The URL can be used to link to this page

5A - Concept Review ~LUR2003-00055~ Crossroads MallCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 18, 2003 (Agenda Item PreparaUon Date. September 4, 2003) AGENDA TITLE: Public heanng and considerahon of a Concept Rev~ew #LUR2003-00055 for conceptual redevelopment plans for the Crossroads Mail srte located at 1600 28`~' Street mcludmg general circulahon, approx~mate buildmg sizes and locations, proposed demoliUon, conceptual elevations, sections and gradmg the existmg site Apphcant/Owners Westcar/Macench REQUESTING DEPARTMENTS: Plann:ng Department: Peter Pollock, Plannmg Director Elizabeth Hanson, Actmg Land Use Review Manager Public Works Department Steve Dur~an, Transportahon Engmeer Ctty Manager's Off:ce/BURA Mane Zuzack, BURA Planner OVERVIEW: The proposed redevelopment of Crossroads Mall requires complehon oFthe concept review process because the development exceeds the "Site Review Required" thresholds m Section 9-4- ll(b), B R C 1981 for the RB-E zomng distnct (the srte s~ze exceeds three acres and the building size exceeds 50,000 square feet of floor area) A site review amendment would be the next step followmg the review of this concept plan STATISTICS: Proposal The Crossroads Mall Concept Plan mcludes. s\plan\pb-items\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee 1 • Demolihon of the ex~stmg enclosed mall bu~ldmg, with the exception of the Foley's and Sears bu~ldmgs Pro~ect Name. Locahon Size of Tract Zomng: Comprehensive Plan KEY ISSUES: • A central open-air shoppmg/dmmg distnct replacmg the current enclosed mall buiidmg • Below-grade parkmg structure at the location of the current first level of the mall • New mulh-screen movie theater • Free-standmg 120,000 square foot "anchor" retail store at the northwest corner of 30`" and Arapahoe • New retail buildmgs of vanous sizes, at the centra] portion of the srte and at the northeast corner of 28~h and Arapahoe • Extension of Canyon Boulevard and "29`h StreeY' through the srte • New pedestnan and bicycle facilrt~es • Phase 2 srte for future residential development near 30~h and Walnut Streets Westcor's apphcation mcludes a context map of the sunoundmg area, a transportahon plan, a demolihon plan, a site plan, a phasmg plan, conceptual buildmg elevations and cross-secrions, a grading plan and a study model, a parkmg study, a prehmmary traffic study, and wntten narratives. Crossroads Mall 1600 28`h Street 62 acres RB-E, Regional Busmess - Estabhshed Regiona] Busmess Does the overall development concept - removmg the ex~stmg enclosed mall and buildmg a new outdoor mall and multiple retail anchor stores at the site's corners - support commumty policies and goals? s\plan\pb-items\memos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 2 2. What is the desired character oFbuildmg facades ad~acent to 28~h and 30~~' Streets and Arapahoe Avenue~ Does the proposed concept plan, mcludmg proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and veh~cular connections, generally meet the ob~ectives of the Boulder Valley Regional Centei (BVRC) Transportat~on Connect~ons Plan~ Is Westcor's proposal to fill the south end of the Crossroads srte to remove the site from the 100-year floodplam the preferred method, both from a flood protection and srte development basis~ SUMMARY: The purpose of the concept plan review step is to determme a general development plan for the srte, mcludmg: • Land uses and arrangement of uses • General circulat~on patterns and charactenshcs • Methods of encouragmg use of alternatrve transportahon modes • Areas of the site to be preserved • General architectural charactenshcs • Special height and view comdor hmitaUons • Env~ronrrtental preservahon and enhancement concepts • Other factors as needed to carry out the ob~ectives of the land use regulations, adopted plans, and other crty requirements There are many years of h~story related to the redevelopment of Crossroads Mall For reference, key histoncal pomts are summanzed m Attachment C However, this context is not directly relevant to this regulatory review The Planning Board's review of the current concept plan, and the upcommg site review should be pnmanly guided by the followmg regulations and adopted plans . Concept Plan Review and Comment Guidelines (Sechon 9-4-10, B.R C 1981) Cety staff's analyszs of the concept plan guadelanes as they relate to this proposal as en Attachment A • Site Review Criteria (Sect~on 9-4-11, B.R C. 1981) . Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) Design Guidelines • BVRC Transportation Connections Plan • Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) - Related Policies • Regional Business - Established (RB-E) zoning and related land use regulations (Chapter 9) s\plan\pb-~tems\memos\eh~crconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pa¢e 3 A copy of the staff Development Review Results and Comments are in Attachment B. Public comment received is m Attachment D A vicimty map ~s prov~ded m Attachment E, and the applicanYs plans and written statements are m Attachment I Does the overall development concept - removing the existing enclosed mall and building a new outdoor mall and multiple retail anchor stores at the site's corners - support community goals? Westcor's concept plan illustrates a new development concept for the Crossroads Mall site Demolition of all existmg buildmgs, with the exception of the Foley's and Sears buildmgs, makes way for a new outdoor mall wrth retail, restaurant, and theater uses Two other distmct retail areas - a"big box" anchor stare at the northwest corner of 30`" and Arapahoe and a various sized retail stores wrth a"gateway" corner feature is shown for the northeast comer of 28'h and Arapahoe. Finally, a future housmg s~te is ident~fied far the northeast corner of the site The concept plan's primary focus is on the restoration of retail uses to the Crossroads srte. This emphasis would help to reestabhsh the BVRC and the Crossroads srte as "a reg~onal shoppmg and commerciai center for the Boulder Valley " While the emergence and growth of shopping areas ~ust outs~de of Boulder has forever changed Boulder's position as the regional shoppmg deshnation, staff finds that the proposed concept plan can help the city take a ma~or step forward m regammg some of the economic loss The plan also will restore some of the shoppmg convenience that Boulder crt~zens have lost m recent years. Staff agrees wrth VJestcor's argument that the concepY plan, with rts three distmct reCail areas, is sustaanable over t~me One or more retail areas of the site could redevelop as the market demands, wrthout affectmg the entire development It would be m Boulder's mterest to not redevelop this enhre srte every 20 years From the urban des~gn standpomt, the concept plan ameliorates much of what people disliked about the mall - a sea of parkmg surroundmg a]arge, bland buildmg The plan sigmficantly reduces the amount of surface parkmg, and shields much of the remammg parkmg lots from street view by placmg buildmgs along 28~n 29~h 30`h and Arapahoe. The smgle mall buildmg has been replaced by buildmgs of vanous sizes and configurations The concepYs transportahon plan evokes words like "connected", "through" and "open" The creahon of "29°i StreeY', the extens~on of Canyon Boulevard, and the re-alignment of Walnut Street through the site would s~gnificantly change the character of the s~te New pedestrian and bicycle connechons make the srte accessible, bemg at Crossroads srte without a car should no longer feel uncomfortable and foreign. In brief, the new transportahon plan remodels the character and layout of the s~te s\plan\pb-ttems~memos\ehacrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 4 The architectural character and uses of bwldmgs along the extenor streets must be addressed further m a site review amendment apphcation Some des~red transportahon connect~ons can be strengthened The likelihood of a Phase 2 housmg development is uncertam These issues are discussed m more detail m the remamder of this memorandum But, the overall development concept presented by Westcor meets many of the crty's goals for Crossroads, both as expressed m the BVCP and as stated m previous communrty discussions Staff beheves that a conrinued dialogue with staff, Westcor, and the commumty will strengthen the pro~ect concept as it evolves and completes the review process 2. What is the desired cl~aracter of building facades adjacent to 28`~' and 30`~' Streets and Arapahoe Avenue? Exterior Facmg Buildmg Elevations The Crossroads concept plan mcludes several large buildmgs which border Arapahoe Avenue, 28`h Street, and 30`h Street - for Parcel 1 retail, Parcel3 anchor, and the theater While there are a variety of approaches that can be used, the design qualrty and character of these "backs" of buildmgs will need to be addressed m demonstratmg comphance with the site review cnteria and BVRC Des~gn Guidelmes. As an example, m the Elevahon 3 conceptual drawmg, no wmdows or store entr~es are shown far the buildmg elevation facmg 28~~' Street While the colonnade design adds some pedestnan tnterest to the back of this buildmg, staff has concerns about the lack of wmdows and/or entnes along a ma~or street and gateway to the srte Also, the applicant's photo examples for the treatment of "backs" of bmldings seem to use vegetation to screen or hide the buildmg, rather than to accent. The design character and detailmg of these extenor elevatrons are cntical to makmg the site plan for Parcel 1 work. Prior to site review application, staff would like to work with the appltcant to explore design options that would meet BVRC and srte review cnter~a as well as the needs of Crossroads tenants. Photos of several local axamples of rear elevat~ons with windows and dual-entry stores are mcluded m Attachment F. The 30`" Street character is a key example of proposed uses along extenor streets Although the backs of the bwldmgs that will hne 30`h Street will be treated aesthehcally with archrtectural detazls and landscapmg, there are no active uses proposed along the street. The goal for 30`~' Street adopted in the BVRC pesign Guidelmes is for the street to evolve mto a"lively, more urban streetscape .to both accommodate and stimulate pedestrian actrvity " Two ideas that would help ammate the Crossroads section of 30~n Street are. • Prov~de a second entrance to the movie theater on the 30`~' Street side. • Wrap the east and perhaps north faqade of the new parkmg structure wrth active uses (retail, office or some other use) Th~s ~s strongly recommended by BVRC Design Guidehne 3 S.F s\plan\pb-rtems\memos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 5 Westcor has ~ndicated that it will prepare design gu~delmes, with the mput of city staff, to set expectaUons re buildmg matenals, landscapmg, and signage Staff looks forward to workmg with Westcor to set the character for buildmgs at Chis important and v~sible site Buildm~ Envelopes Westcor mtends to show bu~ldmg envelopes m a site review amendment application Final buildmg footpnnts would be determmed at the time of Techmcal Document Review or buildmg permit applicat~on (no buildmg envelopes are shown on the concept plan) Staff strongly supports providmg Westcor wiYh a high level of flexibihty to "build to suiY' for Crossroads tenants Especialiy for bwldmgs mternal to the srte, flexibtlity m buildmg placement is appropriate at the site review amendment step This flexibility will also reduce the need for amendments or mmor modificat~ons to the final plan durmg build out The applicant's reference to buildmg envelopes "along the curb lme" needs clanfication Smce there are mmimum setback requirements for buildmgs and parkmg from the ad~acent ma~or streets, the apphcant would need to idenhfy any requested vanahons as part of the site review amendment apphcahon Related BVRC Desien Guidelmes There are several BVRC Design Gmdelmes that directiy relate to the Crossroads redevelopment ~ssues discussed above. While these are guidelmes and not standards, they provide an important guide to redevelopment of this key BVRC site. They mclude. 5.2.A. Orient the building to the street The bualdmg should address the street and not °turn its back ° to the publac Orrent the maan fa~ade to the street, and provide an entrance(s) on the street side If the buildeng is long or large, more than one entrance may be needed on the front fa~ade or on several sades of the bualdrng 5.2.B. Address the street corner Provade an entry, addataonal buzldzng mass, and dzstanctave archatectural elements at the butldtng corner. 5.2.D. Avoid large blank walls Use archatectural desagn to add vasual interest to large walls Technaques anclude var~ed buzldang mass, modulated wall plane, archttectural detatls, varaed materzals and colors, and art work 5.2.E. Provide pedestrian interest on the ground level The ground level must offer pedestraan anterest ulong sadewalks and paths Thts ancludes transparent w:ndows, entrances and archatectural detaals s\plan\pb-rtems\memos\etixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 6 5.2.E. Design all sides of the building All sides of the bualdangs should be attracttve and erateresttng 3.S.F. "Wrap"parkingstructures witli active uses The ground-level of a park~ng structure must be wrapped by retatl, office or some other actave use along at least the pnmary street fa~ade 3. Does the proposed concept plan, including proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections, generally meet the objectives of the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) Transportation Connections Plan? The concept plan provides many but not all of the connections requ~red by the BVRC Connect~ons plan (see notated maps m Attachments G and H) The concept plan shows the realigned Canyon Boulevard and the currently non-existent 29~h Street alignment Also, the developer has mdicated that easements along Arapahoe and 30`h Street can be dedicated withm tlus site plan that would allow for future public pro~ects to construct bicycle lanes on the west side of 30`h and the north side of Arapahoe Several other connections are not shown on the concept plan mcludmg disconnected sidewalks and the reahgned 29`~' Street on the north end of the srte and the Canyon/30`h Street mtersectron These are not expected to be problematic however, as there ~s ample room to make these changes w~thout sigmficantly impactmg the overall srte plan. Several connections that are not shown on the concept plan wouid ~mpact the site plan sigmficantly. Smce these connechons are not proposed, the amendment process of the BVRC Connecrions plan requ~res that the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and the Boulder Urban Renewal Authonty (BURA) rev~ew the plan and provide recommendations to Plamm~g Board The Plannmg Board then has authonty through the srte review process to amend the BVRC Connechons plan. Any amendments are subject to City Council call-up TAB and BLTRA considered amendments to the BVRC Connechons plan on September 8th and September 17`h, respectrvely. A summary of their recommendat~ons w~ll be provided to Plannmg Board at the concept plan hearing on September 18th Specific amendments to the BVRC Connections pian that are reflected on the concept plan are discussed below A On-street b~ke lane on Canvon Transportation staff is recommendmg to TAB and City Council that references to b~ke lanes elsewhere on Canyon be removed from the Transportarion Master Plan, therefore rt ts reasonable to not have bike lanes on this specific sect~on of Canyon as well. Staff is supportive of the proposal to allow not havmg b~ke lanes on Canyon. s\plan\pb-items\memos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 7 B North-south Secondarv ConnecUon between 29`h and 30`h Streets This connectton is mtended to tie the port~on of the site north of the movie theater to the southern portion of the s~te for vehicles, pedestnans and b~cycles The raised plaza area m front of the mov~e theaters effectrvely creates a bamer to north-south movement along the east s~de of the s~te. A veh~cular connect~on w~thm this portion of the site similar to what is shown on the BVRC Connections Plan would reduce artenal traffic congeshon At a mmimum, staff recommends havmg a pedestnan connection somewhere m th~s vicmity to connect the north and south port~ons of the site. C A portion of a north-south Secondary Connection between 28`h and 29`" Streets This connect~on is shown on the concept plan north of Canyon Boulevard At a mmimum, it should be extended to the east-west dnve aisle between Canyon and Arapahoe m order to create befter on-site circulahon The BVRC Connections plan envisions this connection extendmg all the way to Arapahoe By not havmg this connection extend to Arapahoe, some vehicular, pedestnan and bicycle tnps would be longer, however, these impacts are expected to be mmor Staff is supportive of having this secondary connection extend up to the east-west drive aisle located north of Arapahoe without extendmg further south all the way to Arapahoe D Multi-Use Path between 28`~' and 30`h Streets This connechon is shown on the BVRC Connectrons plan as connectmg 28~~' and 30`h Streets m an alignment that crosses between the exisring Sears and Foley's buildmgs The concept plan proposes to not have this connecrion so that Foley's can be directly ad~acent to the proposed parkmg garage located south of Foley's and west of Sears It is understood by staff that this is an important element of the agreement between Foley's and the developer. By not providmg for this connection, pedestnans and bicyclists will have no direct connechon between the east and west parts of the site withm this vicmity and therefore would need to traverse azound the north side of Foley's across parkmg lots or up to Walnut Staff is not supportive of elimmatmg this east-west connechon without explonng all other options for achievmg a connechon withm this area. E Re-alignments of Multi-Use PaChs mternal to the site The BVRC Connections plan env~sions the corners of 28~h and Arapahoe and 30~h and Arapahoe to be connected to the mternal portion of the s~te m a relatively direct manner. The concept plan shows pedestnan connect~vity from the corners along stare fronts without strong crossmgs of drive aisles and parkmg lots Staff is supportive of the ahgnments shown on the Concept Plan, however they should be w~dened and better defined where they cross parkmg lots and drrve aisles s\plan\pb-rtems~nemos\eh~crconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pace S Plannmg Board is asked to consider these proposed BVRC Connections Plan amendments m general tenns as they relate to the concept plan The Board will have an opportumty to approve or deny specific amendments at the t~me of the Crossroads site review amendment. 4. Is Westcor's proposal to fill the south end of the Crossroads site to remove it from the 100-year floodplain preferred, both from a ilood protection and site development standpoint? Background In an agreement between BLJRA and the Crossroads Shoppmg Center Company, dated July 7, 1982, the city of Boulder agreed to ass~st m makmg ~mprovements to remove the affected port~on of the Crossroads srte from the 100-year floodplam of Boulder Creek. FEMA shows the property m the 100-year floodplam because the he~ght of the exisUng floodwall does not meet the~r current standards There are two basic options to remove the srte from the floodplam: upgrade the floodwall along Arapahoe Avenue or import s~te fill for the southern portion of the property. Concept Plan Pronosal re• Flood Im~rovements Westcor proposes to import srte fill as the method for removmg the southern port~on of the Crossroads srte from the 100-year floodplam. City staff strongly supports this option Fillmg the site to ratse the grade above pro~ected flood elevations is preferred to upgrad~ng the Arapahoe Avenue floodwall and is a more sustamable method for providmg contmued and effective flood protection for the property. In addition, the proposed new gradmg of the site will raise the south end to a consistent grade wrth surroundmg streets and improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular cuculation across and along the penmeter of the site The city of Boulder will honor the 1982 agreement by both assistmg the appl~cant m findmg sources of fill and participatmg m the cost of fillmg the southern end of the srte City staff has requested that Westcor provide a cost estimate for usmg fill to remove the site from the floodplam (~ e. those costs directly related to flood mrtigation and not to other srte development activities) Ctty staff also recommends that m all srte flood prone areas, fill be placed to an elevation of one foot above the predicted flood elevatron, except at the location of buildmg pads, where the srte should be filled to two feet above the predicted flood elevation Flood Map Revision Because the exishng floodwall does not meet cunent FEMA standards, the exishng FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM map 08013C0395F, 1995) shows shallow floodmg along Arapahoe Avenue on the southern porhon of the Crossroads s~te The proposed fill should remove the southern portion of the site from the floodplam and s\plan\pb-rtems~memos\eh~crconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 9 enable FEMA to issue a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) - changmg the FIRM map m that area; thereby reducmg flood msurance rates As soon as the srte gradmg plan ~s finalized, staFf has recommended that Westcor submit a CLOMR-F (Cond~honal Letter of Map Rev~s~on based on fill) to FEMA to make certam that the proposed fill will be suffic~ent to remove the s~te from the 100-year floodplam BOULDER URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY REVIEW: The Boulder Urban Renewal Authonty (BURA) Board ~s scheduled to rev~ew and comment on this application on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 A report on the BURA Board's comments will be included m the presentahon to the Plamm~g Board at its September 18, 2003 meehng ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D: Attachment E. Attachment F• Attachment G Attachment H. Concept Plan Ob~ectrves Development Review Results and Comments, dated August 8, 2003 Crossroads Mal] - Background History Public Comment Vicmrty Map Photos Examples of BVRC Architecture Excerpt of BVRC Transportation Connections Plan with notations re proposed amendments WesYcor's concept Site Transportation Plan with notahons re: proposed amendments to BVRC Transportation Connecrions Plan Attachment L Applicant's wntten statement and plans s\plan\pb-items~memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 10 Approved By. ATTACHMENT A CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT Gwdelines for Review and Comment The following gwdelines wdl be used to guide the plannmg board's discussion regardmg the stte. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed m this section wdl be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Plann~ng Board may consider the following gwdelines when providmg comments on a concept plan. 1) Charactenstics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site mcludmg, without I~mitation, mature trees, watercourses, hdls, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; The site is at the corners of 28th and Arapahoe and 30th and Arapahoe, both of which are key intersections in the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) and ad~acent to Crossroads Mall 28th Street will soon be a maJor regional transit corridor, with RTD bus service to DenverlDiA and this site has been discussed as a potential transit superstop 30th and Arapahoe both have high frequency transit, and the HOP high frequency bus route circulates within the site The Canyon alignment within the site is currently indirect and 29th Street does not exist through the site An enclosed retail mall and pad buildings are on the site, and the parking areas do not meet current parking and landscape standards There is a considerable grade difference between the Target and Crossroads Mall sites There are significant mountain views from the site 2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Vailey Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, poliaes, and plans, includmg, without I~mitation, sub-community and sub-area plans; Development of this site must be consistent with the BVRC urban renewal plan, guidelines, and BVRC Transportation Connections plan Redevelopment of this property strongly supports the city's economic goals by helping to restore the city's retail sales tax base 3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; A site review application must show compliance with applicable site rewew criteria, including criteria for any requested code variations A site review application also must demonstrate compliance with BVRC gwdelines and plans The site review application will be reviewed and voted on by both the BURA Board and the Planning Board 4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site rev~ew approval; Requested amendments to the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan will be considered concurrent with site review Technical Document Reviews will be required for final architectural/site/landscape plans, final engineering and utility plans, and a final plat A subdivision, concurrent with the site review and Technical Document Review, will be reqwred to replat the property and to vacate and dedicate utility and access easements Bwlding permit applications would follow s\plan\pb-uems~nemos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pase 11 5) Opportunities and constraints m relation to the transportation system, mcluding, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existmg transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trad links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study, The site review application should demonstrate vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle connections between the site and ad~acent properties Significant opportunities will exist for connections to the new 28th Street regional transit corridor and the 30th and Arapahoe high-frequency transit corridors The applicant is strongly encouraged to discuss providing opportunities for a future transit "superstop" and the vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle connections in this pro~ect with Public Works staff A sign program would be a condition of site review approval 6) Environmental opportunities and constramts mcludmg, w~thout limiXation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplams and other natural hazards, wddlife corridors, endangered and protected speaes and habitats, the need for further biological inventones of the site and at what point in the process the mformation wdl be necessary, City staff supports Westcor's proposal to import site fill as the method for removing the southern portion of the Crossroads site from the 100-year floodplain There are significant view corridors to the mountains from this site 7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; and The site, designated RB-E and Regional Business, is an appropriate site for a wide range of commercial land uses, including retail, personal service, and office uses Redevelopment of the Crossroads Mall site as a ma~or retail development is appropriate and encouraged in the BVRC and would be a ma~or contributor to the economic vitality of the aty of Boulder 8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housmg. The Boulder Valley Comprehensroe Plan (BVCP) identifies the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) as a regional shopping and commercial center for the Boulder Valley and its continued upgrading and redevelopment as a city priority The Crossroads Mall is designated Mixed Use Business in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) The comprehensive plan states that, in areas designated Mixed Use Business, "business character will predominate, although housing and public uses supporting housing will be encouraged and may be reqwred Specific zoning and other regulations will be adopted which define the desired intensity, mix, location and design characteristics of these uses " The land use designation indicates the city's desired land use for the site, however, the zoning sets the regulatory framework for development of the property The land use designation for this site was changed from Regional Business to M~xed Use Business as part of the Year 2000 Ma~or Update to the BVCP The community indicated its support and desire for mixed use redevelopment of the site during the Crossroads Consortium and 28th Street Design Charrette processes The city worked with the Macerich Company to implement a mixed use plan on the site a few years ago, however the financial analysis indicated that it was not a feasible solution for the site without significant public investment The city then indicated to Macerich that they should move forward with a market-based plan (the current plan, which does not include residential development in its first phase) Although the aty would like to see residential development on the site, it is not a reqwrement of the redevelopment The city acknowledges that Macerich does not have fee control over a large portion of the Crossroads site and that the May Company has some control over which existing parking areas are redeveloped, including the proposed Parcel 4"future residendal" sde The most important land use consideration in redevelopment of the site is reestablishing Crossroads as a vibrant retail center s\plan\pb-items~nemos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM t! SA Pase 12 and ma~or contributor to the city's sales tax base Prior to site review amendment application, please discuss with staff the likelihood of Phase 2 development for housing, based on the issues discussed above, and how the phasing plan should be presented in the next step of review s\plan\pb-~tems\memos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pase 13 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS August 8, 2003 CASE MANAGER Liz Hanson PROJECT NAME Crossroads Mall LOCATION 1600 28TH ST COORDiNATES N03W04 REVIEW TYPE Concept Plan Review & Comment REVIEW NUMBER LUR2003-00055 APPLICANT W ESTCOR DESCRIPTION CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT: Conceptual redevelopment plans for the Crossroads Mall site including general circulation, approximate buildmg s~zes and locations, proposed demolition, and conceptual elevations, sections, and gradmg of existing site. REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS Specific vanations have not been identified in the Concept Plan application However, based on the concept plan submittal, it appears that variations to be requested as part of a site review amendment application may include: a bwlding height of 55 feet, where 35 feet is the by-right height limit, for the proposed theater; setback variations from Arapahoe Avenue and 28'h and 30t6 Streets; and, variations to landscape standards for landscaping mternalto parking areas. I. REVIEW FINDINGS Staff finds that the applicanYs concept plan application exceeds the aty's minimum requirements Westcor's complete, detailed submittal is generally responsroe to issues raised at the April 23rd pre- application meeting In particular, Westcor's commitment to complete key phasing steps, including full demolition, extension of the street grid, all utdity relocations, import of fdl and final gradmg, prior to occupancy at any phase, is a key part of the concept plan application. Westcor's proposal to raise the Crossroads property out of the floodplain through extensive fill, significantly improves site opportunities Also, the amount of parking proposed is consistent with city standards The concept plan application materials raise several key issues that must be addressed in a site review amendment appiication. Additional detail from Westcor or further steps are needed to address • The general appearance and uses of exterior fac~ng bu~lding elevations - elevations which face Arapahoe Avenue, 28~h Street, and 30~h Street - for Parcel 1 retail, Parcel 3 anchor, and the theater While there are a variety of approaches that can be used, the design quality and character of these "backs" of buildings which face the surrounding ma~or streets and key intersections have not yet been demonstrated in a way to show how the site plan will meet city rewew crdena • The use of design guidelines and building envelopes as a guide for build out of each phase Staff strongly supports providing a high level of flexibility to respond to tenant needs Design gwdelines must set appropriate standards for design quality and compatibility and all requested setback variations must be identified and considered at the time of site review amendment • Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections between varying grades and portions of the site The concept plan requires amendments to the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan These amendments must be considered by the city's Transportation Advisory Board, Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) Board and Planning Board s\plan\pb-uems\memos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pase 14 • Building code compliance related to the connection between new and existing construction • Revisions to flood mapping to remove the Crossroads site from the 100-year floodplain • A concurrent application for subdivision (preliminary plat) to relocate property lines, and dedicate and vacate easements Ample time should be allowed for this substantial replat of this large site The Crossroads concept plan has been scheduled for review and comment by the BURA Board on Wednesday, September 17'" at 6 00 p m and by the Planning Board on Thursday, September 18'" at 7 00 p m In addition, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) will review proposed changes to the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan on Monday, September 8'h Staff's analysis of how the concept plan meets the Concept Plan Rewew and Comment Guidelines of Section 9-4-10(f), B R C 1981 will be included in the staff memorandum to the Planning Board for its September 18~h meeting This analysis will be based on the concept plan submittal and any revised written statements provided by Westcor prior to August 25~h II. CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PLANNING Building Envelopes The applicanYs written statement indicates the intent to specify building envelopes in a site review amendment application, with fina~ building locations to be determined at the time ot Technical Document Review or building permit application (no bwlding envelopes are shown on the concept plan) Staff strongly supports providing Westcor with ample flexibility to "build to suiP' for Crossroads tenants Especially for buildings internal to the site, flexibility in bwlding placement is appropriate at the site review amendment step This flexibility in an approval will also reduce the need for amendments or minor modifications to the final plan during build out Westcor will need to demonstrate that all building envelopes do not encroach upon proposed utilities and utility easements Staff has some concerns about the applicanPs reference to building envelopes "along the curb line", if this refers to exterior streets such as Arapahoe Avenue, and 28`" and 30'" Streets Since there are minimum setback reqwrements for bwldings and parking from these ma~or streets, the applicant would need to identify any requested variations as part of the site review amendment application While some setback variation may be appropriate, depending on the site plan and bwlding character, some setback is likely appropriate to provide for streetscape and transportation improvements Design Guidelmes Westcor has indicated that it will prepare design guidelines, with the input of city staff, to set expectations re bwlding materials, landscaping, and signage Staff looks forward to working with Westcor to set the character for buildings at this important and visible site Coordination prior to site review amendment submittal is recommended since the conceptual architectural sketches and photo examples provided raise concerns regarding lack of glazing and building entries and use of landscape material to hide rather than accent bwlding facades (See additional comments below regarding Parcel 1) Srte Layout The preliminary plan shows four distinct areas - a central parcel (2), a southwest parcel (1), a southeast parcel (3), and a future housing site on the northeast parcel (4) Staff comments on the land use and transportation features of the site layout are summarized according to these four areas s\plan\pb-items~memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 15 Central Parcel (2) Land Use (The comments below discuss site layout issues that relate to both Parcels 2 and 3) The character along 30'h Street is a concern Although the backs of the buildings that will line 30`" Street will be treated aesthetically with architectural details and landscaping, there are no active uses proposed along the street The goal for 30'~' Street adopted in the BVRC Design Guidelines (p 7) is for the street to evolve into a"lively, more urban streetscape to both accommodate and stimulate pedestrian activity " The Crossroads Community Consortium Goal 1 lists the following opportunity "Create an urban-like setting along sections of 30'" Street, so that buildings face the street and sidewalk "(Consortium Report, p 11) Two ideas that would help animate the Crossroads section of 30'" Street are • Provide an entrance to the movie theater on the 30`h Street side Perhaps one centrally located ticket booth could serve both entrances Staff acknowledges that this may require a ma~or ad~ustment of the theater layout already envisioned by Westcor and the prospective tenant . Wrap the east and perhaps north fapade of the new parking structure with active uses (retail, office or some other use) This is strongly recommended by Design Gwdeline 3 5 F In addition to providing visual interest from 30'h Street, limng the north faqade with active uses may help draw customers into the set-back former Sears bwlding Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278 The Concept Plan narrative states that the size and amenity treatments for the outdoor spaces will be provided in more detail in the site plan Please also address the desire for a hierarchy of outdoor spaces, including some gathering spaces The outdoor spaces on the Concept Plan appear to be mostly linear in nature (less amenable to gathering) Please refer to ob~ectives for outdoor spaces described in the third bullet on page 10 of Crossroads Community Consortium Final Report (under Goal 1) and the first bullet on page 16 (under Goal 4) Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278 At the time of site review amendment, please provide additional detail on the design and treatment of the outdoor plaza, including minimum dimensions between buildings, paving and landscape materials, fixtures, and accessory uses such as sales k~osks or carts W ill tree planting be affected by the parking garage below? Prior to Planning Board review, additional clarity is needed re the proposed parking levels and theater entry Please discuss with staff Transportation City staff is currently completing the site review amendment for the ad~acent Target store addition The Target plans show a phased approach to the new alignment of the "29'h StreeY' drive as it crosses the Target property and connects to the Crossroads site The Phase 1 alignment is intended for the period between Target construction and the Crossroads redevelopment (approximately January - July 2004 to spring 2005) and shows the existing connection point between the Crossroads and Target sites Phase 2 shows a new 29'" Street drive alignment, with the 29`h Street connection moving further east when the Crossroads site redevelops It appears that TargePs Phase 2 alignment shows the connection in a different location than as shown on the current Crossroads concept plan Please continue discussions with Target to coordinate this important connection and, as needed, show the revised connection at the time of the Crossroads site review amendment A pedestrian connection is needed from 30~h Street to the entrance of the former Sears building The existing transit stop at the northeast corner of 28'h & Canyon is not shown on the Concept Plan Please show this stop on the site plan and provide a sidewalk along the north side of Canyon, connecting this stop and 28'h Street to the proposed sidewalk farther east Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278 s\plan\pb-rtems~nemos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 16 Southwest Parcel 11) Land Use In the Elevation 3 conceptual drawing, no windows or store entries are shown for the building elevation facing 28~h Street W hile the colonnade design adds some pedestrian interest to the back of this building, staff has concerns that the lack of windows and/or entries is not the preferred design option for a ma~or street and gateway to the site Also, the applicanYs photo examples for the treatment of "backs" of buildings seem to use vegetation to screen or hide the bwlding, rather than to accent The design character and detailing of these exterior elevations are critical to making the site plan for Parcel 1 work Staff would like to work with the applicant to provide local examples of attractive rear elevations and dual- entry stores in the BVRC and to explore design options that would meet BVRC and site review criteria as well as the needs of Crossroads tenants The large anchor has increased in size and is no longer labeled as a grocery store, as in the pre- application plans Is a grocery store still a possible retail use at this location~ The corner of 28`" & Canyon is the most prominent vehicular entry to Crossroads, and is also a highly visible intersection in the BVRC The new bank building should be placed at the corner, with the parking/drive-in in a less prominent location (beside or behind the building), per Site Design Guideline 3 1 C The recently bwlt Pueblo Bank at 30~h & Pearl Streets is a good example of the desired layout In addition to building placement, the architectural massing and design of the building should also reflect the importance of this corner (Bwlding Des~gn Guideline 5 2 B) Marie Zuzack, BUR,4, 303-441-4278 Transportat~on The pedestrian route located along building facades connecting the corner of 28'h & Arapahoe to the central area is fine However, the portion of the route through the parking lot needs to be strengthened Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278 Southeast Parcel (3 Land Use Is Westcor considering any other possible land uses besides a 125,000 square foot anchor retail store in Parcel 3~ If so, it would be preferred to list these options in the concept plan submittal The corner of 30'h & Arapahoe is a designated BVRC gateway The treatment of the building and landscape at this corner should take this gateway status into account Although in the proposed configuration an entry to the anchor bwlding is probably not feasible, please refer the Bwiding Design Guideline 5 2 B and Landscaping Design Gwdeline 3 7 8 as the plan is further refined Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278 Transportaf~on Please ensure that the parking lot layout ad~acent to Arapahoe east of 29`" Street allows enough space for a row of street trees on each side of the multi-use path A crosswalk across the parking lot aisle connecting Arapahoe to the front fagade of the anchor bwiding is needed for pedestrians using the 30 & Arapahoe transit stop Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278 s\plan\pb-rtems~nemos\etixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pase 17 Northeast Parcel (4) Land Use The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) identifies the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) as a regional shopping and commercial center for the Boulder Valley and its continued upgrading and redevelopment as a city priority The Crossroads Mall is designated Mixed Use Business in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) The comprehensive plan states that, in areas designated Mixed Use Business, "business character will predominate, although housing and public uses supporting housing will be encouraged and may be required Specific zoning and other regulations will be adopted which define the desired intensity, mix, location and design characteristics of these uses " The land use designation indicates the city's desired land use for the site, however, the zoning sets the regulatory framework for development of the property The land use designation for this site was changed from Regional Business to Mixed Use Business as part of the Year 2000 Ma~or Update to the BVCP The community indicated its support and desire for mixed use redevelopment of the site during the Crossroads Consortium and 28th Street Design Charrette processes The city worked with the Macerich Company to implement a mixed use plan on the site a few years ago, however the financial analysis indicated that it was not a feasible solution for the site without significant public investment The city then indicated to Macerich that they should move forward with a market-based plan (the current plan, which does not include residential development in its first phase) Although the aty would like to see residential development on the site, it is not a requirement of the redevelopment The city acknowledges that Macerich does not have fee control over a large portion of the Crossroads site and that the May Company has some control over which existing parking areas are redeveloped, including the proposed Parcel 4"future residential" site The most important land use consideration in redevelopment of the site is reestablishing Crossroads as a vibrant retail center and ma~or contributor to the city's sales tax base Prior to site review amendment application, please discuss with staff the likelihood of Phase 2 development for housing, based on the issues discussed above, and how the phasing plan should be presented in the next step of review City staff is available to discuss what financial incentives for housing are available Please contact John Pollak, Director of the Division of Housing and Human Services, at 303-441- 3157 Transportation Interior transportation connections to abutting properties are strongly encouraged in the BVRC, in order to reduce traffic volumes and turning movements on arterial streets and to increase circulation convenience for customers (Design Gwdelines 3 1 K, 3 2 B, 3 3 B, and 3 3 H) Please provide direct vehicular and pedestrianlbicycle connections to Aspen Plaza (parcel ad~acent to the northeast) and the Golden Lotus (ad~acent to the northwest) Staff will assist in determining, with the ad~acent property owners, the best location and the appropriate timing for installation Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278 Landscaping Please address the following comments in a site review amendment application 1 The site contains a lot of mature landscaping including many mature trees that will be difficult to replace Please indicate on a landscape plan the amount of existing landscaping that will be protected on site If existing trees wiil be located on site, the landscape plan must shown the relocation plan Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272 2 It is unclear from the concept plan if the streetscape requirements will be met The BVRC streetscape gwdelines reqwre that street trees be planted in double rows every 30 feet along s\plan\pb-~tems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pase 18 28'h, Arapahoe and 30"' Streets, and in a single row along internal through-streets Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272 and Marie Zuzack, 303-441-4278 It does not appear from the concept plan that the parking lot landscaping standards will be met The standards require a minimum amount of interior lot landscaping Please provide the calculations to indicate if the interior lot standards in Section 9-3 3-4(d), B R C 1981 are met Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272 Please note that the standards require that no more than three double loaded rows of parking may be situated consecutively without providing a planting area, a minimum of eight feet in width along the center between rows for the full length of each parking row If a variance to this standard is requested, please show how the intent of the standards will be met in other aspects of the site landscaping Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272 Parking lots abutting public streets should be screened using landscaping and/or low walls Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272 and Marie Zuzack, 303-441-4278 Land Uses Retail uses Retail uses in existing bwldings and retail uses in new buildings over 20,000 square feet in floor area are allowed "by-nghY' in the RB-E zoning district However, according to Section 9-3 1-1(b)(18) "establishments for the retailing of goods located in a bwlding that is no larger than 20,000 square feet in total floor area, which have not exterior storage of materials and have no on-site repairs, service or installation" must receive use review approval by demonstrating compliance with the city's use review criteria in Section 9-4-9(d), B R C 1981 Therefore, a use review application would be reqwred at the time of a site review amendment application, these applications would be processed concurrently Use review approval could be requested for the overall Crossroads site, rather than for specific bwldings Theater use The proposed theater use is allowed as an "indoor entertainment establishmenY' in the RB-E zoning district A modern multi-screen theater is a much needed use in the city and is a strong, complementary use with existing and new retail and restaurant uses The resulting synergy from this mix will likely create a strong entertainment and shopping destination at the heart of the site Drive-in use The plan shows removal of an existing bank drive-in use at the corner of 28`" and Arapahoe and e new bank drroe-in use located at 28`" and Canyon The city's land use regulations reqwre a use review for drive in uses in the RB-E zoning district, with a list of standards that must be met in Section 9-3 4-6, B R C 1981, in addition to the city's use review cnteria in Sechon 9-4-9(d), B R C 1981 Therefore, a use review application would be reqwred at the time of a site review amendment application, these applications would be processed concurrently The Concept Plan narrative states that Westcor and U S Bank are considering a two-story bwlding that would incorporate the bank drive-through, in accordance with the BVRC Design Guideline regarding drive-through functions Additional drive-throughs will be considered on a case-by-case basis as use review applications, recognizing the need for a variety of retail uses on the site Traffic Traffic Imoact Studv According to the information provided by the applicant, the overall traffic generated by this development would be about 20% less than that of the mall in 1994, a timeframe when the mall was fully occupied This is partly based on a smaller amount of retail floor area and the more local rather than regional retail s\plan\pbatems\memos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pase 19 niche in which this development will function It is therefore reasonable to assume at this stage of review that the overall transportation infrastructure is adequate to support the vehicular traffic from this proposal Assumptions about how traffic will be distributed to the surrounding street network have not yet been reviewed, so localized impacts to certain intersections may cause improvements in either signal timing or intersection geometry to be needed A final traffic study will be required at the time of site review amendment submittal This study will be used to evaluate traffic impacts to specific locations and also the effectiveness of proposed Transportation Demand Management strategies Transportation Demand Manaqement (TDM) As part of a site review amendment application, appropriate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will need to be identified These strategies will be focused on reducing the number of single passenger vehicle trips to the site, particularly for employees Several transit routes serve this site and bicycle and pedestrian connections cross the site For a development of this size serving a large number of employees, a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) would have the greatest benefit Other employers in the area could also ~oin and help pay for the TMO once started, and office space within Crossroads could be provided to house the TMO and provide area employees with information and support These efforts would make Crossroads a recognized leader in the effort to reduce vehicular congestion in the central part of Boulder Membership in a TMO could consist of a variety of programs, including parking management programs, shuttles, Eco Pass programs, carpool matching programs, and childcare programs Parking Parkinq Lavout / Distribution Parking Garage Access The access to the parking lot from 28~" Street is limited to nght-turn only movements Access to and from the southbound 28~h Street would have to access the garage in a arcuitous manner via the Canyonl28~h intersection Access from northbound Canyon is more direct by using the right-turn-only access, however this reqwres access across neighboring property A public access easement would be reqwred to formalize this arrangement This parking garage access would be improved if access closer to Canyon or directly from Canyon could be achieved The parking garage access from 30~h Street has multiple points of entry for vehicles and appears to be suitable for the traffic expected to be generated This issue will need to be reviewed further with the traffic impact study The applicant has identified the parking needs for individual neighborhoods The parking supply is very close to the numbers reqwred by the city code without significant excess At the time of site review, the location of specific parking spaces will be reviewed to assure that the spaces are within a reasonable distance and configuration to serve the intended retail spaces Also, it will be necessary at site review to clearly show where parking is controlled by the May Company, Sears and other land owners and where the Crossroads developer controls parking Landscaping City of Boulder land use regulations reqwre a minimum amount of landscaping in parking areas The site review criteria encourage pro~ects to exceed the minimum city landscape standards and this is supported by the BVRC Design Guidelines (3 7 A) s\plan\pb-items\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 20 Buildmg Height North end There are two ways that building height is calculated for the Crossroads site, based on a dividing line which aligns with the south edge of Canyon Boulevard at 28`" Street (please see attached map) For the north end of the site, buddmg height is calculated based on the city code definition of "height" (see Section 9-1-3(a), B R C 1981 This height calculation uses a low point within 25 feet ot the lowest exposed point of a bwlding Therefore, the building "heighY' may be higher or lower that the actual measured bwlding height from grade As part of the site review amendment application, please provide a detailed height calculation based on the aty code definition of height to confirm that the theater building is no taller than 55 feet The proposed theater bwlding height will require height modification approval by Planning Board as part of the site review amendment, since the proposed height exceeds 40 feet South end For the south end of the site, building height is calculated based on a 1998 citywide vote which approved the following "sub~ect to approval through the development review process, 'height' shall be defined as the vertical distance measured from Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood protection elevation at 28`h Street of 5,288 feet, as determine in accordance with the North American vertical datum of 1988, to a plane above such elevation " So, to calculate the heights of bwlding in the south end (see attached map), 5,288 feet is used as a base measurement rather than the "low point within 25 feet" of a building (The resulting maximum 55 foot tall building would measure approximately 71 to 72 feet ) Review orocess For the entire Crossroads site, the "by-right" height limit is 35 feet In the RB-E zone, up to 40 feet in bwlding height is allowable with Administrative Review approval for conditional height Building heights between 40 feet and 55 feet (maximum height per city charter) must be approved by Planning Board as a height modification as part of a site review approval Phas~ng Staff supports Westcor's commitment to complete key phasing steps, including full demolition, extension of the street grid, all utility relocations, import of fill and final grading, prior to occupancy at any phase, and finds that this is a key part of the concept plan application Completion of this critical site work prior to any final inspections will facilitate bwlding permit review and tenant occupancy The applicant should note that with site review amendment approval, the approved plan must be substantially complete (e g completing final inspections) within three years of the date of final approval Or, if Westcor anticipates a phasing schedule that exceeds three years, a specific sequential phasing plan (e g Phase 1 to be constructed between 2004 and 2005, Phase 2 to be constructed between 2005 and 2006, etc ) should be identified at the time of concept plan review and then refined at the time of site review amendment application This phasing plan would be referenced in the site review amendment approval Also, if Westcor seeks to create vested property rights for more than three years, City Council approval is reqwred Please contact David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney, at 303-441-3020 for additional information about vested property rights s\plan\pb-rtems~memos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee 21 PUBLIC WORKS Street Sections Walnut Street • Walnut interior to the site is shown as having an improved alignment and the removal of the existing four-way stop • Walnut is labeled on the plan as a"secondary vehicular roadway" however it is intended to be a primary roadway In order to be consistent with the BVRC plan, the term "secondary roadway" needs to be used to designate mid-block vehicular connections such as ma~or parking circulators or alleys • The BVRC plan calls for on-street bike lanes for Walnut It is unclear from the Crossroads plan whether on-street bike lanes are intended for Walnut Head-in parking on Walnut would not be supported by staff on any street with on-street bike lanes it is not clear why any on-street parking is shown on Walnut since the location of this parking is far from buildings and would not be expected to be frequently used • The sidewalk on the south side of Walnut ends half-way through the site It is not clear why this sidewalk does not continue through to 30'h Street The BVRC Connections Plan has a stated intent that all internal streets have 6 foot wide sidewalks on both sides Canvon Boulevard Canyon is shown in an alignment that connects 28`h to 30'" Streets and is an improvement compared to the existing circulation through the property The city will reqwre a five foot wide detached sidewalk along the north side of Canyon Boulevard for the entire length from 28~h to 30~h Streets Canyon is shown without on-street bike lanes which is inconsistent with the BVRC plan It is recognized by staff that there is value to adding head-in parking along Canyon in terms of customer accessibility and creating a high-turnover urban streetscape although head-in parkmg is incompatible with an on-street bike lane An alteration to the BVRC plan of this magnitude would need to be reviewed for comment by the Transportation Advisory Board 29~h Street • The alignment toward the north end of the site needs to be coordinated with the alignment on TargeYs property in such a way that the grades and the circuletion for both properties function appropriately The grading plan in this submittal indicates that some grading will be occurring north of the Foley's property, so it appears that there could be an opportunity to overcome the vertical grade differences across the Crossroads and Target properties • A sidewalk should be provided on the west side of 29~" Street south section Qust north of Arapahoe) • The cross section on Sheet A-8 does not match the plan on Sheet A-7 in terms of the widths of the various elements of the right-of-way At a minimum, the width of the street must be 64 feet where there is head-in parking on both sides to be consistent with the city's parking standards The applicant may wish to ~nclude more width, however too much street width will encourage higher travel speeds . The multi-use path shown in the cross-section is suitably wide however the planters alongside the path are a potential obstruction to bicycle pedals One option to resolve this conflict would be to use landscaping that does not require planters Another option would be to separate the planters from the 12 foot wide path with 18" sections on both sides of the path that are constructed from concrete of a different texture or color • A ramped walkway would be needed to the 29`h Street head-in parking up to the plaza for disabled access s\plan\pb-rtems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pase 22 • If outdoor seating will be part of the cross-section for 29`" Street within the plaza, 8 feet of separation within the sidewalks would be needed between the seating and any obstruction This needs to be considered in the design of this streetscape 30`h Street and Araoahoe Avenue The BVRC plan calls for bike lanes on 30`" Street and Arapahoe Avenue These bike lanes do not currently exist In order to create room for bike lanes the street would have to be widened five feet on both sides, thereby moving the street trees and multi-use path five feet into the Crossroads site Also, the detachment between the curb and the multi-use path needs to be 10 feet although currently this area is less than 10 feet wide Revisions to the BVRC plan need to be considered if these bike lanes would not be planned for with this development As the BVRC plan stands currently, a public access easement would need to be dedicated behind the multi-use paths along both Arapahoe and 30`" for potential future reconstruction of these street frontages consistent with these requirements Buildings and other obstructions would need to be set outside of this easement ' It is currently undetermined when or if the bike lanes on these two streets will be constructed if it is determined that one or both of these bike lanes will be constructed, the Crossroads development would be expected to pay a pro-rata share of the cost of creating bike lanes on 30~h Street and Arapahoe Avenue based on a proportion of traffic volume generated by the site on these streets compared to the total traffic on these streets At the time of site review and review of the final traffic impact study, this pro- rata share of the cost can be better understood Steve Durian, 303-441-4493 28~h Street The multi-use path on 28~h Street is suitable for transportation needs A publicly funded pro~ect will reconstruct this street, however it is expected that all improvements will be contained within existing right- of-way North-South Secondarv Vehicular Connections North-south vehicular connections were envisioned in the BVRC plan to function as access to the rear of buildings that would front on 2g`n, 29'n and 30`h Streets The layout and function of the Crossroads plan is different from this concept, and as such these secondary vehicular connections would function as a means to circulate through the site without having to access arterial roadways Two north-south connections are envisioned in the BVRC plan • A secondary connection between 28~h and 29~h Streets is shown on the Crossroads plan between Walnut and Canyon but dead-ends into a parking lot south of Canyon A connection to Arapahoe is blocked by the anchor store on the north side of Arapahoe This connection effectively provides the intended connection internal to the site Without the connection to Arapahoe, this proposal would need to be reviewed for comment by TAB • A secondary connection between 29~h and 30~" Streets is shown on the BVRC plan that does not connect the south end of the site to the north end The applicant will need to consider ways to achieve a better internal connection and access before staff can support an amendment TAB will need to review and comment on whatever solution is found involving this secondary connection Multi-Use Paths The BVRC Connections Plan envisions bicycle and pedestrian facilities connecting the exterior of the site to the interior for both bicycles and pedestrians These connections should be continuous and comfortable for their users The pedestrian paths shown on the plan achieve a limited connection from the fringes into the site but are discontinuous and in some places cut off by bwidings and parking lots It is not clear how bicyclists are accommodated on these paths s\plan\pb-items~nemos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 23 The central area east of the plaza is completely cut off to access from the south and west portions of the site for pedestrians The plaza is elevated above ihe eastern portion of the site This barrier could be overcome with stairs for pedestrians and ramps for bicyclists and accessibility for the disabled although these ramps would have to be very long to achieve appropriate slopes The BVRC Connections plan calls for an underpass beneath 28'" Street that would connect with this site at the location of the right-turn-only access between Canyon and Arapahoe This area between will need to be reserved for future dedication to the city for an underpass construction pro~ect When an underpass is constructed, the right-turn-only access will need to be eliminated This development would not be expected to participate in or pay for the construction of an underpass in this location In many locations pedestrian connections are disconnected or not shown at all Connections from the Arapahoe and 28'h Street intersection into the plaza area are weak and cross parking lots Wide pathways along the right-turn only access from 28`h Street end at a parking lot and do not continue further to the east Because of the location of the anchor at 30`" and Arapahoe, no direct connection from this intersection to the plaza area is possible These changes constitute a modification to the BVRC Connections Plan and will need to be reviewed by TAB Transit Stoos and Routes Internal to the site. The bus stop and shelter within the plaza area is well located for access to the central area within the plan Since the HOP bus route operated in both directions, a bus shelter on the other side of the street north of the pedestrian crossing would also be needed The other two bus stops shown on the plan are generally in good locations and would not likely need shelters In both of these locations, a bus stop on both sides of the street will be needed Other bus stops throughout the site may needed as future routes are added or changed, however its expected that these could be added within the street sections provided without special provisions needed at this stage of planning If and when the housing component of the plan is implemented, the bus stop on Walnut will need to be located closer to this part of the site External to the s~te This plan does not show the superstop location at the corner of 28~h and Arapahoe Although the Crossroads development would not be responsible for this improvement, the location must be shown on the plan for the purpose of coordination Drainage 1 Storm water conveyance and storm water quality enhancement are issues that will need to be addressed during the Site Review Process A Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards will be necessary and should also address the following issues • Water quality for surtace runoff using "Best Management Practices" . Storm sewer construction • Groundwater discharge • Erosion control during construction activities • Snow storage and de-icing 2 Appropriate practices for cleaning of outdoor seating areas, storage of materials, and similar best management practices will need to be addressed at Site Review City staff has significant expertise in the area of storm water quality and would be interested in working with the Westcor team on innovative approaches to storm water quality management on the site In previous Crossroads redevelopment plans, the applicant proposed construction of a stormwater quality facility on the Scott s\plan\pb-~tems\memos\ehxrwncept9403 pbm AGENDA I'CEM # SA Paee 24 Carpenter Park site to the south City stormwater quality and parks staff would be available to meet with Westcor to further discuss this option It is important to note that the City of Boulder is sub~ect to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II regulations Over the five year permit cycle, the city will be developing new local ordinances to address the state and federal mandates Based on staff discussions with the state, the city would not be reqwred to make the new requirements retroactive on a previously approved pro~ect If the Crossroads redevelopment has not received approval prior to adoption of the new ordinances, additional storm water quality requirements could be applicable Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121 Flood Protection City staff supports Westcor's proposal to import site fill as the method for removing the southern portion of the Crossroads site from the 100-year floodplain Filling the site to raise the grade above pro~ected flood elevations is preferred to upgrading the Arapahoe Avenue floodwall and is a more sustainable method for providing continued and effective flood protection for the property Citv Partcipation m Financinq of Site Fdl In the agreement between BURA and the Crossroads Shopping Center Company, dated July 7, 1982, the city of Boulder agreed to assist in making improvements to remove the Crossroads site from the 100-year floodplain of Boulder Creek The city of Boulder is prepared to honor that commitment and to both assist the applicant in finding sources of fill and to participate in the cost of filling the southern end of the site Submittal of Cost Estimate for Placement of Site Fill City staff would like to review a cost estimate for usmg fill to remove the site from the floodplain The cost estimate should be submitted to Varda Blum, and should include all costs associated with placement of fill - including without limitation, the cost and volumes of fill, soil preparation, and asphalt The listed costs should be directly related to flood mitigation and not to other site development activities City staff recommends that in all site flood prone areas, fill be placed to an elevation of one foot above the predicted flood elevation, except at the location of building pads, where the site should be filled to two feet above the predicted flood elevation The submitted cost estimate should breakdown fill volumes and costs into the following categories, fill volume and cost to bring the site up to the minimum required elevation, additional volume and cost to bring the site elevation to one fooUtwo foot at bwlding pads above the predicted flood elevation, and any additional costs created by placement of additional fill not required as a result of flood mitigation Preparation of CLOMR-F Because the existing floodwall is not recognized by FEMA, the existing FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM map 08013C0395F, 1995) shows shallow flooding along Arapahoe on the southern portion of the Crossroads site The proposed fill should remove the southern portion of the site from the floodplain and enable FEMA to issue a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) - changing the FIRM map in that area, thereby reducing flood insurance rates As soon as the site grading plan is finalized, Westcor shall submit a CLOMR-F (Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on fill) to FEMA to make certain that the proposed fill will be sufficient to remove the site from the 100-year floodplain Groundwater It appears that the current proposal will include some level of site excavation to accommodate subsurtace parking facilities Subsurtace construction typically includes construction and post construction dewatering and will requ~re state and local permits It is recommended that Westcor obtain the services s\plan\pb-rtems~nemos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee 25 of a groundwater specialist early in the process to identify any potential quantitative or qualitative issues with groundwater on the site The applicant may contact the City of Boulder Storm Water Quality Office at 303-413-7350 regarding groundwater discharge permit requirements Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121 Subdivision The Crossroads site currently includes numerous easements and several property lines As part of the redevelopment process, easements that are no longer needed will need to be vacated and internal property lines eliminated to allow for construction Rights-of-way and easements will need to be dedicated and new lot lines configured to accommodate the proposed improvements A Preliminary Plat showing existing and proposed easements is needed as part of the Site Review submittal Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121 Utihties The redevelopment will need to be served by a combination of publicly owned utility mains and private utility services Public water and sewer mains currently exist on site and it may be possible to use some of this existing infrastructure to serve the pro~ect The system will need to be designed to meet fire hydrant spacing reqwrements on the site and to allow each structure to connect domestic and fire service lines The public portion of the water system as well as water meters will need to be located within public easements At the time of site review, a Utility Plan in accordance with the C~ty of Boulder Des~gn and Construchon Standards will need to be provided showing existing and proposed utility information Scott Kuhna,303-441-3121 BUILDING AND FIRE CODES Building and Housing Codes The city should have the 2003 International Bwlding Codes adopted prior to the building permit applications for this pro~ect The existing 2 bwldings to remain are typed as Type III-N or III-B fully sprinklered buildings There will be some occupancy separations that will need to be addressed between the existing bwlding and the parking structure This will result in removing all glazed openings between the existing bwldings and the parking structure which occurs below grade All openings between the parking garage and retail sales areas are limited to a minimum of a one hour rated self-closing doors Openings such as windows would also be prohibited between the retail space and parking garage In order to have glazed openings in the retail space the parking garage will need to be completely separated from the retail structures and be completely independent The minimum separation needed could be a minimum of 20 to 40 feet between the retail uses and parking structure depending on construction type This would change the present design from what is shown today The other item to be aware of is the separation between the parking garage and the movie theater The escalator at its present location would clearly create a problem for occupancy separation where the termination point is shown This would require that the escalator to be relocated in order to maintain a 30 foot separation between the parking garage and theater Along with occupancy separations the type of construction may create an issue both would reqwre a minimum 3 hour fire separation preventing or limiting any openings including the termination point of the escalator from the theater to the parking structure Staff strongly recommends that the applicant schedule an appointment to meet with the Plans Review Engineer to review the proposed occupancies, types of proposed construction, and occupancy separation reqwrements Steve Brown, Plans Review Engineer, 303-441-3172 As the redevelopment proposal continues to be refined, please keep in mind that Crossroads Community Consortium Goal 7 encourages environmental construction techniques, such as recycling of demolition debris (Consortium Report, p 24) This topic was discussed by the community in previous Crossroads redevelopment plans Also, Design Guideline 5 2 K encourages environmentally sound building design s\plan\pb-ttems~memos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pase 26 and construction techniques and materials Marie Zuzack, BURA, 303-441-4278 Fire Codes During the demolition stage, it is vital that the fire sprinkler systems be maintained as much as possible At no time shall the systems in the occupied areas of the mall be left out of service for any extended period The Fire Department shall be notified of any outages in these areas For arcumstances where sprinklers in occupied areas are out of service after normal working hours, a"Fire Watch" must be used in the building New construction shall meet the current City of Boulder Design and Construction standards as they relate to hydrant locations, fire sprinkler systems, monitoring and notification FD shall be notified of any hydrants placed out of service due to demolition or construction Access in and around the mall shall conform to SU-30 turning radius' Roadways are to be designed for fire vehicles with ten wheels @ 80,000 pounds Ron Mahan, Fire Marshal, 303-441-4356 III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff has received a moderate level of public comments on the concept plan applwation as of the date of these comments The ma~ority of those commenting are favorable toward the current redevelopment plans for Crossroads Mall and are anxious to see the review process, demolition, and new construction occur swiftly Staff has also received inquiries about the proposed new tenants In addition to general public comments, staff has received some comments from nearby property owners Bill Reynolds, of W W Reynolds Companies, owner of the Sunrise Center shopping center at the northeast corner of 30`" Street and Arapahoe Avenue, has expressed concern that the anchor "big box" on Parcel 3 is oriented so that its back faces 30th Street, including a ma~or loading area The owner of the Golden Lotus restaurant on 28`h Street at the north boundary of Crossroads has expressed concern about the proposed pad bwiding ad~acent to his site ~Staff notes that no vehicular connection is shown on the concept plan between these two 28` Street sites Cross- access would be encouraged by BVRC guidelines Please reflect this vehicular connection between the two parking areas in the site review plans ) Staff encourages the applicant to work with these property owners in preparation for site review IV. NEXT STEPS Completion of Concept Plan Review and Comment These comments represent city's staff's initial comments on the applicanYs concept plan Revised plans are generally not filed in a concept plan and comment review The applicant may wish to respond to these staff comments with a revised written statement, although this is optional City staff will write a memorandum to the Planning Board to accompany these comments and the applicanYs plans/statements This memorandum will be included in the Board packet to be prepared on Thursday, September 3fd The following plans are requested from the applicant for the upcoming board reviews However, since copies of the concept plan were previously distributed to the BURA and Planning Boards at the time of application, please coordinate with staff to determine whether the number of plans noted below can be reduced TAB (Seotember 8'h meetinp) s\plan\pbatems~nemos\eh~concept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 27 Due to the substantial differences between this plan and the BVRC Connections Plan, the Transportation Advisory Board will need to review sheets A-2 and A-3 as revisions to the BVRC plan TAB will provide comment but will not vote to approve or deny the plan These comments will be used by Planning Board to evaluate and either approve or deny some or all of the requested revisions to the BVRC plan in support of this redevelopment proposal 12 hard copies and an electronic file of sheets A-2 and A-3 need to be submitted to Steve Durian (303-441-4493) no tater than Friday August 22"d, 2003 BURA Board of Commissioners (September 17'h meetinp) Submit 12 folded and collated copies of BURA Board materials to Brad Power, Executive Director (303- 441-3219), BURA, 1300 Canyon Boulevard, Boulder, CO, 80302, no later than 5 p.m. Thursday, September 11« for inclusion in the BURA Board packet Planninq Board (September 18~h meetinp) • Submit 5 copies of any revised written statements/materials to Liz Hanson no later than Monday, August 25th for consideration by staff during board memo preparation • Submit 18 folded and collated copies of Planning Board materials (plans and vnritten statements) to Liz Hanson no later than Wednesday, September 2ntl for inclusion in the Planning Board packet The following applications are the next steps for this pro~ect Site Review Amendment and Use Rev~ew The original Crossroads Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan was modified by a M~nor Modification approved by the city in 1999 While this redevelopment plan for the south end of the existing mall (removing the roof, adding a theater and new retail tenants) was not constructed, it modifies the Crossroads Mall PUD Therefore, a proposed new redevelopment would amend the 1999 plan and require a site review amendment (complex) Also, any proposed drive-in uses would reqwre concurrent use review for site specific approvals and a use review application would be reqwred for the pro~ect site since new retail bwldings no larger than 20,000 square feet in size are proposed For a site rewew amendment, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the aty's site review criteria and the area's urban renewal plan, which includes the BVRC Design Guidelines and BVRC Transportation Connections Plan This process allows requests for variations from certain land use regulations such as building setbacks and parking and landscape reqwrements During the review process, any requested variations are balanced with the quality of the pro~ecYs site and architectural design A site review amendment application must be reviewed and voted on (for approval or denial) by the BURA Board, since the Crossroads property is an original disposition parcel for the urban renewal area The proposed plan would likely require Planning Board approval for building heights over 40 feet In addition, the Planning Department would likely refer a Crossroads site rewew amendment application to the Planning Board for a decision, given the site's size and location Any Planning Board deasion is sub~ect to call-up by a ma~ority vote of City Council, within a 30-day call-up period City Counal decisions are final Leqal Document Requirements At time of site review application submittal, title work which is dated to within 30 days of submittal will be reqwred from all property owners involved in this pro~ect as well as authorization to sign on behalf ot those owners and for the developer for any entity (i e, LLP, LLC, corporation, company) other than an individual If the subdivision application is submitted at the same time as the site review, this information s\plan\pb-items~nemos\etixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Pace 28 will suffice for the subdivision application but will need to be updated at the time of final plat execution Melissa Rickson, Office of the City Attorney, 303-441-3020 Subdrvision Replat The current plat of the Crossroads site includes multiple lots, several of which are based on existing building footprints The plat also shows numerous public access and utility easements It appears that a subdivision application to replat the site will be required to accommodate the new site plan by removing and creating new property lines and by dedicating and vacating easements as needed Staff recommends that Westcor apply for a preliminary plat subdivision concurrent with a site review amendment application, and file a final plat subdivision with other technical document reviews (engineering, final utility and drainage plans, etc ) following a site review approval Review Timmg City staff has worked with Westcor to estimate the aty review steps and timing for the Crossroads redevelopment plans The pre-application meeting on April 23rtl is consistent with the estimated timelines The next review step, concept plan review and comment, was estimated by Westcor for early summer The city commits to review the Crossroads redevelopment plans in a timely manner given the importance of the redevelopment of the site to Boulder's economic health Westcor should also be aware that much of the city's review timing is dependent upon the applicanYs timely filing of "next step" applications and revision submittals City will work with Westcor to help resolve outstanding issues throughout the review process Reference Information The following information was provided to Westcor at the April 23, 2003 Pre-application meeting - An aerial overlay map of the area generally bounded by Pearl, 28'h, and 30'h Streets and Arapahoe Avenue, including Westcor's pre-application plan and TargeYs concept plan - Floodplain elevation maps and preliminary floodwall elevation drawings - Reduced copy of Crossroads Replat - Map showing method of building height calculations on the Crossroads site - Ordinance for 1998 city vote on height measurement - Estimated parking calculations existing (1999) vs pre-application plan - Land Use Review Applications and Attachments - 2003 Schedule of Fees The city's Land Use Regulations are online at www ci boulder co us/cao/brc/title9 html The BVRC Guidelines are online at www ci boulder co us/bura/ReviewDocuments htm The city's Public Works Design and Construction Standards are online at s\plan\pbatemstinemos\elixrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 29 ATTACHMENT C CROSSROADS MALL BACKGROUND HISTORY September 4, 2003 BVRC Urban Renewal Plan The BVRC Urban Renewal Plan, adopted in 1979 and revised in 1987, speaks generally of redeveloping the Crossroads property and surrounding urban renewal district Its urban design and transportation goals have been refined by the BVRC Design Guidelines (adopted 1998) and BVRC Transportation Connections Plan (adopted 1997, revised 2002) Both these documents are considered components of the Urban Renewal Plan For site review, the BURA Board must find that the Crossroads application complies with the Urban Renewal Plan, Design Guidelines and Transportation Connections Plan Crossroads Community Consortium The Crossroads Community Consortwm was a two-month process in 1998 that gathered the community's ideas for the redevelopment of Crossroads Mall and the BVRC Two large public workshops were held, as well as discussions with many civic organizations A questionnaire on redevelopment priorities was published in the Daily Camera newspaper and direct-mailed to 9,000 citizens The result was the Crossroads Community Consortium Report, which tncluded eight goals and numerous short- and long- term opportunities for the future of Crossroads and the BVRC The Report was adopted by BURA and endorsed by City Council Crossroads Framework Plan The Crossroads Mall Framework was created in 2001 to illustrate the type and scale of development on the Crossroads site that would carry out the Consortium goals and additional BURA priorities (noted in the Framework as "BURA Consensus Points") Financial analysis of the Framework showed that a significant amount of public financing would be reqwred to realize redevelopment of that scope and intensity Although the C~ty decided not to explore that level of financial participation, the Framework was useful in illustrating for Macerich the character and elements of redevelopment that the community was seeking for Crossroads Negotiations with Macerich In 2002, Macerich and the City of Boulder/ BURA had attempted to negotiate a public/private partnership that would redevelop Crossroads as a mixture of commercial and residential uses, as illustrated by the Framework This would have entailed a sizeabie public investment In May 2002, the City/BURA negotiating group outlined for Macerich possible terms for a public/private partnership that would utilize tax-increment financing to accomplish a mixed-use redevelopment Macerich carefully considered the City's terms and, in July 2002, put forth thev own set of terms by which they believed they could accomplish the pro~ect The City/BURA negotiating group concluded that each parties' terms were so far apart that further negotiations on the matter were unlikety to be fruitful Macerich concurred, and went to work on a plan for redeveloping Crossroads without public finanang Ownership The owner of the ma~ority of the Crossroads Mall site and the existing Crossroads Mall building is The Macerich Company of Santa Monica, California The south end of the site is owned by three family trusts, Macerich has a 57 year lease on this land In addition, The May Company owns the Foley's building and pad and Sears owns former Sears building and pad The City of Boulder owns no portion of the Crossroads Mall site Westcor Partners became a subsidiary of Macench in August 2002 Westcor developed Flatiron Crossing Mall in Broomfield Since last summer, Westcor has been preparing a redevelopment concept for Crossroads, with input from existing and prospective tenants s\plan\pb-~tems~nemos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 30 ATTACHMENT D CROSSROADS MALL CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT September 4, 2003 Staff has received a moderate level of public comments on the Crossroads Mall concept plan application as of the date of this summary The ma~ority of those commenting are favorable toward the current redevelopment plans for Crossroads Mall and are anxious to see the review process, demolition, and new construction occur swiftly Staff has also received inquuies about the proposed new tenants Below are excerpts of e-mails received and summaries of public comments Staff responded to all public comments and inquiries by e-mail or phone response »> "Heidi Gerstle" <GerstleCa?netzero net> 07/06/03 02 53PM »> Dear Ms Hanson and Mr Carlson, I am writing this email to offer a suggestion to be considered in the planning for ihe redevelopment of the Crossroads Mall Shopping Center I sent an email to BURA last year without any response, so perhaps my suggestion wasn't interes4ng, 6ut ~ust in case I'll try again Friends and family think iPs a good idea The need for additional sales tax revenue is generally accepted in Boulder It ~s not clear to me that developing Boulder Crossroads into a park, home un~ts and movie theaters will accomplish this My suggestion is that an IKEA store be a part of the redeveloped Crossroads commercial mix IKEA is an internationally based and managed furniture store and household supplies chain, selling attractive and reasonably priced furniture, household and kitchen rtems, kitchen cabinets, plants, fabrics for the home etc Currently the closest IKEA stores are Chicago, San Francisco, and Houston Fifty new stores over the next ten years are planned in additon to the 16 already existing in North America It appears that the existing stores have been commercially very successful IKEA stores are normally very large, and have very high levels of customer traffic and turnover They requve a large parking area More mformahon can be found at www ikea-usa com The store - would be conveniently located to generate business from Denver metro area. - would cater well to student needs - would not compete directly, as far as I know, with any other locally owned store in Boulder (most large furniture stores are in Denver) Aspects reqwring consideration include - Most new IKEA stores are operated under a franchise arrangement - IKEA could have certain design requirements which may be difficult to adapt to Crossroads needs and ob~ectwes I would be grateful if you would respond to this email Sincerely, Heidi Gerstle 3750 Lakebriar Dr Boulder, Colorado 80304 s\plan\pb-~tems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee 31 7/20/03 Dear Ms Hanson, My name is Kevin Hsu and I work for World Savings Bank in Oakland CA I was wondering if you could tell me if there has been a date set for the second step of the Crossroads Mall redevelopment process the Concept Plan Review and Comment On the timeline it says Early Summer and I was hoping you could be more specific World Savings currently operates a branch at Crossroads Mall and I am trying to keep updated on the status of the redevelopment process Thank you for your time and consideration Sincerely, Kevin Hsu Site Aqwsdion Analyst World Savings Bank 7/30l03 L¢, I was looking over the recent updates on the Crossroads Mall redevelopment pro~ect, and wondering if there were any opportunities left for multi-family housing~ I am the development manager for Carmel Companies, in Denver We are a local multi-family developer in the metro area (currently working with Continuum on the Bradburn pro~ect in Westminster, and ad~acent to the Villa Italia redevelopment in Lakewood) The Boulder market has always been intrigwng, but difficult to get into The mall pro~ect, however, offers a great opportunity to participate in an exciting new concept with the City I know that Westcor got the retail component of the pro~ect Just wondering if a residential component was still viable~ Any ideas would be helpful Our company website www carmeloartners net <http //www carmelpartners neU> Sally T Vecchio Carmel Companies 950 S Cherry Street, Suite 240 Denver, Colorado 80246 303-504-4200, ext 102 8/5/03 Attn Planning and Development Could you please provide me with the date and time of the public hearing for the Crossroads Mall Redevelopment We are the owners of the Whole Foods Shopping Center and would like to sit in on the hearing My contact information is below s\plan\pb-rtems~nemos\eh~crconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee 32 Thank you, Tricia Connaughton Leasing Representative Regency Centers Denver, CO Offce 303 300 5300 Direct 303 300 5341 Fax 303 691 6905 E-Mail tconnauahtonCn~repencvicenters com »> "Gabnela Kioupakis" <gabiksCa~worldnet.att net> 8/6/2003 1:28:37 PM »> good afternoon, I would like to be involved in the crossroads redevelopment pro~ect on some level, but am unsure how to proceed. Crossroads mall presents a huge opportunity to effect the flnancial, cultural, and (dare I say it) spiritual health/growth of the city Any information/adwce you can grve me is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your reply gabriela »> "Barry Northrop" <northropCcilemad com> 08/10/03 11 02 AM »> I know I won't go to any public meetings so here are some random thoughts The mall design, while important, takes a backseat to the retailers that will be there Afterall, this is a SHOPPING development YTD, after mortgage payments (PIT) are backed out, I have spent approximately $16,000 on goods and services Approximately 80% of this was spent OUTSIDE Boulder because that is where the low-cost retailers with better selection are I treat Boulder like a convenience store--get something qwck and pay a premium Some retailers I'd like to see Wal-mart (I've read about lower-impact compact urban models in NYC) IKEA Trader Joe's Thanks Glad things are moving ahead Barry Northrop Table Mesa, Boulder »> "AI Gasiewski" <AI GasiewskiCcilnoaa aov> 8/10/2003 11 02 37 PM »> Dear SidMadam, As residents of Boulder we would like to express our appreciation on the thought and patience being devoted to the Crossroads redevolopment Careful consideraUon m balancing commencal, residenhal, and public s\plan\pb-items\memos\eh~crconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 33 needs bodes well for the long-term viability of the parcel We would also like to express our interest in one ma~or potential use of the Crossroads site that is seemingly being overlooked in the redevelopment Boulder is arguably a potential world-class conference venue, as often cited by many of my colleagues in my own professional (both national and international) societies It has a unique mix of attractions for conference attendees, including restaurants, outdoor entertainment, green space, high-tech activity at both CU and the government laboratories, local high tech industry in computers, communications, biotech, aerospace, etc , In short, it is one of the most attractive conference venues in the U S west, and arguably more covenient that other such as Keystone and Aspen While it would not be appropriate given the size of Boulder to host very large conferences (i e, greater than -2500 attendees), events in the range of -500 to 2500 attendees would provide considerable revenue to the local economy without ma~or disruption to the community Consider the numbers each conference attendee typically spends -$200/day for room, board, and conference services A conference center holding 4-day meetings during say, 25 weeks of the year, with an average of 1000 attendees, would contribute $20M annually to the citys economy Additional revenue would be provided to, e g, local artsts who would be provided exposure to a class of visitors who are predominantly professional and able to purchase their works We would thus argue that a conference faality in the size range of 500-2500 people would be a valuable addihon to the Crossroads plan This size range falls within the capabilities of existing local hotels (up to 300-500 people, e g, the Millennium Harvest Hotel) and the Denver Convention Center (-2,000 to 20,000 or more attendees) It also would take unique advantage of Boulder's uniquely hospitable and en~oyable environment, and complement high-tech activities occurring at e g, CU, NOAA, NCAR, and within local industry We would hope that greater consideration for such a conference faality could be provided during upcoming negotiations on Crossroads Sincerely, AI Gasiewski Rachel Lum Albin J Gasiewski, Ph D Rachel C Lum, Ph D 756 6th St Boulder, CO 80302 (303)-938-0892 8/19/03 Dear Ms Hanson, I was reading over the latest city staff comments for the Boulder Crossroads pro~ect issued on August 8 I was hoping you could tell me where I could find a copy of the latest site plan submitted for city review by Westcor for the Crossroads Mall We do shll currently operate a Worlds Savings bank branch on the mall grounds and are attempting to moniter the situation that may require us to make changes to our existing branch s\plan\pb-rtems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 34 I know you are very busy and I thank you for your time in helping me moniter the situation I would appreciate any information you can give me Sincerely, Kevin Hsu Site Acqwsition Analyst World Sawngs Bank 8/20/03 Hello Liz, I've been following the new "outdoor urban village" style that Crossroads Mall may undertake I produce the Boulder Outdoor Cinema and wanted to explore the possibilities of incorporating an outdoor theater into the plans I've work closely with the Cherry Creek Mall District's outdoor movie program and they've had much success with that formula Let me know if this is even a possibility to explore further Sincerely, Dave Riepe Boulder Outdoor Cinema www boulderoutdoorcinema com 303-444-1351 8/27/03 Thanks Elizabeth, We are very interested in exploring Crossroads as host of the Boulder Outdoor Cinema We would easily bring an additional 1000 people per week through the village for this cultural event Not to mention the pubiicity surrounding it We look forward to talking with someone Where and what time are the public hearings? Best regards, Dave Riepe Boulder Outdoor Cinema www boulderoutdoorcinema com 303-444-1351 Summary of additional public comments • Joseph Lukas, President of Nor-Mar, Inc , wrote a letter regarding his concerns about the impact of the Crossroads concept plan on the access to the Burger King restaurant on 28'" Street (see attached letter) s\plan\pb-uems\memos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 35 • Bill Reynolds, of W W Reynolds Companies, owner of the Sunrise Center shopping center at the northeast corner of 30'h Street and Arapahoe Avenue, has expressed concern that the anchor "big box" on Parcel 3 is oriented so that its back faces 30~h Street, including a ma~or loading area • The owner of the Golden Lotus restaurant on 28'h Street at the north boundary of Crossroads has expressed concern about the proposed pad building ad~acent to his site • Lynn Segal South end of mall should be condemned by BURA, housing is shown on the north end of the site, while it was always envisioned for the south end, consider impact fees on new retail • Bob Canestaro Would the 40,000 square foot grocery store ~ust move from somewhere else I Boulder~ To add another grocery store is a poor use of space and a bad idea s\plan\pb-~temsUnemos\ehxrconcept9403 pbm AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 36 8/26/03 Nor-Mar, Inc. A FRANCHISEE OF BURGER KING CORP 6550 Gunpazk Dr Boulder, CO 80301 303-581-0300 FAX303-581-0686 Peter Pollack C~ty of Boulder Plannmg and Development Serv~ces Center, 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO, 80306 Re Crossroads redevelopment and Burger Kmg #414 access on 28`~ Street Dear Mr Pollacl., ~ i r. ~^_C i'~ i=' f / ~~)~r-----`_ ~,'~ ~ 'I I^ , -'~ I'~ ~ ~ ~ ;= ~ , u~~ ~ ~ , ---~,~~ ~ -'/ - ~3 ;,aysz I have reviewed the plans to rewta6ze the Crossroads Mall on the Macench websrte and am enthused w~th the prospects that this plan bnngs. As a busmess owner on 28'~ St , 1 must brmg to your attent~on a deta~l that may have been overlooked by Macerich Thetr plan shows the closmg off of my restaurants' only mgress from 28°' Street The removal of this access pomt would put us at an extreme d~sadvantage to the other busmesses and restaurants on 28°i Street Almost to the pomt of bemg landlocked I also beLeve this would adversely affect the value to the landlords In fact, McDonalds has 2 mgress and 2 egress pomts the last time I counted [ request that my only mgress from 28°i rematn unchanged if I should address these concerns to another party, please let me know Thanks for your cons~deranon Smcerely, / f =i~ U~(/~ Joseph Lukas President Nor-Mar, Inc Cc Boulder Urban Renewal Authonty 1300 Canyon Blvd Boulder, CO 80302 Boulder Crossroads C/O Macench / Mike Busenhart 1600 28th Sfreet, Su~te #258 Boulder, CO 80301 Burger Kmg Corp C/o He~leen Bell 5505 Blue Lagoon Drrve M~ami, FL, 33126 Agenda Item # _~f~ Page # ~ ' A TT A !''~iMFNT F Agenda Item # Page # ~3`~ Attachment F Agenda Item # Page # , ~ y Photo Examples of BVRC Architecture Agenda Item # Page # ` ~' Agenda Item # Page #~ Agenda Item # Page #~ ~ V , , ~~ er ~ ~~~. , , _ ~i~ >.; ~ i _ +~' ._ , , . i ,~,,,,.e..~.~w,~,.~..~ 1 , r+'".. ~ ~ - ~ ' l; ~ !°a~~h~ _ ~A1~ ._r_- tJ ~~ ~~ Y'\iCA 3laplr~un Fuiurr ~ ~ ir ~~k'x- -~ ~ B~illi~dd . ~ Nuulde~ ! ~ I r, ~ ``tO~,1 ~ ~ , ` ~,.i~~'' „~ l ranyil ~ ~. M`Y1~..... ~~l-~ , ~..: Fillwkr . ~ ~ ~ ~ A~@~ North 28th 8treet,r~IP:'''.~•- ~ ...,._ ~_. ~m, _„~. .~ c '~ ; See detail sheek for ~ ate, B aupro p,~i.~e;"~ ~ . a ~ ~~~„ .~ """ r~ conne~t ~1S~+rrtfiat plan. ..a alternatives for t is ,~ ~C~,~t~,,, ,.~ } ~4i,~i~. ~ area ...''''~a `p ~~'" r~~a~ ~ i ...-'' •;t. ~i~e~ ~"' ! ... n1ovie ~ l•""'„y """"' . `~ ~ ~ r~ '1 I~catcr ..~^' ~ ~ ~ `r, ~~~ ~'~ ..." '"~ ~~ p `~,` `W,,. ~ -.- '~ : --.' j ~n ",~ .,~, ,'.. "'' '"~ II d6,, "'~. C~~t ~, ' Mr. ~ n ~ tu~~r~a1'~'~~ ..,y; r' ~,,, .' '.~.- .~'. ~ `'x '°~ ~s. ,°~~ ' ~'~.,,r•,.""' •; ( ` ~.:""~".«~°~"~'~~ ~ ~I ~G .. ~ '"~~ -~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~;~, .~ W~„ .,....... _ I Z'~a ` '.. I v M"'^r" ~7.. ~" ~ k~ _ ir~ `\ f ~ ~' ~ ."' "f~t ~~~t'~ . `"'a ' :` ` ~~~ ! 'Iurgct ' C'hryslrr ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~' ~ f' ~ P~a ~~ ~ ;;;~ Additior7at v l~icular cannections, ~ Iw ` ' °'~""'~ , ~' to a level ca~,s~sc~nt w~cr, tn~ ,' i~ ~ ~: ~ti~~,,,~y~R ' Crossroads ~lall Redevelopn~ent ' ~ ~p I Framework, i antici ated in this ~~h`~~`> ia' ~,:~:;~ ~ P ~ sports 4C/l ( ~ souod higt~lighted r~develnpment area ~~ ~ 4 , lruck ~ Wxlnut(:urJcns '~ ~ ._ .... ,~.., \ ~ E .M.e ...w. ~ .~ M ~= ~Y .~~. _.~ ..,W. . " _ . ~,,,~,i ~ ._~ r1lI1f,1~:6S~tre s • :'"~'~ • ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~rt ~ .~ ~ ~.,..~,. ~ ~t ' ; ` i i ~ ~, ' i ~.:. ~~.~"'~ ,; . n...~;.~......~. .~~....,.w..a , .~ ~ , ~ ` I D) Easl-wcst M.U. I " ~~ "`~~;w~ 1""'~~ 1 ~~ I Pdlh propused Cc~ be ( Folcy's :~ ~ • ~ Yarking .~ ~'~ ~~j~ ),'cl ~ 31n~cturc ti~urket ;. ~ I L' - -~ 1 ~' tur the ` Pluva cUuntad's S uxre _. _______ '' ' ~ I y ~j 1 nna ; R) N S Sccond~ry _ I ~ ~ ~ i ~j C anncclion ~ ; .~._Y... ~ , t ~ Hurgnr h9ng ~~ ~~ro 3Uth titr , propOSed lo bc ~~ , I r'e~ ~ rc toved ,,,,,,,,..,..-~ : ~ Crussruads A) E3ikc Lanes ' »~u ~ ,"'- f :' ._ ,~ .:..:.......... j ` 1~'nii~t Swvipgs propo~ed tu be ~ removed ~, e ~ ` ~ ~ ,huiire ~ ' /^'?~ ~ (intri ('m~nl~ I 'an un [3ouieva ° ' Y ~ . . . i tt~~~i~u~~~ ~ ~..;. . . ,. ,.~ _..,_. :.;<.:;.,.._ ~..:...: ( ~.. "~` ,~. ~~:,.~.. ~ 1 ~~,. ~•~~ _.~ ~ ~ ~l i ~ .................. . . ;~_ _- i ~`~J~ ~ ~ ~~~ , I ; ~ ~ i ~;' ~ ~ ~ c~~~~~,~i-sn ~ ~ ~i, r, , F„~,,,~ 1 4 ~~. _ I ~.,.~. ~ ,. ~ 1al ucnanre ~ ~~~ -r ~ RedC~clopm~nt~ ~,,,, ~ „ ~ t I ....~",."~"^w"°'..;~• ( 1 ""'" ; ~ W „ ~ , ~ E) M.U. Pathx I - ~• ~ ;Vi4r~~iu .y ' 'S I , ~ ' prupotied to be ~ ~ Ck ..... ........~.,. ~ ~[ Nufcl - ........ .r ..l ~ ~ ~~ t' , 1 .: I , rcahgned ,..,, I ~ .'nw ~~ ~ ~ , ' .'....,••. iSufCal~ , npcrs ~ j C} N-S Sei:ondary ~` Yilla ~c ~ ( ~ ~ ~.~,r G ~ ' Connecticm t;ru~~ sy c~~~rnposed to 6e ls~ak I ~ t ~ r..,,,1 , ~toved g~ ._._,. _~.__. i ~. __ __,wj __~ ~.W. ,_. Y~,,.-_....__ --- i.+. r\ I fU i ~ ~ _. - ~ e~ c ~ .,` ~ ~, ~ ---, ,~ , ( ~ I~< ` - . 1 ~ ~ ~.~. ~ _.._. . ... . ~ ~.~~ ,~ . ~ .~~(~ . ~; ~., ~. ~~... . .. ~ ~.aw csa ~.. n.. ~.. w~rr or.: ~~w. ~av~~".w~`':c j.~ ~ ~..::r. ~- y~ N w~~ ` ~ ~ -+'uv' ;,i.. ~ -..~..:i ~.~{ ~.:.. - ~~..:... -W-:. ~ ~ ' ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ \ , Barrel ~ Yloliun ~ '/ ~ r~.,.~...,.~ .~ ~ H - ~~ ~f Ilnusc .~ ...,~...,_J ... - ......._._._ ~ , .}_-...__.__-... . _ ~ i ~,. ~ ~I a i~; . + ~ ~; ~ Scup ~ 1lanuetilr~ct I ; .i p ~' ~r ('~rpr,nt[~r ...~. I , ~ . .....s .... ..................... ~ i ~ y.6:,...~..,..,,.,,. ...,~ ry 1'urk p~.~r ,..~~~. ..~r` ~.~ 7 ~y, ~ ~~ tiaftwdy ~ i ~ ~ ~ , ( M ' ~I ' ~. , I ~''~, . ' .~ ...I.. ~ ~ ~ ... ,.w,r~~.~-~~..~,~~i vs..~... .. . . ~i'r~"~. ~ ~ . .... .,_., ~ ( ~ ~.~ ._..:W~_.___._. i ~~;Q .,..~I ~. f° ~!: ~ ~ ~ir~a i ~ !t~' ~~ ~ ~: lti0c.nium ~J' ~~ ~' I E TJ7 y L nicrrsity uf t'ulur~Ao ~'' ~ ; : ~ Hotel ~ . I~~ ! 4 1 ~ !~ ~ Rcscarrh Ccntcr ~, ~/ f ~~ ~:~ I~ ( `s ~' ~1 xnd M'.ast l'a~puz y~ l ' rb ~ L~. ~ .+ /' ~ ~ ` ~-ror ~~-~l~uurdrvt'vu~iY j ~ , i6.~. ...~. ~,^, -"'~ '~' eµ ~--~ rY e ~'~"`.~.n ~r~..~r~.r"'~.r^' ,~,` i~ ~ r ! ~ ~~ flauldR~ '~•,.~( ~ il, i ~ ~''\'V,~ A ' 4 J// ~' ( 1 ~~N ,. . . ~k~..~l/ . .r, +~~~~~ 9~~~• ~ ~~ ii th . . ... . _ . . _..-!'.. _ - . . - EiUlililt~i VHlltry R~"~niurd ~-~~r.ui~,`r tiu~diilNry ~,~~;ellll I 1~,: G.>Iluwiu~,~ u~iU;~ri~ will i~~e lurltiri >[i.iiJir.~1 ir~ i;uritrix: ~:~t !he ei~~urc~ i~riF,aihut; ~..uiu~l~~i ui If~e &l~~U} ~~fr.~i li~;it~ F~~Isuin Iti 4b'cy;v~r~w Rciauu~; I~~~„r;iil~ 1'rupu~s~<i I~,i~'tli{) 1 1-xistuiy rn~~~~1w~~y wdh inulU-use+ F~~iihs on Ihs r~~~nh ~an~~ sui,lh S~dH:S i~f lhr.: plrei~l ~ ,~~~ { „.~ ~.~ 7(;~,nninu~:~~s til~, l~~ive l l;+nc^, ~itl~, hirycltr l~u~e~, i..:( 3 Dplibr~ twr~, ~~lus ;iur ur ~wiiG,i , at all ni rert'~u~ n~l~rrtir«:liuf~ti 4 I)exli~ali~a buslliikr~/nqhl lurn ~~r~ly IanH's UtF r..i~W'r. ~,r;nidu~ '; l.,i..~Y:P,~.o:u.i. ~.. . I ....Ywx.~rw~w« .. ............, .~.. ~... ...Y. i~i~iii~~H..n]~.~.~ I li .......i.~..~ ~ ~ ~~ .. ..~i.i~l .~I,...i.~i ,i~.., i.~i I ~I '.Siii'.~ ~.. 1'vll ,. .,~ i ~ ~~ i ~ IiuulJrt ~allr~ It«iun;~l ( ~nirr ,,, ., ~.. _..~. ..,_ ~~~.. ~ ~ ,, ~~, f„r ,,. I I;u1.~wlYUUun l uiut~'iti~~n: I'lan ,.,,, ~ ~~.,,,, ~, ~ ~ ,~. ( I~'t~~lyct '•I. ~'I II I' M"'~ S I~ ~~, ~r "~,~ . ~ ~~~ ('~>nl~~r~~h~~rl~iv~ M~iE~ .;,,~~;~~ ~ _, n . o . Fi~urc I ~ x ~~~ o ~ , , ,. ~ ~ ~,,,,~ ~ z y ~ AGI~~M)A 1"fLNI #~.~/~~_I'AGE_~~j_ ATTACHMENT H ~ ~ z I~+ V ~ .. C z ~ i ~ > n Cr ~ ~ ' ` i ~' ~ } ~ ` _. '~ ~~ ~ __ ,; ~ ~ ~ , ^_,~, ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ t ~ ~.p.q. J~ ~ ,{„ ' ~ ' 0 ~ ~ , M ~ ~' I ~S _~., ~' ~ D> East-weSt ~ ~ `' ~ B) N-s Secondary . ~ ~ y ~ ~ ; ! M.U. Aath a ? ~ Connection proposed ~ ~ ,~,. ,~> ~ ~' , ~~ c~ j ~ j t ; pmposed m be ~ ta be removed ~~ f-' ?` ~*'' i~ ~ ~ removed ' ~'"a'~ .- --° ~` t~ -. ._..1G1~k,- Sit'eef ~" ~" _.~..~,r_~.~ - - q _ ~ ,~,..~. - .._ ~._.,~ , _ _ . _ ~._y _.__:- ~,~: : ._ ._.~ ~~._:_ ^ ~ ._:;~,~_,_ ~r,.,,, ---:_.~..~,___..- _ _ 1 _ ~.,.. -~. . . . ~'. , _ - ~ ; _ : 'V~ + ~ ~ ,- I __- ~'~ ~ - . - - ~ ~ Y d i ~ ~'~RF~J'&~ ~`I ~ ~ . ~ . . 1i~ ~~ ~' . r ~ :~~5lf.,.'W.iu~eeicel5~5xc'^i ,-~4's~A' .~rt4G~i.'~ . • . ~._. ~ . i . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ; ~~,I j , , ~ _ ~ ~ ; ~;~, ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ - ~~~~ ~~ '~~ :7~ ,i ~ ,~ ~ ~ ,' I 1 ~~~... ! ~', ~`~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ;i ~ P4,~N~ ; ~ ~ . ~ e ``~~ ~ ~ ~ "-'~ ;_ ~~~ ~ ~~ , `' ~~~ ;;~ ,w~r'c~: ~ I '` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~' _ ; . ~ i ~~ ~ .. '-., . 1 ~! --._.. _.: . . - , '` _~ _1-^___-- ~ 7 ~ I ~- ..~ /1 _ , ._- , . ..-~ .. ._ _______" ~, °~ y - --- -- -. - _ - _F . ~ : .~ _ : . , ;~ -~,, ' . --- -----~--- ~~~ ' ~ r ~ _,,.~-a ~.:- r~r,~ :~- _ ~ ; ~ ~;: : ° ~ r. ~ ~~,~ ~ _ . ~~~~ ~~~~~~f ~ ~ , ~(1JP`st~p - ~F ~ ~' ~ ',~~' ' ~:, :~-;' ~G ~i -~ G ~, ~ ~`~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ Q ~ ' ' \~, ~' ~ ~1 ~ ~ - --~ A ~,, ~~ ,' ~ ~~ ~ . 1~`` .~~~ .'.,~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~ :%~f ~1,,;~.~,. ~ ~ . ~ ~ o Y ¢; S~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ I~~~l ~ ~ ` ~_ ~ ;~~ ~° ~.~.+~ ~ e~"~, a~ + ~ ~ : u ~ ~ , 2 g ~,~f1~ '`~.~P~ ~ ' ? i ill ~'~ _-_H~' =~ - ---- -. . ~ ~ -- ~~ ~-~ ~ ~, ~ L ! ~ ! ~~ ~~ ~_ -o_..__ ~_~ -~ ~-t. ~~ ~ ~ ~ r -~; 1 ~' F _ , ~ ~ : i, `~ ~ t ~ 4e~ ; Ib~~ . 1~~`J\, ~ ~~ `' ,~~.~:~~ . - _ _ ~ .~~._ :~~~: ZBth Stree~- i; ~ ~ A) Bike Lanes proposed ro be removed :' / / _ ~/ r J ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ r ~ ~ ` F ~ t~i R~'. ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ t ~k ~~ 4, ,~ _- - ~R` ;~ ~ 4 L ~~ ; ~F~a~~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ - ~ ' [ ( ~ . . . .. _ . .. . .._. _ ..... ~ I ., ~ ! i , ~ ~ _ _ : '_ ~ , ~_ ~~ - ~ ~ . _._,_ ~t .- ~. ~._ S I ~ \ ,. Y ~ ~ .~-~~~ ~~ ~ ~ -~`_' ~ . ~ . __ . . _ ~__ a _ ` ~ ~ ~: ^ ~ .- ` z - C) h•5 Secondary `~ I~ q~ i~ . . ' ~ l Connecdon proposed ~ ~" //vv ~ ,~ , W ~'~ ta be removed , E ~ ~ ~~ecssRa~~s M~u srr~ T,?~NS~o~rrorv P~~iv f~t 1JGG" Note: Scaie has ~een altered to #it nage. ~~~ ~c sc~ ~~ce r,scc a,coc lraupprrfa!%m; leye+~ f ,~ ,~ - - ~~~~.o ~,a»~, - - tre~?~ ra+.i/m~ taw~c~hr.~ M.rA%~cf<!k ilmta!w!Nae,~mt.:. ~ ~ rroiw*R~7,6 ^~ T~~ _,~ ~ sr~w~~,^y _ _ _ _ _ ~ i2~+s~.PVAr l mm'ra/~yxl M.U. Paths ~posed to bz ~ TRANSPOR7A~ION P(AN Agenda Item #,~ Page # y ~i LAND USE REGULATION SECTIONS RELATED TO HEIGHT MODIFICATION Excerpt of Site Review Application Requirements 9-4-ll(g) Hei~ht ModificaUon Appl~cahon Tlie following additlonal applicahon requu•enrentr applv af the development proposal tncludes a request for the ntodtftcatton of the pei mitted herght (1)Prelimmary buildmg plans mcludmg sketches and elevations illustratmg the proposed buildmg or pole and mdicatmg how the height was calculated, (2)For developments m the RB1-E, RB2-E, RB3-E, RB1-X, RB2-X, and RB3-X distncts, a model, at a scale of no less than one mch equals thirty feet, of the proposed buildmg and al] buildmgs and property w~thm one hundred feet of the proposed pro~ect, (3)For developments m the RB1-E, RB2-E, RB3-E, RBI-X, RB2-X, and RB3-~ d~stricts, an ~llustration of the proposed buildmg shown from street level demonstratmg the pedestnan view, mcludmg, without lim~tat~on, a perspective, computer model, or photographic montage, (4)A shadow analysis as mdicated m Appendix "E" to this title that shows the shadow cast by a thirty-five-foot buildmg located at the required setback and the shadow cast by the proposed buildtng, (5)A l~st of the height of each pnncipal buildmg located or known to be proposed or approved w~thm one hundred feet of the proposed pro~ect, (6)A wrrtten statement and drawmgs which descr~be the way m which the proposal accominodates pedestnans, mcluding, wtthout limitat~on, uses proposed for the ground level, percent of transparent matenal at the ground level, and signage and graphics, and (7)A detailed plan showmg the useable open space and a wntten statement of how ~t serves the pubhe mterest. Excerpt of Site Review Criteria - Section 9-4-11(i)(2) (F) BuildmQ Desien L~vabtlitv and Relahonship to the Exisring or Proposed SurroundmQ Area• (i) The bu~ldmg herght, mass, scnle, onentat:on, and configuration are compat:ble with the exi.rtrng character of the area or the character estahltshed by an adopted plan for the area, (~i) The height of bu~ldmgs zs an genera! proportion to the height of exTStzng buzldrngs and the proposed or pro~ected heights of approved burld:ngs oi approved plans fo~ the immediute area; (iii) Tl~e or~entatton of butldangs mtnzmezes shadows on and blocktng of vicews fi~om ad~ucent p~ operttes, (~v) If the character of tl~e area ~s adenttftable, the p~•o~ect as made compatzhle by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscapang, signs, and leghttng, (v) Butldtngs present an attractrve sn~eetscape, mcorporate arch~tectural and site desrgn elements appropnate to a pedestnan scale, and prov:de for the safery and conven:ence of pedestrrans, (v~) To the extent practical, the pro~ect prov~des public amemties and planned public fac~lit~es, (vu) For residential pro~ects, the pro~ect assists the commumty m producmg a vanety of housmg types, such as multrfamily, townhouses, and detached smgle-family umts as well as mixed lot s~zes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of umts, (viii) For resident~al pro~ects, noise is mmimized between umts, between bwldmgs, and from either on-srte or off-srte external sources through spacmg, landscapmg, and buildmg materials, (ix) A l~ghtmg plan is provided wh~ch augments secunty, energy conservat~on, safety, and aesthetics, (x) The pro~ect mcorporates the natural environment mto the design and avoids, mmimizes, ar mingates impacYs to naYural systems; (xi) Cut and fi11 are mmimized on the site, Yhe des~gn of buildmgs conforms to the natural contours of the land, and the site design mmimizes erosion, slope mstabihty, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and m~mmizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards Excerpt of Section 9-4-11(p) Amendments to Approved Site Plans: (2) No proposal to modify, structurally enlarge or expand that portion of a buildmg over the permitted hetght will be approved unless the s~te plan is amended and approved m accordance wrth the procedures prescribed by this sect~on for approval of a buildmg above the permitted height BUILDING HEIGHT OPTIONS September 18, 2003 A. How height is defined B. What standards? C. How height is reviewed 1. By bwlding 2. By building envelope 3. By area (location, % of site) 4. For site 5. By use 1. Guidelines 1. Staff 2. Code standards 2. Planning Board 3. None 3 DDAB CITY OF BOULDER " Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P O Box 791, Bouider, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop net City of Boulder Development Review Committee MEETING AGENDA 1739 Broadway, Room 401 8:30 a.m. 9/4/2003 PROJECT DISCUSSIONS NEW ADR's FOR THE WEEK OF 9/2/2003 Applicant Name Review Type Address Case Number Case Status Case Manager JEFF SHERER ADR2003-00092 ACT Gary Kretschmer Antennae for•W ireless Telecommunication (9-3 4-17) 1089 13TH ST CATHERINE BLICHFELDT ADR2003-00093 Setback Variance (9-3 6-2) 1104 JUNIPER AV GARTH BRAUN ADR2003-00094 Minor Modification Simple (9-4-11(0)) 2014 PEARL ST ACT Bnan Holmes ACT Brent Bean COMMENTS for TRACK 33 ~ Applicant Name Case Number Case Status Case Manager Development Name Review Type Address JOHN KING No Development Named 5815 ARAPAHOE RD COBURN DEVELOPMENT EARL HOUSE 2429 BROADWAY MICHAEL TURRA 6304 SPINE 6304 SPINE RD LUR2003-00068 ACT Brent Bean S~te Review LUR2003-00070 ACT Don Durso Use Review TEC2003-00026 ACT Stormwater Plan, Stormwater Report, Final Landscaping, Final Site Plan Don Durso KATHRYN BARTH LUR2003-00066 ACT Brent Bean No Develqpment Named Use Review 2045 WALNUT ST COBURN DEVELOPMENT TEC2003-00025 ACT Brent Bean STUDIO MEWS Final Architecture, Final Landscaping, Final Site Plan 1490 ZAMIA AV NEW SUBMITTALS - Track 35 If you are interested in reviewing one of the following pro~ects, yet have not received the DRC information packet by Friday, 9/5I03, please contact Diane Lopez at 303-441-3136 Applicant Name Case Number Case Status Case Manager Development Name Review Type Address BRITTON HOLDINS, LLC 0 LINDEN LINDEN DR W WAYMAN No Development Named 1690 38TH ST STEVE DUREN No Development Named 1690 38TH ST RAMON ROTH No Development Named 1641 9TH ST 2 JOHN KING 4667 BROADWAY 4667 N BROADWAY LUR2003-00075 ACT Don Durso Annexation ! Initial Zoning LUR2003-00072 ACT Varda Blum Floodplain Variance Review LUR2003-00073 ACT Varda Blum Floodplam Vanance Rewew LUR2003-00071 ACT Varda Blum Floodplain Vanance Rewew LUR2003-00067 ACT Don Durso Site Review LOUISE PADDEN No Development Named 575 EUCLID AV MARKEL HOMES, INC DAKOTA RIDGE VILLAGE 0 N FOOTHILLS ITY TEC2003-00027 ACT Robert Myers Lot Line Ad~ustment TEC2003-00020 R1 Brent Bean Utdity Plan, Stormwater Plan, Stormwater Report, Final Architecture, Final Landscaping, Final Site Plan VIVIAN LEWIS No Development Named 3763 SPRING VALLEY RD MARK YOUNG CRESTVIEW EAST # 1 LUR2003-00062 R1 Robert Myers Minor Subdiv~sion Review LUR2003-00069 ACT Brent Bean Annexation / Initial Zoning 2020 UPLAND AV