGF BPS '
M1R40~ flOKK A.~flE%R'L49 INI9B6 689°J9 N~W
.~~_ ... - __ ""_
S LIXFOF Sfl/I 5(CT/0.YSI.,
~ 9'SCMLPFYSEWFRLINE
9- -5 S 5_ _
-~_- 4 4
_ Z'~
I o~
I~u
~ `
I \
i
sa
I~,r.,=d
i
~ ~cs
a G
. ~
i
o ~
-
~y~
~
aYSs
~'Q
ZS lF4[X4 xoaes
PoWEN P0.F .... .... .... Pp ' BPARINCS R6i2R TO TME EpST LME ~F S116JECT PRDPERTY A9 B£AqING
c~~E......'..........fiW '~ N00•19'10•N,BSSOMEpME93DIAN.
FWExxq4Hl .............. !x
^
wiFX wF~Ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wu ~. 4N8 LEGAL 085CRI%'30t1~ EASENCdTS ~N~ NGIITS-OF-NqY AR8 S~10NT1
cetMa+Ax .............. .t8 ' 13 PEP NEW YOR6 TRN T1TLE INSUB.WCE INC. coNXITM¢NT CAS[ N0.
fcxxWt SPo[E .,,.. ,,.p5 CTI1129, EFFHCTIVE pAiB: ~ULY 30, Igg1,
¢E~x0U1 . ,.,. .. [0 ]. BUqIgp UTILITY LINCS APE SNOfN PBA FIELp LOGTIOtl OF SIIBFACE
•en~~oi[_ .. .. ., ux S'fqDCflIHES AND PER tNPJWMATION FROM THE GOVERqING ACkNCIE4,
ceSNF~En .... ...~~ ~ '~e LOC~TION pp TH8 BIIR2FA UTILITY LINfS AS D6PICTE~ ON TH6
IOARW1ifOMFiitNPE .... „~MP ACCOMPANY$NC MAP MAy NdS eE ACCURATC.
I ' ~ a• SV&iECt PR~PEqPY ppES NoT iSE YftTXIN q FLOaO tlA3ApD AP9A A5~
'~W SNONN ON FtpJl FWO~ INSORWCS aAT6 luP, Bp~J,pBA CDIRITY~
~ cowtuoo, cammxtxx-enxec xu~ea oeaoz~ oiaac, xne aevcs~:
~ JULY )~ 1990. TNIS OAT~ IS 6U&IECT 1V CNpNGS,
3
u
i
n
~ ~
i
0
~ ;
SCPLE~ I~=40~
`
A~ ,
~r~r- W~~ b
~°~~
f0 LP,AG 0¢SCR34m}~
\ ;
C w n xaace ar ~eo ix xire sourxensr i~a oe secrcox n, mwxsx:e i
Q a xonxx, axce ~o uesr oe tne srx e.n., onscxceeo rs roccows:
Q~
" ~ °
/
i wmfsxcnic ex rxe SW1NG15T COR9ER OP TNE SOUTNEAST 1/C OP SA10
°
~ u SYLTION t7) T9qICE HORYN 00•!9'/0" W6S!', dLONG tXE GST LINE OP RNE
m
Q'' W SAIO SoUI'9GST 1/4, A ~IST0.RCS OF B].5 FBBLp
2t N D
znence sovex ~s•ao•as^ xesr, n n~sTnxce oe z5 reer m xxe ~g
_
O< _ P~INP pP B¢GIAy~yi
Q ~ 3 = TtlQlC6 SCIII'9 B3YY'IS" YEST, NAMIG TNE MORTX L[N6 OF 6TATE NIGNNAY
W N0. ) RIGIIT-OF-GAY (PAqCII. /6-05)r A DIST~IICe OF Q0.00 FEES{
T9@ICL NORTq OJ•19'40" GEST~ PARALLCL 19 RNE GST LINB OF TItB SAIO
I
SQVfI~BpgT 1/1 ~P SAID SBCTiON 1], a pISTANC6 OP 603.)i PgpT TD A
PoINS OX THE 'i;0~fftl HIGNT-OP-XA4 LiNE OP TN6 CJWHA~O. f SOVf116pN
~. ~ MtLIiAYi .
i
YNBHCE SOUfH 81°31']5" EPST, ~IqpC TNB SAIO 90UTN MILW~¢ AIGNT-OP-
, YA¢ LIME~ A OI~iTANC6 OP 421.09 F6EP~
Q TNWCB S~NTN o0°19'10• &1SP~ p~pAi,LEl TO THB~GST L1NC OP SAID
(~ sovrxensr i/~ ae Snxo secrxax zr, a oxstnxce oe sao.c~ tsex to axe
TS!534dELF~F~-'Jy~ INS~
.~ CM19TY Of 60ULpER~ ST~TE OF lGlqpApO.
POlNTOP BEGINN/NG
' ~ flfBPPY'/IWM
IxFO "L.5.21e9'
E.CAfl.SECTION 27,
iN,R70W of tM 6M P.N.
f WND Y 011. %SLOX N CONCflEiE 0.~
BEIOW ASVMµi) IX ~
SU0.VBSOR: SNPIID ROSIN
9940 PEANL EpST CIRCLB~ SUITB lld
eoucoen, cownxoa eo~ai-zavs
~ooa) +ax-uoe
CeAfRIIEP 1ro; STAN~M- [NSUAANC6 COMPARY
TEQI6TIC5, IIIC09POMTEO~ NOW IMDWN .LS
TEC NOLDING CO.~ A COIAFApp COHPJpATTan
gEN YOFI! TRW TITLE INSWGHCE INC.
~
THIS ]5 TO CHiTIFY T9AT TNIS MAP O0. PL~T µD TH¢ SIIMgt OX WfIICX IT
IS BAS6~ XEPE MADE IN ACCORpANCt NITN "NIXIMNN STANDqpp pETAIL
~"
ean~
/
N
YR
TL
L
L
nno
AIIfA
ANO
tCSN.I~
198l~Aqp BEfS
~ED B
fR6 AC
NW.CL ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY OF
RlQOINBM T6 OF A CW55 0. SII&VBY~ AS OBPINEO THE28Iq, MN INCLWES
IT015 1, 2, 4~ S, 9~ 10, 11 ANO I3 OP T\HLE 3 TNER&OF. A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE
I FNiTN~I CEPPIFIf TNAP THIS SIIRVZ! NAS NApe ONpBR MY OIR6CT ~I/a ~ SE~T~~N z~, TIN~ {~~QW
xeseatsxenrrr, sueeavxstox, xxo cxecK;pc [x xecoaoauca wt2x xee
I'Idi 18 QF- THE 6TH P. M.
IN TNE CITY OF
PEQUI&6d8NT5 ~P SP.C
-51-1~0.3, 6S SPq.~ C.R.S. AS AM}YiOED, Dtl ,
TN8 STB DAY OF APRIL~ 199]{ THAm TNg pyr~L P~P6TfY SUAVEYE~ IS BOULDER, COUNTY OF BOULDER
IAGTF~ IN TN6 COUNTY OF BqILpEµ~ ST\TE OP NiDpApp~ '11pT, TO TNB
BESf OP MY IINaNL6W9 NID BELI6F; TNIS llAp OR PWT OP THE SURVEP ~
STATE OF COLORA~O
CORPECPLY SNOWS 191E tOCATI0X6 OP qLL EDIID19G3, SfApCP11pES, ~gp
OTI~B SMPROV@6NT5 SI'IVATBp OB SAID PRPtl15&S~ R6AT E%CHPT A9 SXOWN ~
FOR: TECNETICS, INC.
~
TNERB idE ND EASEN~'£S 09 pIG9'f3-OP-V\Y OP RECORp~ 9ISIBLS OR
OTtlERNI3B RIOXN 'N IB 011~ }.CpOSS, OR AY=HCTIryG yp10 PRHIISES~ Ap0
TIIAT 6%CEPf AS SXOMN~ R9Efl6 AAF PO CiCR0AC161pITS ON ADJOINIqG
PXEIIIS&4~ STP96P9, ~R ALLEYS 9Y ANY OP SAIO BOILOINGS, 6TROClUA85~
OR MN6R IHP[tOVFMCMfd, dNp ~1p 01CROACIpfENTS ON SAIO PR01ISE9 B¢
BUILOING9~ 5fRUCfUPF3~ OR OTNSR INPAOV@IQITS SITUATEp QN AD]OINI9G ~wMa:~u w~'wm~u.wwim.wnwr~e..~u.uaw,..s~n,
wm.~~cv..
*u~m~wnwi.n~s~~.u~s
PR%IIISEB.
~~ e
63r
ell
t
A
EYAIA ROSIN ,
~
~ D ..~,
,,~.,...
~~~~
V .es.,.,... .
a.
COLMU00 HFGiSTEft2D PROPE55~'~-- .
LAND SURVEYOU q0. 16]5
AUfi /1 / 93
\
- °"'~- -~--~_-- Agenda Item # `~ ~ Page # /(c
^ r 1 1~~ I III IIIII~ ~~~
^
ecNancF
_ ~o
iz
/
~
/
/
/
~ ~
~
V
~ ~ ~
m j'
o ~
J
m /
/
~
~
~,,
~
x
51/4 CIX2. SEC !7
..~ ~------
S89'40'45"N 420.00'
C01~AD0 STA7E NICHWAY N0. 7(ARAPAHOE q lFNIIE~f
SE WR SEC. 7/.
TiN. P70W 67H P.M.
wAU~ram,; ~tAnnr~R
l .e~ ~<Caiv~
~ 1RACi OG LWD N iNE SEtfl Ci SEC1qN 1). 11N, P~OW 0! IHE 6M
PY, p6CRBED A$ i0.lMh
COMIZNING Ai ME SWMEASt COPJVEP CG IHE SEI/1 Of Sn~U :ECIiON 1)
iMENCE NOti°N'40'M, AIONG 1ME E0.51 WE Of t~~E SuD 5'.i/~, n
qSIAMC£ OF 81.5 FFE1;
iMFNiE SB9'<0'15'W, A oI51ANCE OF 25 fEFI i0 IXE 7~1F PpNI Ci
azaeui~:
iNExcc 5994o'u'w, uac m[ xm~x lw[ or sulE r~cNwnr No. r
Popli-Oi-WAY (PARUI /f-%~ A OISiANLE OF IZ0.00 FEEt;
MfN[E Ip0'19'10'W, YNGAIEL i0 TIE FAS~ IpIE OF lllE S.UD YI/1
aF SW SECOON 4), A dSiANLE OF 801.3] fEEt 10 l, PoINI pN 1NE
mViX 9dli-Oi-'M.IY ~'I~E OL ixE fALtliWOII SWIHE0.N RAIIWAY:
TNEN~ 59Y'r'}5"E, MqiG IME SND SWIX RNIWAY RIW~-pF-WAY
IINE A pSiPNLE OF 12AOB fEfi:
TfNCE ~19qp'E, PIA.UIFI i0 ME ERSi OrvE [F 5/JD SEi/1 ti
S~N SECIIOI I), A OISi~NCE Of S,l. W F2i tO 1HE 1pUE POiNt a
@E4tlt11MG.
CWNIY pF BqRpER. SIAtE Of C~LOPAUO.
iOiAl PFRIPNEftY Of AFEA i0 BC /.WNENfO = 199h09 fEEt
QVE 9%1N Ci ipiAL PEPoPHEAY . ))I60 FEEi
CCNTpIIIY OP OISi1NQ Of nPER 4D.WCENt
10 fp511NC OIY UM15 • 91t.fi} REi
OvMER: 628] /A~pNWE LIMIIEO uPBhlrc Co.
WT00 GSi BEMPNY OAIYE
514/E 1W
W0.Q4A, CO 09014-]635
MWUNi: NAP~AINSIINIE
11J0 AMPq~p[ AK.
BOIh[£R. CO B~OPS
SIF1EYdt DflEXEI, BMIdLL 4 C4.
9610 RAPL E.1Si CIPtlE
5'1R IU
BWL~ER. CO 80.101-YI)5
yR1E
lHli M!C IS NOl A!AM SURVfY PLAt OR AN IYVROKMQII SURyFY PUt
l MAREW E SFALERS. ~ p1LY FEq51EREp
vRtlE59011µ LMO SUxIEYIX! lu nlE stnR aF
co~o2wo, oo ~aeer cu~r m~r TMe
.+ccwPmnxc wa w~s:xcrxq~o wo[n uv onccr
RESPON9yLI1Y. AIPEIM11Sp1 AAro CHECttINC WO
MRT IT IS ~ IRUE ~N~ CORRCi q[PqEq~lUnpl
fb iNE MffA Ia BE AtNF.NEp 1p ME ptt 6
eawm, ca.a~wo.
Y11NEN E 59DER5
LOlqt,lpp RFqSiEPEO PNOfESSOtIpL
NNO SI1R~fYtli N0. PiTrS
ANNEXATION MAP OF A TRACT OF
LAND LOCATED IN THE SE1/4 OF
SECTION 27, TiN, R70W OF THE 6TH
P.M:, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF
COLORADO
FIXt: NAROPA INSTITUTE
Orexel, Barrell & Co. ero....rs.••n~
j$ w.iwvm<a~cr, ~~ ~,~,m..~w..emi.~~-.,_
/ \ so~ m~mu~unno %~c~vu.mwuo~Inn~moxr
~1~
Agenda Item # ._`?f~ Page #~
I 1 I 1 ^
w zo o ao ea
~
SCAIE: 1'=40'
ATTACHMENT D
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, GREETINGS:
The undersigned hereby petition(s) the city of Boulder to annex to the city of Boulder
the territory shown on the map(s) attached hereto and described on the attachment hereto:
This Petition is signed by landowners qualified to sign. It is intended that this
Petition be a one hundred percent (100%) petifion for annexafion as described in C.R.S. 1973,
Section 31-12-107(I)(g), (as amended).
In support of this petition, the undersigned state(s} and allege(s) as follows, to wit:
That it is desirable and necessary that the above described territory be annexed
to the city of Boulder.
2. That petitioners are landovmers of one hundred percent (100°/a) of the territory,
excluding streets and alleys, herein proposed for annexation to the city of
Boulder.
3. That no less than one-sixth of the aggregate external boundaries of the above
described territory hereby petitioned to the city of Boulder is contiguous to the
ciry limits of the city of Boulder.
4. That a communiry of interest exists between the above described territory and
the city of Boulder, And that the same is urban, or will be urbanized in the near
future, and further that the said territory is integrated or is capable of being
integrated in the city of Boulder.
5. That in establishing the boundaries of the above described territory, no land held
in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or
two or more contiguous tracts or parcets of real estate, has been divided into
separate parts or parcels without the written consent of the landowner or
landowners thereof, except and unless such tracts or parcels are already
separated by a dedicated street, road or other pubiic way.
6. That in establishing the boundaries of the above described territory, no land held
in identical ownership, whefher consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or
two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate comprising twenty acres
or more which, together with the buildings and improvements situate thereon,
have an assessed valuation in excess of $200,000 for ad valorem tax purposes
fo~ the year next preceding the filing of the within petition for annexation, has
been included within the above.
7. That the above described territory does not include any area which is the same
or substantially the same area in which an election for an annexation to the city
of Boulder was held within the finrelve months preceding the filing of this petition.
Agenda Item # :~f~ Page # /~
CIRCULAT~It'S APf~IdAVIt
STATE OF C~LORADO )
qr ~ct~~~ ) ss.
COUNTY OF 66F~BER )
being firsl dufy sworn, upan oaih deposes snd says that she/ha wss the arculator ot the
above and foregoing petition end tha! the signqt on said petiUon are the sienatures
ofthe persons whose names they purport ro,• ~ ~
Subecribed and awom to Defore me this.3Yd ~ day of tUYx~ , A,D. 2D Da, .
VNtnsas my hand And otticfal seal, My commfasion expiras: ~.3L, c~~D
~,,,.~ ................
s~.~::r~~••... °~..iv~.~~4. ~ n ~~.~t;;
~„~s • . ~ ~°: oMary Public
C~~,,,~ :~ `~ ~~i nn~u.7 1'1Cu~t~-' lam~Lc: ~.u.wfc~
fA • 7~ ; y ~
~,~ ~ ~ f~c:
•, ,C~ "S: p
P^IDp•..••',~ &3R~I,$TR$,'3g~,FPIDAWT
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
GC)UNN OF 80ULDER )
being lfrst duly swom, upon oath deposes and seys that she/he was Ihe cfrculator ut the
above and foregoing petition and thet the sfgnatures on aeid petition ars the signatures
of the persons whoee names they pwpat to be.
Clrculator
Subacribed and swam lo befae me thia dey o( , A.D. 20
Witness my hand and official aeal, My commiesfon expirtra:
Notary Public
~
.. .. y :._ .
.~ ~0
'
~
i `
Agenda Item # _~A Page #~
ANNEXATION
Signature o{ petitioners Date of Mailing address of Description of proper[y inciuded within the area
requesting annexation of property signature each petitioner proposed for annexation owned by each person signing
fo fhe cify of Boulder, Colorado of each this petit+on. (Attach separate sheet, if necessary).
petitioner
~.. ~,.,^__T~, ~TMlo~~c,~ ~-~~„~wy ~d~i~,~.
ir~~ s/ r~ z ~"-~ ~
/a
2o
Qr
~
f
~~
.
~ ~
,
+~ n
s
y
~
arca
~
0
a
m
~
~
~
3
~
s,
a
b
~
~
~
~
~
G
A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SE1/4 OF SECTION 27, T1N, R70W OF THE 6TH
P.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
CONIMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SE1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE N00°19'40,"W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID SE1/4, A
DISTANCE OF 87.5 FEET;
THENCE S89°40'45"W, A DISTANCE OF 25. FEET TO THE TRt~' P~'rNT OF
n ..F~TNNTN[:;
THENCE S89°40'45"W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7
RIGHT-OF-WAY (PARCEL #E-35), A DISTANCE OF 420:00 FEET;
THENCE N00°19'40"W, PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID SE1/4 OF
SAID SECTION 27, A DISTANCE OF 602.37 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH
RIGFiT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE COLORADO & SOUTHERN RAILWAY;
THENCE 562°21'35"E, ALONG THE SAID SOUTH RAILWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,
A DISTANCE OF 424.09 FEET;
THENCE S00°19'40"E, PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SE1/4 OF SATD
SECTION 27, A DISTANCE OF 543.63 FEET TO THE m1~ ~' P~TN'P ~
COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO.
(M. SELDERS - 53258-7B - 5442L.MES)
Agenda Item # `~/-} Page # ~~/
/~
~..
[S~N7RAL Al£
I /.5~~
~ 6Y/NL/NGIpy ti.A'%NE/Ay RR . . . RESEAIpR
/~~ r..~
~ ~~~.~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~~ ~ ~~
~ ~~~ ~n ~
~~- ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~~~~.
~ ~..~ ._.
.~ ~...~~.. : ..~
J~ ~~..._..._' ~.:
_:.._...
~ VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
Agenda Item # ,'?f~ Page #.~1~
ATTACHMENT E
i
~~~~
~ 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:
CASE MANAGER:
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
COORDINATES:
December 20, 2002
Brent Bean
6287 ARAPAHOE
6287 ARAPAHOE RD
N03E02
REVIEW TYPE: Annexatlon I Initlal ZoninglConcept Plan Revlew and Comment
REVlEW NUMBER: LUR2002-00068
APPLICANT: NAROPA UNIVERSITY
DESCRIPTION: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING requested zoning Industrial Generel (IG-D). Annexation
has been requested to allow the conversion of an existing building to convert an
adult education facility or service use. See also Concept Plan LUR2002•00069
REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: University use of the site, expansion
beyond Adult educatton. Annexation ordinance exception required.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Staff will recommend this property be zoned IS-E (industrial Service). Industrial General zoning is not consistent with the
current BVCP designation of "Community Industrial." IG zoning permits uses that are not planned for this area. Smaller
service orientated uses are encouraged for this area. The city is currently in the process of reviewing the BVCP and its
related policies through the "Jobs to Housing" analysis. It is very likely that revisions will be made to the IS zone district to
allow some more varied uses inclusive of housing. Staff supports the concept of providing housing that supports the
Universlty use at this location.
This annexation is consistent with the following annexation policies of the BVCP, the annexation request is for an existing
developed site and the provision of non-industrial uses at this location are consistent with the policies 1.25 (a); annexation
required before adequate city services are provide, (b); The site is almost a county enclave, (c); the site is substantial
developed, and (g); the site is in area II. The annexation of lands with new development potential requires compliance
with policy 1.25(d) the provision of Permanently Affordable housing. The applicant may develop housing on the site in the
form of "dormitories". If this occurs, the applicant will need to show consistency with the policies of the Inclusionary Zoning
regulations. At a minimum, these standards require 20% of the housing on site be developed for Permanently Affordable
housing. At the time of developing dormitories, Naropa will need to demonstrate how they comply with this criteria.
As a condition of annexation, the staff will recommend that City Council add a condition to the annexation acknowledging
University use and its associated accessory uses, inclusive of dormitory use, administrative office, caf~, library, etc. The
FAR of the site will remain as the density control for this site. A maximum FAR of 1:0.5 applies to this site.
The annexation and Concept plan will be forwarded to Planning Board for consideration at the January 9, 2003 meeting.
The IS-E zone permits Adult Education, but the applicant is proposing development of a University at this site, which
expands some of the uses which would occur as accessory to a University that would not commonly be found at an Adult
Educational facility. For example, dormitories are commonly found associated with Universities, but not with an Adult
Educational facility. Staff is recommending that Planning Board support development of a University at this site and its
associated uses including; dorms, cafeteria, bookstore and other similar uses. This recommendation if supported by
Planning Board will be forwarded to City Council for consideration as a condition of the annexation ordinance.
Address: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD Agenda Item #~.`~~ /-} Page #~?.'
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circulation
1. A transportation network plan is in the works for this portion of Arapahoe. One objective of this plan would be to allow
access across properties located near si~nalized intersections to improve access to signals for all properties. An
access easement and driveway from 62" to 63rd Street through the southern parking lot achieves this objective. This
driveway and easement will be required with a potential future Site Review for this site but not at the time of
annexation. If the transportation network plan finds that a connection between 62nd and 63rd Streets is not needed, this
requirement can be waived. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493
2. Since the initial review of this proposai, the Arapahoe improvement project has identified the frontage of this site as a
six-lane cross section. These improvements wili be located completely within the right-of-way, therefore no additional
dedications along Arapahoe will be needed. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493
3. A 10 foot wide detached sidewalk/multi-use path connecting the sidewalk along 62ntl Street to the sidewalk along 63`a
Street and a bus pad and shelter west of 63rd Street will need to be constructed at the time of annexation to
accommodate transit users, bikes and pedestrians accessing this site. These two improvements will be an effective
transportation demand management (TDM) measure to help provide transportation options for students and staff of
the university. Upon further development, other TDM measures may be required. The sidewalk location will need to
be coordinated with the CDOT public project, however the amount of right-of-way available along Arapahoe will allow a
detached sidewalk that will not be impacted by these road improvements. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493
Drainage
As a condition of annexation, the applicant is required to convey drainage from the site in a manner which does not
adversely affect neighboring properties. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Fees
1. The applicant shall pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee (in accordance with
Section 11-5-7 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981) based on a lot area of 240,659 sf and an impervious area of
125,550 sf. (The 2002 fee would be $99,310.55). Payment of this fee is generally required prior to first reading of the
annexation ordinance. Staff is currently reviewing a request from the applicant for an extended payment schedule.
Final terms will be reflected in the annexation proposal forwarded to city council. Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121.
2. Upon annexation, this property will be subject to a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility monthly fee based on
current rates as described in the Boulder Revised Code, 1981. (The 2002 rate would be $257.571month) Scott
Kuhna, 303-441-3121.
3. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) petition, application fee ($150) and Inclusionary fee
based on the assessed land va{ue and improvements (see Appendix "B" of the application form) is required prior to the
first reading of the annexation ordinance with City Council.
4. The petition and applicant fee of $150 for the Municipal Subdistrict for the NCWCD is also required before first reading
of the annexation ordinance by City Council. Case Manager.
Legal Documents
No requirements at this time. ( Melissa Rickson - CAO)
Miscellaneous
Prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance, the applicant must sell and convey, or execute an agreement to sell and
convey, to the City any interests in water or water rights associated with, or appurtenant to the subject property. Scott
Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Plan Documents
1. Prior to Building permit application for improvements of less than 20,000 square feet, the following information must be
provided for Tech Doc review and approval:
Address: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD Agenda Item #.~fj Page #~
A. Architectural development plans for any interior and exterior changes
B. Landscape Plans
C. Parking lot and access plans
D. Sidewalk improvements to 62ntl and Arapahoe
' 2. Prior to development beyond the initial 20,000 Square feet of building area the following must be provided and
approved by the city:
A. Site Plan submittal and review documents must be provided.
B. Use Review for expansion of an approved Use Review for a University.
C. Phasing plan
D. Access and parking plan
E. Architectural intent documents
F. Landscape plans
G. Engineering and drainage plans
Review Process
Staff has recommended that the first phase of the development be approved under the provisions of annexation. The
initial Use Review for Adult Education/University is approved as a condition of annexation. Further development of the
site is to be process as a Use and Site Review for expansion of a University.
Site Design
The current plans provided do not detail the proposed parking plan for use ot the existing or expanded building. The
current site does not conform to city parking, landscaping, access or pedestr.ian (sidewafk} needs. A building of 52,000
square feet requires a minimum of 130 spaces. The current site shows 123 parking spaces. It appears that there is
adequate improved parking surfaces on this site to meet these needs, but plans showing conformance to city requirements
are needed before any building permits can be considered for this site.
Pedestrian access along Arapahoe is almost none existent. A sidewalk and connections to 62nd and 63rtl streets is
needed. The sidewalk will provided a safe walking area long Arapahoe for pedestrians and transit users. Side walk
placement can be determined to assure that these improvements will not need to be changed with widening programs for
Arapahoe.
Landscape plans will need to be provided with the application for new building permits for the initial improvements to the
site. The Site Plan submittal documents for second phase development will need to show future building locations and
landscape intent plans.
There are currently four access points along 63'd Street and the~r will need to be reduced to two. A new access from 62"a
Street developed and an east west access connecting 62 to 63~ proposed. The connection between 62nd and 63`d does
not have to be a direct route, but should accommodate local traffic movements across the site (see Access comments
above).
Ut(lities
Upon annexation, the subject property will be required to meet City fire protection requirements. Per the City of Boulder
Design and Construction Standards, "... no exterior portion of any building shall be over 175 feet of fire access distance
from the nearest hydranY'. Public water main extensions and fire hydrant installations onto the property (located within
public right-of-way or public utility easements), per the City of Boulder Design and Consiruction Standards, within 90 days
of annexation or prior to any building permit application (whichever occurs first), to meet fire protection requirements are
required. All proposed engineering plans must be approved through the City's Technical Document Review process and
Right-of-Way Permits must be applied for and received by a City licensed right-of-way contractor prior to construction. The
applicant should contact Ron Mahan, Chief Fire Marshal, at 303-441-4356 for coordination of proposed fire hydrant
locations. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Zoning
Staff will recommend IS-E zoning for this site consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Community
Industrial.
Agenda Item # 5 R Page #~
Address: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Building and Housing Codes
Alteration of interior space to be used for University use will be required to conform to current building codes.
Building Design
Final architecture for the campus should be discussed in pending Site Review Documents. Will the existing architecture
be repeated on the site, or will it be changed to reflect an architecture unique to Naropa?
Miscelianeous
The applicant is notified that 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. 63fd Street was resurfaced in 2001, which means no excavation may occur until late 2004 unless specific criteria
can be met and additional impact fees are paid. No permit for excavation in the right-of-way of 63`' Street will be approved
unless staff finds that the conditions of Section 8-5-13 have been met. Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121
IV. NEXT STEPS
The annexation zoning, Concept Plan Review and Comment and initial use of the site for a University has been scheduled
for consideration by the Planning Board at the January 9, 2003 Planning Board meeting. Tec Doc submittals will need to
be made prior to building permit application and after the annexation has been completed. If the request is heard at the
January 9, 03 Planning Board meeting, the annexation will be forwarded to City Council for consideration once the
Annexation Agreement has been signed and returned to the City.
Agenda Item # -`_~f~ Page #,a~G~
Address: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD
a~~~=~
~~
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: November S, 2002
CASE MANAGER: Brent Bean
LOCATION: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD
COORDINATES: N03E02
REVIEW TYPE: Annexation I Initial Zoning
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2002•00068
APPLICANT: NAROPA UNIVERSITY
DESCRIPTION: ANNEXATIONIINITIAL ZONING annexatio n of an existing building to convert to adult
education facility or service use
REQUESTED VARIAT IONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: None requested at this time, review of
revisions should iist any exceptions
proposed.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
The zone requested (IG-E) is not consistent with the zone recommended by the BVCP land use designation of Community
industrial for this site. This designation is for areas where the predominant uses provide a direct service to the planning
area. These uses often have ancillary commercial activity and are essential to the life of the Boulder community. These
uses include smaller scale auto-related uses, small printing operations, building contractors, building supply warehouses,
small manufacturing operations and similar uses. The Industrial Service zone (IS•D) is supported by these criteria as was
acknowledged in the March 20, 2002 pre application review. "Vocational schools and adult educational facilities with less
than 20,000 sq. ft. of floor area" are permitted uses in the IS-D zone, where the same use with greater than 20,000 sq. ft of
floor area is a Use Review. Further information regarding Naropa University uses, classes and activities will need to be
provided to determine if Naropa University fits within the definition of an "adult educational facility." See zoning comment
below for definition of "adult educational facility." This information was requested in the March 20 preapplication review.
Based on conversations with the applicants representative after submittal of this application, additional uses are now being
considered by the applicant. Originally, the applicant suggested that the university would be less than 20,000 square feet,
but that a future request for a Use Review for more than 20,000 square feet might be made. Under the provisions of a
Site Review, the size of the facility needs to be made clear for future phasing purposes. The current building is 52,000
square feet. If more than 20,000 square feet of this building is to be used for Adult Education, a Use Review application
should accompany the Final Site Review application.
Uses such as student housing, auditorium use and other activities have also been suggested. Some of these uses maybe
supported within an IS-D zone or as accessory uses to the Adult Educational Facility," some may not, depending on how
they are planned to function within the activities of the University. For example, will the auditorium be used only by
Naropa, or will it be leased to outside users for private plays or conferences? What will the hours of operation of these
spaces be9 Will they conflict with class time, such that additional parking beyond the one space per 400 square feet of
floor area is required? Places of assembly have a parking requirement of one space per 3 seats.
Student housing has also been suggested as a use at this location. Housing is not an alfowed use in the IS-D zone, and
as a result, student housing is not a permitted use. If the applicant finds that residential use is necessary to support the
"Adult Educational Facility" at this location, a request for a special exception will need to be made such that it can be
incorporated into a special provision of the annexation application. However, the staff has not made a detailed review of
this site for residential use. The applicant will need to provide additional information demonstrating that residential use at
this location can or will be compatible with existing and proposed uses located in this area. Another alternative would be to
Address: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD Agenda item #_~iR Page #~
request Public zoning (PE) which permits one residentiai unit equivalent per 7000 square feet of lot area. In addition, since
this in an annexation housing development at this location will require showing a community benefit through the creation of
permanently affordable housfng,.or other special opportunity or benefit as described in section 1.25(c) of the BVCP
policies. See Land Uses comments in the City Requirements section below.
- A review of revisions is required of this request to provide sufficient information for the staff to make a determination that
the proposed University fits within the definition of "Adult Education." In addition, the specific zone designation request
appears to need reconsideration. Staff would encourage the applicant to consider either the PE or IMS-X zone districts
for this site in its revised application.
Review of revisions fees of are $2175 are due at the time of resubmitting the annexation material to the Planning and
Development Services Department. Submittals must be made on or before a fist or third Friday of the month. This item
has been tentatively scheduled for the January 9, 2003 Planning Board meeting provided the revised information is
submitted on or before December 3, 2002.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Access/Circulation
1. The survey indicates that 5 feet of the right-of-way reservation along 63rd Street needs to be dedicated to contain the
sidewalk and 18" behind the sidewalk as is required by the City of Boulder Revised Code. Additional right-of-way will
be needed in the northeast and southeast corners of the site to contain existing and new sidewalks in these locations.
Right-of-way reservations that are not needed can be released with this annexation. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493
2. The annexation map needs to show the full extents of 63rd Street. The right-of-way is shown only as 25 feet from the
centerline rather than 40.5 feet as indicated in the ALTA survey. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493
3. A transportation network plan is in the works for this portion of Arapahoe. One objective of this plan would be to allow
access across properties located near si~nalized intersections to improve access to signals for all properties. An
access easement and driveway from 62" to 63rd Street through the southern parking lot achieves this objective and
will be sought as part of the annexation as a community benefit. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493
Building and Housing Codes
Future changes of use to the existing building will require application for building permits and compliance with the
provisions of the city building codes for safety requirements (exiting, lighting, construction and design).
Building Design
Final architecture will be subject to review and approval under the provisions of Site Review.
Drainage
As a condition of annexation, the applicant is required to convey drainage from the site in a manner which does not
adversely affect neighboring properties. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Fees
Prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance, the applicant shall pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility
Plant Investment Fee (in accordance with Section 11-5-7 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981) based on a lot area of
240,659 sf and an impervious area of 125,550 sf. Based on the 2002 rate the fee would be: $99,310.55
Fire Protection
No problems with annexation insofar as emergency response time are concerned. Applicant is advised that fire sprinkler
protection may be required if changes in occupancy type(s) occur. Any phasing proposal for fire sprinkler protection will
need to be date-specific and agreeable to the Fire Department. Additional fire hydrant(s) will likely be required to meet city
standards. Adrian Hise, 303-441-4356.
Add~ess: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD ~.ganda Item # 7/3 Page #.~~
Land Uses
Additional information regarding the proposed uses of this site will need to be provided to make an assessment of the
appropriate zoning designation for this site. Is housing to be proposed? What are the type and nature of classes to be
available at this site and what other uses are proposed? Will this be a conference center? What will be the hours of
- operation of the various activities that will take place on this site?
Annexation of property with significant development potential is required to demonstrate community benefit. The Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.25 "Annexation" states, in part: "In order to reduce the negative impacts of new
development in the Boulder Valley, the city shall annex Area II land with significant development or redevelopment '
potential only on a very limited basis. Such annexations will be supported only if the annexation provides a special
opportunity or benefit to the city. For annexation consideration, emphasis shall be given to the benefits achieved from the
creation of permanently affordable housing. Provision of the following may also be considered a special opportunity or
benefit: receiving sites for transferable development rights (TDR's), reduction of future employment projections, land
and/or facilities for public purposes over and above that required the city's land use regulations, environmental
preservation, or other amenities determined by the ciry to be a specia! opportunity or benefit." Brent Bean, Senior Planner
Applicant is requested to include explicit information regarding the proposed community benefit for this site in its revised
annexation application. Cindy Pieropan, 303.441.3157.
Landscaping
Final landscape plans will be required with the Site Plan Review, which will be required before any development occurs at
this site following annexation. Brent Bean, Senior Planner.
Legal Documents
Title work indicates 6287 Arapahoe, LLC is the owner. W ritten statement indicates Erik Golting is owner. Please provide
updated title work and/or authorization for Golting to execute documents on behalf of the LLC. (Melissa Rickson - CAO)
Miscellaneous
Prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance, the applicant must sell and convey, or execute an agreement to sell and
convey, to the City any interests in water or water rights associated with, or appurtenant to the subject property. Scott
Kuhna,303-441-3121
Utilities
Upon annexation, the subject property will be required to meet City fire protection requirements. Per the City of Boulder
Design and Construction Standards, "... no exterior portion of any building shall be over 175 feet of fire access distance
from the nearest hydranY'. Public water main extensions onto the property (located within public right-of-way or public
utility easements), per the City of 8oulder Design and Construction Standards, within 90 days of annexation to meet fire
protection requirements are required. All proposed engineering plans must be approved through the City's Technical
Document Review process and Right-of-Way Permits must be applied for and received by a City licensed right-of-way
contractor prior to construction. The applicant should contact Adrian Hise, Chief Fire Marshal, at 303-441-4356 for
coordination of proposed fire hydrant locations. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Zoning
See comments under Land Use.
Definition ."adult educational facilities or service": means an academic educational use serving a clientele at least fifty
percent of which are individuals who are eighteen years of age or older.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMM~NTS
Fees
Upon annexation, this property will be subject to a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility monthly fee based on
current rates as described in the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (The 2002 rate would be $257.57). Scott Kuhna, 303-441-
3121
Agenda Item # .~H Page # ~~`
Address: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD
Fire Protection
1. Specific fire protection requirements will depend on occupancy classifications throughout the building. Adrian Hise,
303-441-4356.
Miscellaneous
The applicant is notified that 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. 63`" Street was resurfaced in 2001, which means no excavation may occur until late 2004 unless specific criteria
can be met and additional impact fees are paid. No permit for excavation in the right-of-way of 63rd Street will be approved
unless staff finds that the conditions of Section 8-5-13 have been met. Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121
IV. NEXT STEPS
Applicant shall resubmit a review of revisions for the site providing a full disclosure of the uses proposed for the site. Final
zoning designation will need to be clarified. Is the request for IG-E zoning to be continued, or will the request be modified
to PE or IMS-X? Please respond to the questions and issues raised in the preceding text. A digital copy of this review can
be made available to the applicant to permit responding in a format similar to this document. Please contact the Case
Manager.
Agenda Item # ,~/~ Page # ~6
Address: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD
~~~
, ~ 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: November S, 2002
CASE MANAGER: Brent Bean
LOCATION: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD
COORDINATES: N03E02
REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review & Comment
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2002-00069
APPLICANT: NAROPA UNIVERSITY
DESCRIPTION: CONCEPT PLAN for conversion of an existing building to Adult Education facllity or
Service use. Reference LUR2002-00068 for annexation and initial zoning.
REQUESTED VARIAT IONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: None proposed at this time
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Concept Plan does not provide much information on the proposed use. The Pre Application review requested additional
information from the applicant explaining how Naropa Universiry meets the "vocational schools and adult educational
facilities" use. No additional information was provided explaining the uses and nature of the university. This information is
needed to help define the uses that wiil occur at this site, and their impacts on adjacent uses, parking needs, carrying
capacity for the site and other site impacts or needs.
What if any exceptions are proposed? Will a parkina reduction be needed? Will future buildings meet required setbacks
for the IS-D zone? Exceptions permitted by Site Review need to be identified at the time of Concept Plan review to help
assess impacts on the site and adjacent land uses. Exceptions may relate to setbacks, parking size/location, driveway
standards, building height, etc. If none are proposed, it should be disclosed at this time.
The applicant's representative has indicated that additional uses such as student housing and other expanded campus
buildings may be proposed. An assessment of whether housing is appropriate at this location has not been made by the
City. Additional information regarding the number of units, location, and type of units (dorms or kitchen units) is needed.
This location is surrounded by industrial uses on all sides, with the exception of the mobile home park south of Arapahoe.
What buffers will be provided or present making this site suitable for housing?
The Concept Plan is based on the existing site improvement survey. No changes to the existing building location, curb
cuts, parking configuration or the addition of new buildings (housing?) have been proposed. The existing site plan does
not conform to city standards for drive way location or number of driveways accessing 63rd Street. The amount of parking
needed on site can only be determined based on building area. A minimum of 130 parking spaces are required, Is there a
justification for a parking reduction, or will other portions of the site be converted to provide additional parking. Are there
other uses that will be included on this site that require additional parking? W ill an auditorium be included in the final
building configuration. Will additional parking be necessary for an auditorium use (one parking space per 3 seats)? This
additional information should be provided to help staff and Planning Board understand the nature and possible impacts this
use may have on neighbors andlor the existing street system.
Please provide a written response to the issues raised above and the following comments section. A copy of this
document can be provided to the applicant in electronic form to allow responding to each issue in the order they have been
listed in this document. Please contact the Case Manager, Brent Bean or the staff member identified following the issues
listed below to review a specific question(s) regarding this memo. A Concept Plan does not have provisions for a
resubmital, however given the limited information provided for this review, the information requested will help staff and
Address: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD Agenda Item #.~ Page #~",~ /
Planning Board to understand Naropa's intent for use of this site. There is no resubmittal fee for providing additional
information for a Concept Plan Review and Comment plan.
11. CITY REQUIREMENTS
AccesslCirculation
1. The following will need to be constructed along Arapahoe:
• Curb and gutter on the north side of Arapahoe along the frontage of the site.
• A minimum 8 foot wide sidewalk along on north side of the Arapahoe along the frontage of the site. This sidewalk
may need to be routed around existing trees at the discretion of the City Forester.
• A minimum 8 foot wide streetscape section between the proposed curb and proposed sidewalk.
Steve Durian, 303-441-4493
2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will need to be considered as part of this proposal.
Opportunities exist to focus these efforts on the high-frequency transit on Arapahoe. Bus stop improvements and the
creation of a pedestrian-facility to this bus stop would help to address TDM for this site. Transit-oriented development
strategies with respect to Arapahoe should also be considered in the orientation of parking and other site-related
planning. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493
3. The access drive to the parking lot at the north end of the site is less than 18 feet wide, therefore only serves as a
one-way drive according to the city code for parking lots. Making a one-way flow through the parking lots by
connecting them with driveways may be an option, or connecting the north west lot to 62nd Street will be necessary.
The parking dimensions shown for the parking lots do not conform to city standards. It appears that the surtace areas
provided can be made to conform to some minor work. Note, that current standards require landscaping to be
included within parking lots now. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493
4. As discussed in the annexation comments, a cross access connecting 62nd Street to 63rd Street will need to be
accommodated within the parking configuration for this site. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493
Building Design
What changes are proposed to the exterior of the buildings? Brent Bean
Drainage
The applicant is required to convey drainage from the site in a manner which does not adversely affect neighboring
properties. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
Land Uses
The applicant has not provided sufficient information to evaluate the nature of the University proposed. Additional
information will need to be provided regarding the type, size and associated uses that will be taking place on this site.
Zoning the site Industrial General may limit uses of the site, if they are not commonly found associated with a University.
Please be as specific as possible on the type and nature of the proposed uses to avoid confusion at a later time.
legal Documents
Title work indicates 6287 Arapahoe, LLC is the owner. Written statement indicates Erik Golting is owner. Please provide
updated tiqe work and/or authorization that Golting is authorized to execute documents on behalf of the LLC. (Melissa
Rickson - CAO)
Neighborhood Comments
None received at this time.
Parking
Final parking needs can not be determined at this time. How many seats will be in the places of assembly (auditorium(s))?
Agenda Item # 5A Page #;30?
Address:. 6287 ARAPAHOE RD
A minimum of 130 parking spaces are required (52,Q00 SF / 400). The Concept Plan shows 123 park'rng spaces.
Additional detail is needed on the concept plan showing where the minimum parking requirements are to be met. Please
include auditorium size to allow staff to make an accurate determination of parking needs for the site.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Landscaping
Please note that if the cost of redevelopment of the property exceeds 25% of the Boulder County Assessor's actual value
of the existing structure, the landscape standards as out~ined in B.R.C. section 9-3.3-2, 93.3-3, and 9-3.3-4 must be met.
A complete landscape plan will be required with the use or site review. Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272.
Miscellaneous
The applioant is notified that 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. 63rd Street was resurfaced in 2001, which means no excavation may occur until late 2004 unless specific criteria
can be met and additional impact fees are paid. No permit for excavation in the right-of-way of 63rtl Street will be approved
unless staff finds that the conditions of Section 8-5-13 have been met. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121
IV. NEXT STEPS
This application has been tentatively scheduled for the January 9, 2003 Planning Board meeting for review and comment.
The additional information requested in this document will need to be provided to the Planning and Development Services
on or before noon December 2, 2002. Please contact the Case Manager to review the time schedule or other information
provided in this document.
Agenda Item # _hA Page # ~> >
Address: 6287 ARAPAHOE RD
ATTACHMENT F
NAROPA UNIVERSTTY ANNEXATION / INTTLAr. 70NING
APPLICANT RESPONSE TO 11/8/02 STAFF COMMENTS
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Naropa University, as a non-profit entity, must strategically plan its real estate endeavors,
carefully considering all options, including exit strategies. The requested IG-E zoning
dasignation keeps those options open for the University. In addition we believe that
Naropa LJniversity does "provide a direct service to the planning area" as mentioned in
the staff memo, and in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). The site
current(y houses a building of over 50,000 squara feet and does not readily lend itself to
conversion to "smaller scale auto-related uses, small printing operations ..." In other
words we believe that the BVCP will not be compromised by the proposed zoning, and
that such zoning would not violate the intent of the BVCP land use designation.
A more detailed review of the differences between the IG-E and IS-E zones reveals very
little dit~'erences in the use categories. In fact the types of uses that the stafPcites as
potentia] in the TS-E zone are also allowed in the IG-E zone, Thus the options that the
staff wishes to see preserved are not lost if the property is zoned IG-E. It is obvious that
the staff, too, is looking at a form of,`exit strategy. It is interesting to note that the zoning
that the staf~'is recommending wouid not allow computer design and development
facilities ..... Exactly what had been on the site for a number of years. We do not reach
the same conclusion as the staff does when they say that IG-E zoning is inappropriate.
We do not see a conflict between the IG-E zoning we are proposing and the BVCP.
Included with this response is a detailed description of Naropa University's intentions for
the immediate use of the property, as well as more long-term conccpts. The needs of a
University change over time, however our proposal is clearly within the definition of
"adult education facility" and, as such, should encompass the normal range of uses found
on a University campus (additional referenca to this topic will be found in our responses
to the Concept Plan staft'comments under the heading of "Land Uses").
The code states "`Adult education facility or service' means an academic educational use
serving a clientele at least fifty percent of which are individuals who are eighteen years of
age or older". There is no question that Naropa University meets that definition. The
problem that the stafT'seems to be identifying is that the definition is to narcow in it's
scope, in that it is siJent on just what else is permitted in conjunction with that definition.
We believe these uses include, but are not limited to: classroom and studio space to
accommodate the growing needs of Naropa University's dance, theater and music
oro~:rams, and support uses such as ofiices, bookstore, librarv, computer lab, cafe, s udent
The staff comments
state that "Housing is not an allowed use in the IS-D zone (n.b. we are requesting IG-E)
and, as a result, student housing is not a pertnitted use." We are not sure that the staff
Agenda Item # , 5/~ Page # ~J ~/
interpretation is conect about student housing and we say that based upon the lack of
explanation in the Code definition of "Adult education facility or service". It seems
]ogical to us that if a University meets the Code's definition, that uses that are normally
associated with a University would be allowed, by definition. It is a widely known fact
that the Citv has, for veazs been extremely vocal about another oca nivers~ty
nrovidine on-site housinrt: thus we see an inconsistencv in the staff's statemenu on this
point. One additional point: the Code defines dwelling units as having kitchens;
dormitory rooms do not normally have kitchens.
Wa believe this site will be able to serve Naropa University's needs for some time into
the future with a range of uses normally associated with a University. If necessary, in
order to accommodate these uses, we would propose an Mnexation Agreement that
specifica(ly provides for such range of uses. Without such a commitment Naropa
University, as a non-profit operation, cannot practically proceed with acquisition of this
property.
The determination ofwhat we can include in the definition of"adult education facility or
service" is critical and we need to have that decision very early in this process. To
proceed through lengthy and costly processes without having that decided now, is not
something we wish (nor can afford) to do. Hopefully the additional information we are
providing here will speed that decision.
We also need to provide clarification to staff comments about our previous involvement
in this property. The staff comments reference an earlier discussion with us regarding the
`adult education facility' stating "This information was requested in the March 20
preapplication review". Just so there is neither misunderstanding, nor any implication that
Naropa University has been `dragging their feet' in this process we wish to provide a
response to this staff reference, Subsequent to that preapplication conference, Naropa
University, in discussions with the City, learned that the costs of annexation, (taken
together with the then cost of purchasing the property and remodeling the building) were
so burdensome, that we ceased all work on the potential annexation, never submitted an
annexation petition, and declined to pursue an option to purchase this property. The stafFs
comment that they had asked for certain information back in March is correct, however
without our explaining the history here, the reader is left with the impression that we have
simply ignored the staff request. After the decision was made to not pursue this propeny
Naropa University continued to search for an alternative site within the City of Boulder
for our facility and found nothing suitable. Recently the owner of the property and
Naropa University again began discussions about this site, only this time the dollar
figures that would have to be paid for annexation were a larger part of the discussion.
Within the last few weeks a new deal was struck with the owner for the purchase of this
property by Naropa University. There are still many hurdles to overcome to complete this
project, including a critical time constraint. We will be requesting as rapid a schedule as
possible, and wanted to dispel any implication that Naropa University was `dragging its
feet'. Hopefully this clarifies the history to date.
Agenda Item # _5~ Page # ~~S
It is also important to note that this property is currently served by out-of-City water and
sewer utilities, through a`revocable permit'. That permit requires annexation under
certain conditions, such as a change in use or when the property is eligible for
annexation. Both of these conditions are at play here. The property is eligible for
annexation, and a change in use is contemplated. The question then becomes one of what
extent of community benefit must be demonstrated if we are required to annex in the first
place7 In other words is the City saying that annexation is required, and, in addition, even
though this is a requirament, we must also show community benefit? Is it a community
benefit to bring properties that aze required to annex to the City by a pre-existing
contract, into the City? It would seem that,such would be the case. We also have asked
the stafT' about the requirement to show community benefit for a property on which no
additional square footage is currently contemplated; rather only a change in use of fhe
current building.
The aforementioned discussion about `community benefiY should not be construed as a
statement that annexation of this site for Naropa University's proposed use of the
property is not a community benefit. On the contrary, the ability for Naropa University to
remain and thrive in Boulder is an obvious community benefit that annexation of this site
would achieve and the attached narrative provides a more complete discussion of this
point. Naropa University's use of this site provides for a continuing presence in the City,
places a major part of our campus on a major transportation corridor thus allowing for
continued use of eco passes and shuttle bus service routes, all of which would appear to
be community benefits. We are, however, concerned that through the annexation process
additional burdens of cost and `community benefits' are added by various City
Departments, such that we end up with a`wish IisY from the City that so burdens the
property that we abandon ihis siYe for a second time. As a further example of this adding
on of `community benefits' is the Transportation comment suggesting that we should
provide a right of way link through the front of our property to link 62nd and 63`d streets,
stating that this will be asked for as a`community benefit'. We are interested in
improving access to the site, but have no interest, or desire, to creata a`through' street or
access across the front of our property that would, in essence, create cut-through tra~c
across our campus. We would appreciate further staff clarification on the `commnnrty
benefiY issue so that ~e_ can assecc the impac c nn nyr proposal.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
A general comment is in order prior to responding to the individual staff points in this
section. The heading `City Requirements' seems misleading in that at least one of the
items contained may or may not be a"RequiremenY'. In addition Annexation Agreements
often contain items that have been negotiated that may differ in some ways from
`requirements'. As an example Naropa University will be requesting a 10 year payment
plan to pay the very high costs associated with the annexation such as Flood Plain PIF
and Development Excise Taxes. These `requirements' make no mention of timing. An
example is the construction of improvements along Arapahoe, especially in light of the
CDDOT plans to improve this section of the State Highway. We left a number of
Agenda Item # Jfj Page # ~'~
questions about this section with the staff at our meeting of November 22. Due to the
short time between that meeting with the staff and this writing several of those questions
have yet to be answered and the responses herein should be considered in that context.
We acknowledge the staffs comment regarding the sidewalk along 63rd Street,
however we must ask about the propriety of the construction of the sidewalk
outside of the existing easement. Could you please explain how construction
proceeds in a reservation area first and the property owner is asked for the land
after constriction is completed? We are a(so unclear about the `Additional right-
of-way" that the City says is needed. This comment is one that relates to our
previous question about timing. Also could you explain why the sidewalk
construction was stopped so far north of Arapahoe and not extended to the
corner? We agree with the staff commant regarding the release of the Reservation
area and wilt be requesting that reservations be released at time of annexation. In
addition we have learned f~m our survey that the easement for right-of-way for
the widened 63rd Street remams as part of our property. Is that the staff's
understanding7 If so, are we then charged for the impervious surface of 63rd Street
and its adjacent sidewalk in computing the various fees?
The staff has confirmed that 63rd Street is within the City limits. We have
previously prepared and submitted the annexation maps, yet the staf~'is requesting
that we revise them to show all of 63rd. If the street is already in the City then
why should we show it on an annexation map7 This is a question that we asked
the staff at our meeting: Since the street was recently reconstructed it would seem
logica! that the City already has the mapping it needs anc! we should not h~ to
go through additional expense having surveys redrawn to repeat information tl,a*
is alreadv in eovernment files. _
3. A transportation plan that is "in the works' is something that we should not be
held accountable to, nor are we interested in providing `cu~- hro eh tra~c acro~,s
the front yard of our campus. The staff appears to be saying that they want us to
comply with a non-existent plan, and has determined, based upon that non-
existent plan, that this cut-through road is a community benefit. There seems to
be no consideration at all for the use of the site and the viability of that use in the
future. That this cut-through wil( be "sought as part of the annexation as a
community benefit" is an example of our earlier reference to the Community
Benefit issue.
BUILDING AND HOUSING CODES
Acknowledged
BUILDING DESIGN
Acknowledged
Agenda Item # .~f~ Page #<.~
DRAINAGE
Acknowledged however with the understanding that annexation in and of itself will not
require any action on this item until we actually propose physicaJ changes to the site that
would impact the exiting drainage conditions.
FEES
As previously mentioned, Naropa University will be seeking a 10 year payment schedule
for various fees. Initial discussions with the statt'indicate that this is possible. We also
understand that such arrangements have been made in the past, notably when the large
annexation occurred along North Broadway in 1990. We are also lookin~into the number
that the statt'has indicated for impervious area, as we have been provided a different
number by our surveyors.
FII2E PROTECTION
We have previously been in contact with the Fire Marshall about our plans, including the
matter of staged tenant improvements and acknowledge this comment.
LAND USES
We have already provided an extensive discussion regarding this section in our
introductory remarks and the attached nattative.
LANDSCAPING
Acknowledged, however we need clarification on what definition of `any deve(opmentf
the staff is using and its source. Also, this is another one of the previously referenced
timing questions we have about several of the staff comments.
LEGAL DOCUMENTS
Acknowledged.
MISCELLANEOUS
We are not aware of any water or water rights associated with this propeRy.
UTILITIES
This comment seems to be about Fire Protection issues which we have already
acknowledged. We have been in contact with Adrian Hise.
Agenda Item #_~ Page # n3b'~
ZONING
We have previously addressed this in some detail elsewhere in this document.
IIL INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
FEES
We have previously addressed our proposals for fee payment schedules, however we
have a question as to why this is under the heading of "Informational Comments" and not
under "City Requirements" as it seems to be a requirement.
FIItE PROTECTION
Acknowledged, but within the same question as to informational vs. requirement.
MISCELLANEOUS
We have discussed this with the staff and included it in the questions we left with the
staff at our November 22 meeting with them. This is a critical issue and one that could
result in a great deal of cost to Naropa University. In order to meet one City requirement
(Fire Protection) we now face another that says we can't install the fire line that appears
to be needed coming in from 63rd Street. We will await the staft'response to our question
but it would seem that there must be an ability to make an exception to this `requiremenY
about no excavation within 3 years. If there is not such an exemption then we wip seek
one as part of our Annexation Agreement. We are also concerned that the staff is talking
about even more fees being assessed due to this circumstance.
NEXTSTEPS
We have provided our response about uses. As to the zoning we are still proceeding with
our request for IG-E., It is also our understanding that the staff inemo was incorrect in
including the IMS-X as an option. Please clazify.
Agenda Item # ~f) Page #~~y
NAROPA UNIVERSITY CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT
RESPONSES TO STAFF COMMENTS
I. REL'IEW FINDINGS
We have discussed this issue in detail in our responses to the staff's comments on
Annexation and Initial Zoning, however we must again state, that based upon the
definition in the Code for this use, we meet that definition. The Code is very brief in
defining the Adult Education use, with the only criteria being that the facility provides
"academic educational use ...., fifty percent or more who are eighteen years of age or
older". We don't believe that there has ever been any uncertainty as to Naropa
University's meeting that requirement.
At this time we are not certain as to any exceprions that will be proposed, as our planning
has not advanced to that point. We do believe, however, that due to Yhe existing nature of
improvements on the propeRy, and the various setbacks that will come in to play when
annexed, that certain of those setbacks will need to be varied. We discussed this with the
staff at our November 22 meeting and they indicated that this can be accommodated in
the approval processes.
The staffs comment about potential dormitory space on this site states that the staff has
not made "an assessment of whether housing is appropriate at this location". We would
certainly hope that such assessment is completed very soon as the potential for future
dormitory space may be considered by Naropa University as a norma}~l part of, and
accessory to, an Adult Education (University) facility. We have no specif c numbers in
mind at this time. Our primary goal is to have the property annexed and then move
quickly to begin partial remodeling so that some space will be available for use in fall of
2003. The staff indicates that the usa of a portion of this site for dormitory space will
need to have `buffers' from adjacent uses. Given the current direction in both Code
Revisions, Comprehensive Planning and such projects as the Jobs Population Study, we
would suggest that the City has already determined that living space can be made
compatible with about any adjacent use.
As previousiy mentioned, we are not, at this time, proposing any changes to the site other
than a first phase of interior remodeling. Thus issues such as the access points, parking
layout etc. are premature for us to address. We will be looking further into these issues as
the project moves through the City processes and will provide the stafT'with additional
information as it is determined. We acknowledge that certain site changes will be
necessary, but the extent and timing of those changes cannot be determined at this time.
ACCESS/CIIiCULATION
l. Naropa University recognizes that certain improvements will be necessary along
Arapahoe, however the extent, responsibitity and timing need to be clarified. We
have previoasly mentioned the CDOT plans and also we lett the statl' with the
Agenda Item #~ Page # 'YO
question about how much of these improvements fall.under the Transportation
excise tax for Major Arterials.
2. TDM strategies seem premature at this time, since we are yet to get a reading on
the details if the uses allowed, let alone a detailed plan for these uses. It is
important to remember that Naropa University, by virtue of its non-profit status
and tight budget, will be proceeding with alterations to the building in phases,
over a period of years. No building square footage expansions are curcently
proposed, and, in fact, very little attention~t s been paid to any physical changes
to the site itself at such an early stage in the entitlement process.
3. Acknowledged. We will be doing a further assessment of site circulation and
parking as we get closer to obtaining annexation approval. Is it the stafi's position
that we must reconstruct our parking lots to meet current Code at the time we
annex? If so we do not agree with that position. It seems illogical to proceed with
such a modification until we have detailed pians of how our parking and-
circulation will be modified. We do not wish to do this work twic '
4. We will be looking at a connection to 62nd street to provide a secondary access to
theaproparty, however we are not supportive of a"cross access connecting 62nd to
63` Streets to accommodate cut-through traffic.
BUILDING DESIGN
No external changes to the building are contemplated at this time.
DRAINAGE
Acknowiedged, however we are not altering any drainage patterns until and unless we
alter the site conditions that would change current drainage patterns.
LAND USES
We have previously addressed this in detail however this staft'comment contains a phrase
critical to Naropa's position relative to the definition ofUniversity uses. The staff
comments that the zoning that we are requesting "may limit the uses of the site, if they are
not commonly found associated with a University "(our emphasis). This statement implies
that the staf~' agrees with us about the variety of uses that naturally accompany a
University use. Tf that is the case we would appreciate an acknowledgement of that at this
time as it seems, elsewhere in the staft' comments, to be a question that is staff is asking.
We believe this phrase that the staff has provided in their comments is clear evidence that
they, too, agree that a University has uses that are "commonly found" associated with it,
and we believe that all the uses we have discussed fall under that category.
LEGAL DOCi7MENTS
Acknowledged.
Agenda Item # .'~A Page # `r'/
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS
Acknowledged. Have any been received yet?
PARKING
The staf~' has reaily answered their own question by stating that final parking needs
cannot be determined at this time. We will be, over the course of the annexation process,
refining our uses and therefore our parking needs. One of our uses will be an auditorium
and based on our preliminary thinking we will need to increase the on site parking to
accommodate that use. However we are in such a preliminary stage, we cannot provide
any spacific numbers at this time. We are evaluating Yhe current on site parking and will
provide more information as we obtain it. One example is the loading dock area on the
east side of the buiiding. As it is currently contempiated we will not have the need for
loading docks, thus freeing a considerable area for additional parking.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
LANDSCAPING
Acknowledged.
MISCELLANEOUS
We have previously addressed this in our response to the annexation comments, however
this staff comment seems to provide a path for a variance, while the one under annexation
commants did not.
NEXT STEPS
We wish to maintain the schedule for a January 9 Planning Board hearing. Delays in the
process are extremely costly under our purchase contract.
Agenda Item #_ ,~ page #~
Introduction.
Naropa University is purchasing the Property at 6287 Arapahoe Road (the "Property") to
develop into a campus primarily to establish a school for the arts, as described below.
Background.
Naropa University is an accredited college and university offering a four-year bachelor of
arts degree and graduate degrees (MA, MFA, and ML.A) in ten fields of study. Founded
in 1974, accredited by the North Central Association ("NCA") in 19851, Naropa
University has been a vital and growing resident of the City of Boulder. Since 1993,
enrollments have grown from approximately 400 degree seeking students to 1100 in the
Fall of 2002.Z
In addition, in 1995, Naropa University began the School of Continuing Education3,
which produces classes and workshops for the public (Boulder and Denver and beyond).
This program has proven extremely beneficial for the Boulder community, enrolling
approximately 1000 peop(e per semester in community classes programs and workshops;
bringing sought-after and emerging teachers, artists at~d performers to teach and perform
in the Boulder area.
Narona University Facilities: Growth andNeed.
Naropa University currently occupies multiple campus sites within the City of Boulder:
The Central (Arapahoe) Cam~us at 2130 Arapahoe; Paramita Campus at 3285 30`~' St.,
and Sangha House at 909 14 St. Naropa leases space from The Dairy Center for the
Arts at 2590 Walnut St. In addition Naropa University owns the Alaya Pre School at
3340 19~' St. and Hedgerow Farms in the County at 8328 Valmont.
Naropa University has encountered significant difficulty, as a growing non-profit
educational institution, finding space within the City of Boulder to meet its educational
goals, much less develop a cohesive and integrated campus within the City, without: a.)
moving out to the County or beyond; or b.) proliferating into smaller sites spread around
the City and/or County. Naropa University has managed to purchase at considerable cost
some excellent facilities over the years and responsibly to develop its main campus °.
However, Naropa University remains extremely wlnerable to the escalating pressure of
the real estate market in Boulder and to the City regulatory scheme. It should be noted
~ The NCA is the same accrediting body that accredits CU. Nazopa University graduate schoois have
numerous other specialized accreditations.
Z For zoning purposes, Naropa University is an adult education program with all of its students 18 years of
age or older in the degree programs as a high school educafion is required for entry into the college. The
average age of graduate school students in the mid 30's.
3 Now named the School for Extended Studies
" The main campus at 2130 Arapahoe Ave. has a PUD approved which allows for 72,000 square feet of
developmen[. Current buildout on that Campus is at 56,318, leaving approximately 15,000 square feet of
future development that would be inadequate to house the arts on that Campus, when all needs for diat site
aze considered.
Agenda Item # .~ d'age # `/ 3
the number of non-profits who have struggled and failed to find o~ maintain a"home"
within the City, and, as a direct result of which, have ceased•to exist. This trend is
ominous and seems particularly to affect the performing aRs and related edacational
organizations.
It appears that in the near future non-profits that survive will have nowhere to go within
the City. Naropa University finds itself in a similar position, being healthy overall but
having dance, theater, music and visual arts programs without an adequate home.
Without adequate facilities, Naropa University will be compelled to move or to close
these programs down.
One of the areas where Naropa's need is most pronounced is in the arts. Since its
founding, Naropa University has been an educational center, if not mecca, for the arts in
Boulder. Both the internationally renowned summer program, including, but not limited
to, the Jack Kerouac School for Writing and Poetics, and the BA InterArts program, have
drawn teachers, performers, writers and students to Naropa University and to Boulder.
However, the arts have been hefd back from flourishing, or reaching their fu[1 educational
potential at Naropa, primarily due to (ack of space generally and dedicated space in
particular.
Within Boulder, espacially in the vicinity of Naropa's existing campus sites, large, high
ceiling studio and classroom spaces are no longer available, unless one is willing to
convert prohibitively priced commercial spaces. Naropa has historically relied on its
Performing Arts Center on the Arapahoe Campus for around-the-clock teaching and
studio uses, as well as public performances. In 1997, s~ace was leased at the Dairy
Center for the Arts which is now timited to visual arts, These spaces are no longer
sufficient.
Vision and Goals for the Property.
Naropa seeks to create an educational center for the arts and a university campus within
the City of Boulder. The Property is particularly suitable for that purpose in that the
existing building has the potential for large high ceiling unobstructed studio and
performance teaching and practice spacas. In addition, the ancillary office and
administrative needs can be accommodated readity alongside the teaching spacas.
At the same time, there is enough land (5.5 acres) to be a tnte university campus, of
which the City and Boulder community could be most proud, and to allow for future
growth of Naropa University within the City of Boulder. The proximity of the site to the
central Arapahoe campus and the direct but routes available will provide a close linkage
between campi. It is anticipated that, with the existing sites owned by Naropa, the
acquisition of the Property and its further development would meet Naropa's growth
needs for the next ten to fifteen years based upon reasonable projections.
5 Nazopa University has 4.228 square feet under lease at ttie Dairy; tl~ere is no potenual for expansion at the
Dairy because of the goal of the Dairy and the need to have a community mix of arts tenants.
Agenda Item # .5~ Page # `~`~
Phase One:
Phase One will be the renovation of the existing building on the PropeRy. Phase One
will be divided into sub-phases. The intent is to have Phase One completed in two years.
Upon the completion of Phase One, the new campus will be a home for the following
programs:
• The Goldfarb Institute for Advanced Theater Studies, including the existing MFA
in Theater. .
• BFA in Performance (including and emphasizing Dance and Theater).
• BA Music.
. BA Visual Arts.
• BA Traditional Eastern Arts (including the disciplines of yoga, tai chi, aikido,
meditation, kyudo and tea ceremony).
• Adult Education Programs for the Public through the School for Extended
Studies, [primarily Friday night and weekend programs].
The space would thus be used for the above progams and would require studio spaces
for classrooms and practice and performance as well as an assembly space and galtery
space for public performances and shows by the students. The assembly space will be
used and designed as a Continuing Education facility to be occupied by the public for
weekend and Friday evening programming, so as not to overlap with the daytime
academic program uses.
In addition, there would be faculty and administrative ofT'ice space and related student
services, such as student lounge, cafb, bookstore, library and computer lab. The need and
scope of such ancillary educational services will depend on the need for services that may
be redundant to those already provided on the central Arapahoe campus.
Phase Two:
The precise scope and nature of Phase Two is not yet determined. All uses will be
educational or anciliary to educational uses. Several potential uses are contemplated over
time, which will involve new construction at the site.
• Consolidation of the Naropa Graduate School at the Campus - consolidate the
Paramita Campus at the site, which currently houses the following programs:
- MA Contemplative Psychotherapy
Agenda Item # ~A Page # 5!.S
- IvIA Somatic Psychology
- MA Transpersonal Counseling Psychology, including Music Therapy,
Art Therapy and Wilderness Therapy
- MA Gerontology
- Plus adding a Crraduate school library and archival space.
• New programs at the Campus which are being developed or in their formative
stages:
- Marpa Center for Business and Economics, including the annual
international Microfinance Training Program and related activities;
- The Institute for Transformationai Justice, including the Naropa Prison
Education Progam, an Associates of Arts degree and MA Sociology;
• Residents Hall for students attending the graduate school or the school of the arts.
Conclusion
The development of the Property into a School of the Arts and a University campus on
5.5 acres within the City of Boulder holds many opportunities not only for Naropa
University, but for the Boutder community. It would essentially allow Naropa University
to remain and grow within the City of Boulder for the next two decades. We trust that
this approach will have the support of the City as we move ahead.
Agenda Item # 5!~ Page # ~~