Loading...
5C - Public hearing and consideration of Site Review, Use Review and Preliminary Plat LUR2007*-00016CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 19, 2007 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: July 6, 2007) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Site Review, Use Review and Preliminary Plat #LUR2007-00016 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Change/Rezoning #LUR2007-00017 for the Washington Village project located at 1215 Cedar Avenue. The proposal includes redevelopment of the existing Washington Elementary School site as a mixed-use co-housing community consisting of 40 dwelling units, approximately 7,100 squaze feet of commercial/office space, and over 9,000 square feet of common facilities on the three-acre site zoned both Residential High Density Two (RH-2) and Residential Low Density One (RL-1). These applications follow a city-initiated Request for Proposals (RFP) process and two Concept Plan reviews (#LUR2006-00031 and #LUR2006-00092). Applicant: Wonderland Hill Development Co. Owner: Boulder Valley School District REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Karl Guiler, Planner OBJECTIVE: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion -Can the Planning Board support the proposed BVCP land use designation change andrezoning? -Are the requested setback and minimum lot size modifications and the proposed height of 41 feet for the Broadway Building appropriate? -Is the proposed parking reduction of 52.5% consistent with the required criteria? -Is the proposed project consistent with the Site and Use Review criteria? 4. Planning Boazd take action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny. Aeenda Item # SC Pa¢e # 1 SUMMARY: Proposal: 1) SITE REVIEW: Request to construct a total of 40 residential units on a nearly 3-acre site. More specifically, 34 residential units and common facilities are proposed in a co-housing type community on the high density portion of the site along Broadway, and 6 single-family residences are proposed on the low densiry portion along 13~h Street. The multi-family units and wmmon facilities would be located in the existing school building and in four new buildings on the site, consistent with the Concept Plan reviewed by Planning Boazd on June 15, 2006 and December 7, 2006 and by City Council on September 19, 2006. This request requires Planning Board approval to allow the following: • A reduction in the minimum lot area per dwelling unit in the RH-2 zone pursuant to Section 9-8-3(d), B.R.C. 1981; • A reduction in the minimum lot sizes for the RL-1 lots be-ow the 7,000 square foot minimum pursuant to Section 9-2-14(c), B.R.C. 198] [as included in the most updated Land Use Code; previous version had the specific section unintentionally deleted]; • A pazking reduction of 52.5%; • Modification to the setbacks Far the development; and, • A height modification to permit the Broadway building at a height of 41 feet (from the lowest point within 25 feet of the structure, not from grade), where 35 feet is the required limit for the zoning district. 2) USE REVIEW: Request to permit approximately 7,148 square feet of office/commercial space on the ground floor of a new building along Broadway and community facilities on the site. 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT: Preliminary consideration of a proposed subdivision of the existing 130,709 squaze foot (3 acre) lot into a total of seven lots. Six of the lots would front on 13'" Street and range in size from 5,576 square feet to 6,020 square feet, and would ultimately accommodate single family residences on the low density residential portion of the site. The seventh lot would front on both Broadway and Cedar, be roughly 93,425 square feet (2.14 acres) in size, and accommodate the multi-family, community facilities, and office/commercial uses on the high density residential portion of the site. 4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE/REZONING: Proposal to change the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Public/Semi-Public to High Density and Low Density Residential to correspond to the boundary proposed in the rezoning, and described as follows; request to move the existing zoning boundary between RH-2 and RL-1 approximately 48 feet feet eastward. This movement is proposed to encompass the multi-family residential units along the west side of the proposed alley on the site, and to create an appropriate transition from higher density on the west portion of the site to low density on the east portion of the site. No increase in A¢enda Item # SC Paee # 2 density is rec~uested as a result of the rezoning. This rec~uest requires City Council approval. 5) VESTED RIGHTS: Request for creation of vested rights pursuant to Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981. Project Name: Washington Village (formerly entitled Cedar Commons) Location: 1215 Cedar Avenue Size of Tract: ~ acres (130,709 square feet) Zoning: The subject property is zoned High Density Residential, (RH-2) (roughly l.7 acres along Broadway) and Low Density Residential (RL-1) (roughly 1.3 acres) along 13th Street. Comprehensive Plan: The current Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designation is Public/Semi-Public. KEY ISSLIES: 1. Can the Planning Board support the proposed BVCP land use designation change and rezoning? 2. [s the requested setback and minimum lot size modifications in the RH-2 and RL-1 zones, and the proposed height of 41 feet for the Broadway Building appropriate? 3. Is the proposed parking reductian of 52.5% consistent with the required criteria? 4. Is the proposed project consistent with the Site and L1se Review criteria? BACKGROUND Existing Site/Site Context: Agenda Item # SC Pa~e # 3 The subject property is bounded by Broad~~~ay to the w~est, Cedar Avenue to the south. 13`" Street to the east, and a miY of multi-family and single-family development to the north. It consists of 3 acres and is currently occupied by the existing vacant Washington Elementary School. In 2003, the school was closed bv the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) due to school consolidation. In general, surrounding high density residential uses are concentrated along Broadway, and predominantly single-family residential development exists one block back to the east and west of Broadway. Further. office uses are intermixed w~ith high density residential along this stretch of Broadway. Aside from the North Boulder Recreation Center, most development to the immediate north is single-family residential and agricultural, with some commercial intermixed. To the south is Bc~ulder C~mmunity Hospital and Community Plaza. which is a community center that includes a variety of higher intensity retail. commercial, and residential development. The site is located along a portion of the Broadway corridor that allows liigh density residential development, but is a transitional area where the higher intensity uses (e.g., commercial, institutional) of the Commtinity Plaza area transition to the lower intensity residential uses in north ~3oulder (before reaching the higher density areas past Violet Avenue). Per a land survey submitted by the applicant, roughly ~7% of the site is zoned RH-2, ~~hereas roughly 43% of the site is zoned RL-l. ~ Q//+ L , ~ L V ~ ~ - C: J T Elder-Av ~ c 0 ~ in m Y ~ De-wood•Av ~ "' RL--7 -' 1215 CMar Pve ~ ~ Figure 2- Zoning around 1215 Cedar (outlined) Agenda Item # SC Pa~e # 4 The original school building was constructed in 1903 and is considered a building of historical value. The original building consists of roughly 18,300 square feet, and iYs more contemporary additions total roughly I 1,600 squaze feet. An existing library building accounts for roughly 1,500 square Feet. The remainder of the rectangular site is used for open space, ballfields and parking. Review Process/Project History: In 2006, the City initiated a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to redevelop the Washington Elementary School site. The intent of the process was to work with the Boulder Valley School District, a private developer, and the community in creating a development that would meet City Council goals for the site. During the RFP process, all candidates, other than the applicant Wonderland Hill Development Co., withdrew. After review by a City Council-appointed Community Review Panel, Landmark Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB), and Planning Board of two Concept Plans (see applications #LUR2006-00031 and #LUR2006-00092), the City Council recommended Wonderland Hill Development Co. as the prefened purchaser of the site to the Boulder Valley School District on September 19, 2006. BVSD has since entered into agreement with the applicant, and to ensure that the project would retain the communiry benefits outlined by the City Council, a Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction (See Attachment G), which appears to be met by this proposal, has been drafred. This document is to ensure the following: . The percentage of affordable housing units proposed on the property at the RFP/Concept Plan stage would be retained; • The project would provide at least 24 handicapped accessible units; • Matures trees, as described in the covenant, would be preserved; • The project would have at least 7,500 square feet of space for community uses, and; • Viewlines to the historic school would be maintained from Broadway; The Planning Board last reviewed the project at its December 7, 2006 meeting. At that meeting, the Board was generally suppor[ive of the plan and the requested pazking reduction, though there were concerns about the mass of the Broadway Building; its perceived "institutional" appearance and relative impermeability; the functionality of the open space in the southwest corner of the site by Broadway and Cedar; the necessity of the on-site commercial uses; and the potential for lazge incompatible homes on the east side of the site. Staff has attached the minutes from that meeting (See Attachment H) for the Board's review. The subject application has been refined to address the issues of massing and open space etc., as required by Site Review, to assist the Board relative to these issues. The plan, otherwise, retains many similarities to the Concept Plan submittaL For instance, the proposed number of units, amount of wmmercial space, the extent of the parking reduction, and the requested movement of the zone lines are the same. Further, the general arrangement and location of buildings on the site is synonymous with the previous Concept Plan. Project Description: General Overview: A total of 40 dwelling units are proposed; thirty-four (34) of which would be co-housing units located on the high-density portion of the property and six (6) single-Family on APenda Item # SC Paee # 5 the low density portion on the eastern side. This number of units requires Planning Boazd approval per Section 9-8-3(d), Additional Density, B.RC. 1981 for the minimum lot size per unit in the RH-2 district to be reduced below 3,200 square feet. The by-right amount would be 27 dwelling units. Approximately 7,148 square feet of commercial/office space and over 9,000 square feet allocated to resident common facilities and space for community events and classes are also proposed. This requires Planning Board approval of a Use Review application. The site would be subdivided such that the co-housing units would be on one lot and sepazated from the individual single-family lots by a shared access drive (functioning like an alley). A preliminary plat has been submitted showing this configuration. (Note: Starf is not recommending approval of the preliminary plat at this time, since revisrons are required. Pz~rsuant to a condition qf approval, a revised plat would have to be submitted for staff review. ) Access/Pazkin¢: The property would be accessed off of Cedar Avenue in two locations through a shared access drive. One segment of the drive would enter the site just to the west of the school building and traverse the proposed plaza/tumaround area before descending into a subterranean parking garage under the Broadway Building. The drive would continue and loop under the North Building before emerging in the northeast comer of the site by the bicycle parking/trash enclosure. The drive would then turn south, providing access to the East Building, the Cedar Avenue Duplex, and the single-family residences before reconnecting with Cedar. A total of 66 parking spaces are provided on the RH-2 site. This is less than the 139 spaces required per the zoning district. Therefore, a parking reduction of 52.5% is requested. Forty- three (43) spaces would be allotted to residential uses, where RH-2 would require ll 6 spaces. Twenty-three (23) spaces would be allotted to the commercial component, which meets the required number of spaces. These spaces would also serve evening usage of the community facilities. Architectural and Site Desien: The architectural design of the buildings are eclectic with the Broadway Building drawing more from the school with its usage of brick as compared ro the more contemporary nature of the interior buildings. The basic anangement of buildings, drives, and open spaces on the site are generally identical to those presented to the Planning Board and Ciry Council through the RFP/Concept Plan review process. However, more information regarding the landscaping and usage of the open spaces created by the interior courtyard and the "park" space in the southwestern comer have been realized. Existine Historic School building: The existing school building would be preserved and landmarked through the City's Landmark process. A Landmazks Board recommendation of approval to landmark the building and a portion of the site (as shown on Figure 3- next page) has already been referred to the City Council at their July ] 0, 2007 meeting. (See Attachment M) A¢enda Item # SC Paee # 6 In addition ta the reconstruction of~ the cupola that once adorned the building, the alterations to the school include moditications to existing windows and doors; some of which were not supported through Landmarks review of a Landmarks Alteration Certificate (LAC) (See Attachment M for description of'the Conditional Approval). The building would be connected ta the Broadway Building by a two story partially enclosed ramp for ADA access. Six one-bedroom units are proposed on the existing tirst floor and second flaor, while common facilities would till the remainder of the first floor (i.e., common office, laundry, kitchen, sitting room, etc.) and the entirety of the basement space (i.e., arts and craft room, workshop, office and storage space) within the building. Existin~ Librarv Buildin~: The cxisting 1,533 square foot library building, which is located along Cedar Avenue, would also be retained on the site and would serve as a multi-purpose facility. The space is primarily intended for community meetings. A vestibule and restroom are proposed on the rear of the facility. Broadwav Building: The Broadway Building is proposed to be three stories and would be setback from the street (i.e., Broadway), at its closest point, 17 feet 4 inches. This is a one-story element. The second story bulk, however, would be set back 21 feet. These measurements would require a setback modification, as the required distance in the RH-2 zone is 25 feet. Other second story A~enda Item # SC Page # 7 Figure 3- Landmarks boundary around Washington School where Landmarks Board have jurisdiction. elements would be set back between 22 feet and 2~ feet. The third story would be set back 32 feet on its closest point and ~7 feet at its furthest. The building would otherwise meet the other setback requirements, including a 10 foot setback from the north properiy line. Third story elements from that side are 37 feet at the closest point and roughly 46 feet from the furthest. The buildin~ is proposed to be 41 feet tall, as measured trom the lowest point within 25 horizontal feet of the building. Technically, the building is considered an addition to the existing historic school, which is 47 Feet in height. The proposed 41 foot height requires Planning Board approval of a height modification through Site Review. For informational purposes, the length of the Broadway Building is approximately 210 feet. including the roofed entry plaza. This is more than the 167.5 feet of frontage by Broadway Brownstones located to the south, but comparable to the roughly 192 foot frontage of the Boulder Hausing Partners proiect approved at 3120 Broadway. The building would contain 7,148 square feet ofi commercial/office spaces on the ground tloor fronting on and accessed from Broadway. A coffee shop of I,000 square feet, art studio spaces of no greater than 2,000 sc~uare f'eet, and professional and technical oftices are en~~isioned for the space. Behind the commercial/office spaces are four one bedroom units accessed from an interior courtyard on the site. The two upper tloors of the buildin~ would be six two bedroom units (also accessed from the interior of the site) makin~ the total number of units in the building ten. As noted above. parking is located below the building. North F3uildin~: At 32 feet 5 inches, the north building is t~vo stories and entirely residentiaL It contains a total of ten units, all of which are two-bedroom units. Access to the tinits ~~~ould be from the interior courty~ird, and primary private otitdoc~r spaces are on the north side of the building. Two individual end units are two story. Parkin~ is located below. East Buildin~: At 21 feet 2 inches, the east building is also two stories and entirely residential. It contains a total of six units, two of which have three-bedrooms each, and the remaining four two- bedro~ms. f111 units are two-story. This building would require a setback modification to allow the buildings t~ be approYimately 23.5 feet from the rear lot line, ~~~here 25 teet is required. Cedar Avenue Duplex: The proposed two-story duplex would be located between the existing library building and the new private alley and is proposed to be 2~ feet 4 inches tall. A 7 foot 8- inch setback from Cedar Avenue is proposed. which rec~uires a modification. This measurement is fram the edge of the porch to the property line. The building bulk ~~~ould be set back 12.5 feet. which is consistent with the street frontin~ side yard setback in this location. Sin~le-familv lots: A total of siY sin~le family l~ts are proposed. The lots would be rear loaded from the shared access drive discussed above. All setbacks, with the exception of a requested 0 foot setback for Lot 7 from its shared lot line ~-ith an outlot, would be met; in the case of the four southern lots, the front setback of~ 25 feet would be exceeded by 10 feet for the protection of e~isting trees in that location. The applicant is requesting a modification to vary the lot sizes belo~~~ the 7,000 square foot minimum of the RI.-1 zone. The smallest would be 5,576 square feet, which accounts for a portion of abutting land being used for a drainage outlot. The others would range from 5,9~7 square feet to b,020 square feet. The number of lots would not exceed the number allowed per the total lot area within the RL-1 zone. A side yard setback for Lot 7 is requested to permit 6 inches where 12.5 feet is required. This is the lot adjacent to the outlot. A~enda Item # 5C Pa~e # 8 The applicant has also proposed Design Guidelines for the development of residences on the six lots. The guidelines propose the creation of a Design Review Committee operating under the Master Home Owners Association (HOA) for the project. Architectural standards for the homes and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit of 0.65 FAR per lot is the suggested limit. ANALYSIS: 1. Can the Planning Board support the proposed BVCP land use designation change andrezoning? BVCP land use desiKnution chanQe: The current land use designation for the site is Public/Semi- public and is proposed to change to High Density and Low Density Residential according to the desired movement of the zone boundary. Considering the closure of the school, the public designation is no longer required. Therefore, the City acknowledges the appropriateness oF this change, and has requested that the applicant make the request at this time. This request has been referred to the County Land Use Department and no objections have been received. Staff agrees with the applicant's response to the criteria for a BVCP land use designation change (see Attachment J). The BVCP land use map changes are found on page 56 of the comprehensive plan and staff responses are attached (see Attachment C). As discussed in previous Concept Plan memoranda, with the projecYs provision of affordable housing, diversity of housing types, mixed-uses, and compact development along a major transit corridor staff finds the project generally in line with BVCP policies; it is also recognized, however, that this application must demonstrate sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhoods in regard to its massing and impacts from its proposed uses and parking needs (these are discussed in Key Issues 5 and 6 below). As an infill project located in Area l, there would be no cross-jurisdictional impacts, nor would the project affect Area II or III on the outskirts of the City. As the request to change the land use would match the established zoning on the site and improvements already planned for Broadway, there would be no material affect to existing urban facilities or the City's CIP program not already considered. Therefore, staff finds that request would meet the BVCP land use designation change criteria. RezoninQ: The extent of the rezoning is minor, as it would only require the movement of the existing RH-2/RL-1 zone boundary 48 feet to the east. This is requested to allow all of the multi- family uses to be on the high density portion of the site, and to allow for the preferred density gradient from west to east. In regard to the district boundary, it would not appear irregular, as the district boundary to the south is set even further back (to the east) from Broadway. The change would appear to step incrementally westward when moving north. The applicant maintains that the rezoning is to encourage development that recognizes the changing character of the area. Although the character of the area may be changing, it is changing in a manner consistent with the intended land use and zoning of the area. Thus, staff would consider a more appropriate criterion to be number 1 of Section 9-2-18(e), B.R.C. 1981, which requires that the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the applicant's argument for the inherent need to change the land use from public to residential is appropriate and that the rezoning is necessary to become in compliance Aeenda Item # SC Pa¢e # 9 with the requested BVCP land use change. Staff recommends that the Planning Board approve the BVCP land use change and rezoning. (Rezoning criteria found under Attachment D) Floor Area: Although the applicant is not increasing density as a result of the zone boundary movement, moving the line would benefit the applicant as it permits additional floor area in the RH-2 portion of the site. As a result, the RH-2 district would permit up to 44,316.5 of private residential square footage, which is neazly maximized in the project. The RH-2 district does not require non-residential, parking garages, or communal spaces be included in the floor area calculation. When these areas are included, the proposal consists of a total of 81,271 square feet on the RH-2 property, which is mostly concentrated along the Broadway corridor and away from the nearby single family neighborhood. 2. Are the requested setback and minimum lot size modifications in the RH-2 and RL- 1 zones, and the proposed height of 41 feet for the Broadway Building appropriate? Staff finds that the requested modifications would be consistent with the Site Review criYeria (see Attachment E) (argely based on their consistency with existing development in the area and recently approved projects. This is discussed further below: Broadwav BuildinQ setbacks: The proposed 17 feet 4 inches for one-story elements would correspond to one-story structures across Broadway, which have comparable and even lesser setbacks. One single story structure, at the corner of Broadway and Dellwood, is located against the front property line. The proposed second story elements at 21 feet from the front property line are also appropriate, since it is consistent with the proposed setbacks for both Broadway Brownstones at 2834 Broadway and the Boulder Housing Partners project at 3120 Broadway. East Be~ildinQ setback: The proposed 23.5 foot setback would provide an appropriate setback to the single-family homes to the east deviating little from the 25 foot requirement. Cedar Avenue Dunlex setback: The 7 foot 8-inch setback (12.5 feet is required) is to the front porch. The building would otherwise wmply. This setback is found appropriate, since the porch would largely function and appear as an encroaching front porch, as encouraged by Section 9-7- 4, B.R.C. 1981. With the exception of requirement (13), which makes a special case for corner (ots where a porch would be in the side yard adjacent to the street (technically the case here), the porch would otherwise compiy with the requirements. A modification is required for this, since Section 9-7-4, B.R.C. 1981 only applies to single-family homes. As the intent of the section would be met in this case, the modification is supported. Additional densitv in RH-2: The applicant has not requested the maximum possible number of units (55). Further, approval would provide 7 additional units above what could be done by-right (27 by-right units versus 34 units proposed). For these reasons, the project is found consistent with the Site Review criteria. Concentrating units along Broadway is also consistent with Policy 6.10, Muitimodal Development, which encourages higher densities along such corridors like Broadway where transit is provided. Lot size and setback modiftcations for RL-1: The applicant has not proposed a density greater than what would otherwise be permitted, if the total lot area in the RL-1 portion were divided by the minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. Much of the remaining lot area not used in the Aeenda Item # SC Pa~e # 10 individual lots is allocated to the shared access drive area and an outlot to the south of Lot 7. The smaller lot sizes are actually comparable to some non-standard lots immediately to the north, on 13~h Street. Additionally, the smaller lot sizes may be advantageous in further restricting the allowable floor area on each lot, which has been of concern to the Pianning Board and the neighborhood (this issue is discussed further in Key Issue #6). The reduction of the side setback on the south side of Lot 7 is also found appropriate, since the outlot would create the intended effect of a 12.5 foot setback from Cedar. ' HeiQht Modification ofBroadwav BuildinQ: The proposed height of 41 feet, as measured from the lowest point within 25 horizontal feet of the structure, would be comparable with the Broadway Brownstones to the south, which received approval for 40.5 feet and the Boulder Housing Partners project to the north, which received approval for 41 feet. At its tallest point from grade, the building would be roughly 37 feet, which would be shorter than and subservient to the existing school, which is approximately 44 feet from grade and 47 feet as measured per code. Upper story elements are pulled back from the property lines to minimize any looming effect and to address concerns of the neighbors. 3. Is the proposed parking reduction of 52.5% consistent with the required criteria? The extent of the parking reduction is similar to that approved For the Boulder Housing Partners project at 3120 Broadway. However, the circumstances of this project aze different given its more restrictive on-street parking situation due to proximity to Boulder Community Hospital, and the project's proposed non-residential components. Nevertheless, there are a number of reasons to why the request meets the parking reduction criteria (listed below) as follows: (see Attachment E for staff responses). Parking reduction criteria (part of [he Site Review criteria): Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria, the approving agency may approve proposed modifications to the parking requirements of Section 9-7-I, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, if it finds that: (a) For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwellings in the project will be adequately accommoda[ed; (b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses will be adequately accommodated through on-s[reet parking or off-sVeet parking; (c) A mix of residential with either offtce or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; (d) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and (e) If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change. RH-2 parkinQ requirements: The RH-2 requirements were generally written to protect established single-family neighborhoods from anticipated redevelopment to higher densities (primarily in areas most impacted by the University). These areas ofren require more parking, because of multiple students sharing residences. Essentially, the zone requires 1 parking space Agenda Item # SC Pa2e # ll for the first 500 squaze feet of a unit, plus 1 space for every additional 300 square feet or portion of 300 square feet. This means that a single unit of 801 squaze feet would require three parking spaces. This requirement has proven unwieldy, however, when applied to areas not heavily populated with students. IF the more traditional parking requirements of other high density residential zones were applied to the site, the percentage of the reduction would drop dramatically. For instance, most other RH zones require 1 parking space for a one-bedroom unit, 1.5 spaces for a two-bedroom unit, and 2 spaces for a three bedroom unit. If this is applied to the subject project, only 47 parking spaces would be required, compared to the 116 spaces required in RH-2 for just 34 units. This amounts to only an 8.5% reduction for residential parking, and an average of approximately 1.1 spaces per unit. Based on such a compazison, and considering other aspects of the project discussed below, this reduction percentage is considered reasonable by Staff: Co-housinQ nature of develonment and tarQetinQ o(senior residents: The applicant has described the project as a co-housing development. Typically, such housing caters to those of retirement age and those who share automobiles_or use automobiles less frequently. It is anticipated that this development will have less of a parking need than typical developments of its size. The applicant maintains that at least 1 space per unit is typically sufficient in co-housing rype developments. Location ofpropertv alonQ multi-modal corridor: The propeRy is located on Broadway where the frequency of the Skip bus is high. This location would allow residents to use the bus to get to locations in North, Central, and South Boulder. The location of the property is also within walking distance of Community Plaza and only several blocks north of downtown. These factors would expect to diminish the need for excessive parking. Shared usa~e of commercial parkinQ spaces for communitv uses: Twenty-three (23) spaces are proposed for the commercial component of the property, which are located in the parking garage below the Broadway Building. Typically, these uses would not be active in the evening hours, when community events held on site would be at their peak. These spaces have been designated for commercial use during the day, but should be designated for community usage during evening hours. A condition of approval would ensure this shared status. Most of the largest community functions on the property would be held in the library building on Cedar. Based on its squaze footage (1,544 square feet), roughly 30 parking spaces would be necessary for community gatherings there at 1 pazking space per every 50 square feet. The aforementioned 23 spaces would satisfy a portion of this need, and the remainder would be handled by available on- street parking (see discussion below). This meets the intent of the criteria related to shared parking. Proximitv to off-street parkinQ spaces: As noted in the introduction to this key issue, one of the constraints of the site in terms of parking is its proximity to Community Plaza, and particularly Boulder Community Hospital. This close proximity leads many patrons of the retail and/or visitors of the hospital to park on-street in the neighborhood, particularly on Cedaz Avenue, which is closest to Broadway. It is likely that the proposed project could exacerbate this situation with spillover parking. However, as there are available surplus spaces on the subject site for community use in the evening hours, the existing availability of on-street parking on 13`h Street should be adequate to handie any spillover parking from events on the co-housing site. Aeenda Item # SC Paee # 12 ParkinQ studv/Travel Demand ManaQement (TDM): The applicant has submitted a parking study supporting the request (see Attachment J) for a parking reduction. The study concludes that in a suburban context the project would necessitate 64 spaces during the day, and in an urban context only 48. With 66 proposed pazking spaces on site, this has been Found to be adequate by the applicant's transportation engineer. Staff concurs with this analysis. Also, the applicant has agreed to implement a TDM plan that would encourage alternatives to automobile use. Such strategies are bicycle parking in excess of requirements and participation in the RTD EcoPass program. 4. Is the proposed project consistent with the Site and Use Review criteria? Since review of the previous two Concept Plans, staff has not discovered any potential impacts on the neighborhood not already identified. That said, the submitted Site and Use Review applications clarify the extent of impacts and enable ways to mitigate such impacts. The principal issues of compatibility (core elements of the criteria) are discussed below: Architecture/Historic Preservation: The design of the Broadway Building was criticized at the last Concept Plan hearing for being too "institutional" in appearance. Staff finds that further refinement of the faqade reveals an appropriate usage of windows on the lower and upper levels that differentiate the commercial and residential components, and introduces an appropriate level of fenestration and architectural variety that would encourage pedestrian activity along Broadway. Likewise, permeability has been an issue raised in the past; although not entirely obvious, the applicant has provided two entries to the interior open space on each side of the building. In essence, the expanse of Broadway Building's fa~ade (i.e., 210 feet) along Broadway differs little from other recently approved projects, such as Broadway Brownstones (i.e., 167.5 feet) and the Boulder Housing Partners project (i.e., 192 feet). Therefore, staffconcludes that the building would be comparable to other approved projects along Broadway, and also finds that the building would generally be compatible with the historic school. However, in line with Landmarks Board comments, mare architectural commonality between those buildings could improve the project. Landmarks Board commented that there was no contextual relation between the buildings, expressed concern over how the proposed buildings on the site could overwhelm the school building, and suggested that the new buildings better reflect the simplicity of the school (See Attachment M for Landmarks Board comments). This could include, for example, the use of the same-colared and -sized brick, and the infusion of azchitectural detailing on the Broadway Building that would emulate the school in a contemporary manner. Staff has also suggested a minoring of the school's vertical window lengths and the installation of wmmon stone linYels in the new (Broadway) building. However, StafPs principal concerns regarding architecture are focused more on the compatibility of the school and the North and East Buildings and the Cedaz Avenue Duplex. These interior buildings are more contemporary in design and have no common architectural elements or color usage. Thus, they do not appear compatible with the historic school. Staff believes that complementary elements and/or materials on the interior buildings could enhance the project by adding more cohesion among the buildings. Replication of features of the school or even the usage of brick to the extent of the Broadway Building are not suggested, but rather referencing features that could create more commonality. A brick or complementary masonry base could also anchor the interior buildings and make them appear more substantial like the school or the Agenda Item # SC Pase # 13 Broadway Bui(ding. Staff recommends that the P{anning Board require such changes as a condition of approval. A condition of approval has been drafted that would require the project to undergo architectural review by Planning Staff at time of Technical Documents, and that the review take into account Planning Board direction on design. If the Planning Director were to find that the project is not consistent with Boazd direction and/or the approved Site Review, an amendment to the Site Review (before Planning Board) would be required. BuildinQ massinQ/Solar Access.• The massing of the Broadway Building was of principal concern to the Planning Board at the last Concept Plan review. Since that time, the inherent design of the building has been retained, although building articulation has been greatly improved. The building would have several elements along the Btoadway frontage that have alternating distances from the roadway, which would effectively provide visua] relieF. Although portions of the building would be relatively close to the streetscape on the first level, the second and third levels are stepped back, breaking up the mass. Another element of the massing that has been of principal concern is the effect of the Broadway Building on the Red Anow Townhomes to the north. Although review of the plans and elevations show a significant setback of the building's third story from the mutual property line (i.e., 37 feet) and compliance with the required 25 foot solar fence, the building would still have a significant impact on the views and existing lifestyle of the Red Arrow tenants, which have benefited from the openness of the school property. Nevertheless, the Board must also consider the unusual circumstance of the townhomes' unique design of two stories compressed into a height of roughly 17 feet, and multidirectional orientation. As the (Red Arrow) buildings are of architectural significance and have potential for landmarking, their situation requires careful consideration, as it is likely the buildings are to remain and are not likely to redevelop. Although Site Review cannot ensure the retaining of existing lifestyle of neighbors, it does seeks to minimize impact on views from adjacent properties and create greater compatibility between properties, even if solar and setback regulations are in compliance. Staff has been in discussion with the architect, who has indicated that a second story element on the Broadway Building's north elevation could be pulled back an additional (approximately) 6 feet to align with the next furthest second story element. This change would result in a more appropriate step down in massing to the neighboring buildings, and would greatly reduce shadows cast on the neighboring properiy such that no shadows would be cast upon the roofs of neighboring buildings. The stepping back of the building on upper levels would be greater than the standard setbacks in the RH-2 district. Requiring a greater setback for the retaining of what is largely a marginal view of the Flatirons would not be reasonable and therefore, staff finds that the design minimizes the affect on the view to an appropriate extent. The change would ultimately increase the level of wmpatibility between the properties and would enable the Red Anow Townhomes to retain their existing solar access. Staff recommends a condition of approval that would require this change. This would enable the project to meet the Site Review criteria related to massing and compatibility. Commercial space/Community facilities: The Community facilities are considered integral to the project, since they would benefit the residents of the co-housing community and also the greater community with the provision of needed meeting, class, and event space close to downtown. The City has also required at least 7,500 square feet be devoted to such uses. The applicant has A~enda Item # SC Pa¢e # 14 provided adequate parking for such uses (as previously discussed), and therefore, they are considered in line with the Use Review criteria. During the Concept Plan review, the Planning Board was not entirely supportive of commercial uses at the subject site, because of the perceived lesser viability along this north stretch of Broadway, and the potential impact to residential uses in the area. Commercial uses within the RH-2 zone can also be problematic if they do not do well and the impetus to convert residential arises. Such a scenario could be problematic, since the residential floor area would already be maximized. The applicant has proposed professional and technical offices for the space, rather than Yhe live/work configuration discussed at the Concept Plan stage (see applicant's Use Descriptions in Attachments G and L). As required by Use Review, the uses must be demonstrated to be compatible with the area, have a limited impact on the area, and also should not change the character of the area. To limit impact, the applicant has provided parking that meets the parking requirements for commercial uses. In regard to neighborhood compatibility and character, staff has found several approved projects in the immediate vicinity that have a commercial component. Some examples are the North Broadway Building at the corner of Elder Avenue and Broadway that is entirely commercial with 6,745 square feet, and 3093 Broadway, which is also entirely commercial with 3,799 square feet. A mare appropriate mixed-use example is the Newland Court project at 3011 Broadway that contains condominiums and a 4,200 square foot office building in an old Victorian building. All of these projects have compliant pazking for commercial uses. Staff finds that based on city policies on mixed-use and the fact that commercial uses on the site would have compliant parking, the commercial component can be found consistent with the Use Review criteria. However, staff does have concerns that the proposed coffee shop of 1,000 square feet could generate parking above what is provided. Such squaze Footage would be sizable enough to accommodate a larger amount of seating synonymous with a restaurant and could be problematic. At the same time, staff agrees that a coffee shop would be advantageous at the site to foster neighborhood connections. Staff recommends that the coffee shop be restricted to no more than 800 square feet to lower the potential of a traffic-generating stop for vehicles, and a more appropriately scaled shop for residents and pedestrians along Broadway. An example of a coffee shop of this size is Amante on Walnut Street. Single-familv residential lots: Staff has analyzed the squaze footage of single-family lots in the area and found an assortment of 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 square foot dwellings, with some limited recent remodels (e.g., "pops and scrapes") of around 4,000 square feet. The project's proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.65 could result in 4,000 square foot homes on the subject properties, which are proportionally smaller than the average size lots in the area. This has the potential for creating homes that are out of character with the neighborhood. Staff has concluded that an FAR of 0.6 would be more appropriate as a limit, since homes would not be able to exceed 3,700 square feet; a more common upper limit on properties in the area. Staff rewmmends a condition of approval that would restrict the lots to a 0.6 FAR (In anticipation, a condition has been worded such that if a more restrictive FAR is imposed on RL-1 zoning in the future, the floor area limit for the subject lots would be held to the new standard (see Attachment O for proposed design guidelines and examples)). A~enda Item # SC Pa¢e # IS Conclusion: In summary, staff finds that if the project is revised such that the intetior buildings are more compatible with the historic school; the Broadway Building changed to be a lesser impact on the neighbors to the north; the coffee shop limited to 800 square feet; and the single- family homes restricted to a 0.6 FAR, the project would substantially meet the Site Review and Use Review criteria necessary to ensure compatibility. Staff recommends approval of the project contingent on these changes. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Upon receipt of the application, required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. E-mail notice of the meeting was also sent to those who commented on the project. Staff has received a number of written comments on the project, which are attached to this memorandum (Attachment P). Most are from owners within the Red Arrow Townhomes to the north. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 9, 2007. Most neighbors at that meeting had concerns about the parking, traffic, and density, and were concerned about these issues not being taken into account by the developer. Minutes from that meeting are also attached (Attachment Q). The applicant also held a smaller meeting with the Red Arrow Townhome owners to discuss solar impact issues. Through the RFP process, the project has been reviewed by the Planning Board, City Councif, the Council-appointed Community Review Panel and most recently, the Landmarks Board. STAFF FTNDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board find that the proposed application meets all Site Review, Use Review, BVCP land use designation change, and Rezoning criteria based on applications #LUR2007-00016 and #LUR2007-00017 and incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Site Review, Use Review, Rezoning and B.V.C.P. Criteria checklist as findings of fact and subject to the following conditions of approval: L The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shalt be in compliance with all approved plans dated June 29, 2007 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as may be modified by this approval. 2. Priar to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit Technical Document Review applications for the following items, subject to the approval of the City oF Boulder Planning and Development Services Division in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards: a) A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. The plans must include the arborist's assessment of mature tree health and the arborist's recommendations for tree protection to ensure compliance with the Restrictive Covenant and Deed Aeenda Item # SC Paee # 16 Restriction and the Site Review approvaL Grading is prohibitied around the existing Sugar Maple tree in the primary open space and the project arborist shall prepare recommendations on protection for that tree given the grading in the vicinity. All recommendations by the project arborist shall appear on the landscape plan and shall be followed. b) A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units, showing compliance with Section 9-9-16, B.R.C. 1981. c) A detailed parking plan showing the arrangement, locations, dimensions, and type of parking stalls (including any areas of the site for bicycle parking or reserved for deferred parking) to insure compliance with this approval and the City's Parking Design Standards of Section 9-9-6, B.R.C. 1981. d) A detailed shadow analysis to insure compliance with the City's solar access requirements of Section 9-9-17, B.R.C. 1981. e) Building elevations far the trash enclosure, including materials, to insure compliance with this approval and compatibility with the surrounding area. ~ Final Storm Water Plans and Report for review and approval by the City. g) Final Utility Plans and Report for review and approval by the City. The revisions required to the preliminary utility report may be completed as part of the Final Utility Report. The revisions to the report may require additional off-site water inFrastructure improvements. If abutting water mains need to be up-sized from 6 inch to 8 inch, the costs of design and construction of the improvements will be the responsibility of the developer. h) Finat transportation plans in acwrdance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all transportation improvements for review and approval by the City. i) A preliminary plat, subject to the approval of the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division. j) Final Plat pursuant to section 9-12-8 of the Boulder Revised Code, including the public access easements for: sidewalks along Broadway and 13`h, the shazed/emergency access drive, and the bus shelter. 3. Prior to application for a building permit on the portion of the site that is zoned RH-2, the Applicant shall submit the following items for the review and recommendation, of the Planning Director: a) Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the historic school and surrounding area: Aeenda Item # 5C Paee # 17 b) The final architectural plans shall include revisions that: 1. Recess the second story element of the Broadway Building on the north elevations a minimum of 6 feet 2 inches to the south. Modifies the stairwell in that location to create a step down of massing of that building and increases solar access and light for the neighboring property to the north. 3. Does not permit any mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof of the one-story element within 16 feet of the property line. 4. Provide least 60 square feet of private open space to each of the permanently affordability units in the Broadway Building. 4. Prior to application for a building permit on the poRion of the site that is part of the individual landmark site, the Applicant shall secure a landmark alteration certificate required by Chapter 9-11, Historic Preservation," B.K.C. 1981. Prior to application for a building permit on the portion of the site that is zoned RL-1, the Applicant shall submit Technica- Document Review application, subject to the approval of the Planning Director final architectural plans that demonstrate compliance with approved design guidelines prepared by the applicanY, that includes the approved setbacks; and height limits. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the single-family homes shall be 0.6:1 per lot, or the underlying RL-1 FAR (imit at time of building permit, if less than 0.6:1. 6. The Applicant shall ensure that the approved commercial uses are operated in compliance with applicants written statement, pursuant to the following restrictions: a) Professional and Technical Offices are approved in commercial space along Broadway not to exceed 7,148 square feet, b) A coffee shop of no greater than 800 squaze feet is approved within the space noted in a) above, and; c) Twenty-three (23) parking spaces shall be designated within the Broadway Building for the commercial uses during daytime hours and community facilities during evening hours. ~ 7. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use (including the co-housing program for the site, the commercial space, and community facilities), except pursuant to Subsection 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981. Aeenda Item # SC Pa¢e # 18 Approved By: ~ ~~ Ruth McHeyser, cting Director Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Vicinity Map. Attachment B: Development Review Committee comments dated April 25, 2007 and June 22, 2007. Attachment C: BVCP land use change criteria checklist. Attachment D: Rezoning criteria checklist. Attachtnent E: Site Review criteria checklist. Attachment F: Use Review criteria checklist. Attachment G: Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction. Attachment H: Minutes from December 7, 2006 Planning Board meeting. Attachment I: Applicant's Written Statements. Attachment J: Applicant's response to City regarding BVCP land use designation change and rezoning. Attachment K: Arborist Report prepared by Jessee Hodge of Out on a Limb Tree Service, Inc. Attachment L: Parking Study prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants and Dated May 12, 2007. Attachment M: LPAB comments on Washington Village project and recommendation to City Council on submitted Landmarks Alteration Certificate. Attachment N: Description of proposed commercial uses. Attachment O: Proposed single family design guidelines and examples. Attachment P: Neighborhood wmments Attachment Q: Minutes from May 9'h neighborhood meeting. Attachment R: Applicant's Proposed Plans. Aeenda Item # SC Paee # 19 ATTACHMENT A Citv of Boulder Vicinitv M -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. ~ ' --~~ Subject Area 1215 CedarAve ~ Subject P BT-2 H- ~ : --~~~~ Location: 9215 CedarAve Project Name: Washington Village City of~ -~"'~~~-~~/ 4^ ~ Review Type: Site & Use Reviews ~; ' --_ ~~ii1~'~j' ~ ~ ~~ ~ The in(ormation de Preliminary Plat 8 Rezoning ~~q; $'~ picted on this map is provided as graphical representaLon only The City of Boulder Review Number: LUR2007-00~76-17 providesnowarranty,expressedorimplied,asto 1 inch equals 300 feet me accurecy and/or completeness of the information Applicant: Wonderland Nill Development Co containedhereon rn • ATTACHMENT B ~ CITY OF BOULDER ~i Planning and Development Services ,,,,/ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 ~ phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: CASE MANAGER: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: COORDINATES: REVIEW TYPE: REVIEW NUMBER: APPLICANT: April 25, 2007 Karl Guiler Washington Village 1215 CEDAR AVENUE N04W06 Site and Use Review LUR2007-00016 & LUR2007-00017 LAUREL FANNING DESCRIPTION: 1) SITE REVIEW: Request to construct a Total of 40 residential units on a nearly 3 acre site. More specifically, 34 residential units and common facilities are proposed in a co-housing type community on the high density portion of the site along Broadway and 6 single-family residences are proposed on the low density portion a~ong 13th Street. The multi-family units and common facilities would be located in the existing schoo~ building and in four new buildings on the site synonymous with the Concept Plan reviewed by Planning Board on June 15, 2006 and December 7, 2006 and by City Council on September 19, 2006. This request requires Planning Board approval to allow the following: 2) USE REVIEW: Request to permit 7,100 square feet of office/commercial space on the ground floor of a new building along Broadway and community facilities on the site analogous to government facilities (i.e., community use of ineeting space) and adult education facilities for classes as defined in ihe Land Use Code. This request requires Planning Board approval. 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT: Preliminary consideration of a proposed subdivision of the existing 130,709 square foot (2.99 acre) lot into a total of seven lots. Six of the lots would front on 13th Street and would range in size from 6,105 square feet to 6,746 square feet and would ultimately accommodate single family residences on the low density residential portion of the site. The seventh lot would front on both Broadway and Cedar, would be roughly 93,425 square feet (2.14 acres) in size, and would accommodate the multi-family, community facilities, and office/commercial space on the high density residential portion of the site. 4) REZONING: Proposal to move the existing zoning boundary between RH-2 and RL-1 approximately 48 feet eastward. This movement is proposed to encompass the residential units along the west side of the proposed driveway on the site and to create an appropriate density gradient from west to east across the site. No increase in density is requested as a result of the zoning boundary adjustment. This request requires City Council approval. RE~UESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: 1) A reduction in the minimum lot area per dwelling unit on the RH-2 zoning portion pursuant to Section 9-5-3(d), B.R.C. 1981; 2) A reduction in the minimum lot sizes for the RL-1 lots below the 7,000 square foot minimum to allow single-family residential lots ranging from 6,105 square feet to 6,746 square feet (would not increase the allowable density) pursuant to Section 9-2-14(c), B.R.C. 1981; 3) A parking reduction of 52.5% (requires Planning Board approval) pursuant to Section 9-9-6(f) and Section 9-2- 14(h)(2)(K), B.R.C. 1981; 4) Modification to the following setbacks for the RH-2 zoning district pursuant to Section 9-2-14(c)(1), B.R.C. 1981: a) Front setback of 16 feet for Broadway building where 25 feet is the standard. b) Setback of 20.5 feet for covered and uncovered parking where 25 feet is the standard. c) Interior side setback of 9 feet S inches for Broadway building where 10 feet is the standard. Address: 1215 CEDAR HGENDF+ 1'TE{1~ ~ ~Cp~GE ~ d) Setback of 7 feet 8 inches for the duplex where 12.5 feet is the standard. e) Minimum total for both side yard of 11 feet 9 i~ches where 20 feet is the standard. ; and, 5) A height modification to permit the Broadway building at a height of 41 feet (from the lowest point within 25 feet of the structure, not from grade), where 35 feet is the standard for the zoning district pursuant to Section 9-2-14(e), B.R.C. 1981. I. REVIEW FINDINGS The application will require new review sets in order to meet the criteria for approval. The most prominent issues regarding the project are listed below for reference. The comments are followed by the applicable section of the City Requirements below. The City would be happy to meet with the applicants to discuss tfiese issues in the near future. Please contact the Case Manager for scheduling. • Undetained drainage- Based on the Preliminary Drainage Report - Washington Village (Drainage Report) and the plans approximately 54% of the site will discharge undetained storm water runoff. Per Section 7.12(C)(4) of the DCS, the undetained drainage area may not exceed 5% percent of the entire parcel and tributary basin to be developed or redeveloped. (Drainage). • Drainage o~ single-family lots- The Drainage Report states on page 1 that "the eastern portion of the site will be subdivided into 6 single family lots which will remain undeveloped for this projecY'. Once the lots are subdivided, they become buildable lots, therefore the future developed conditions must be analyzed and accommodated with detention/water quality at this time. Revise the Drainage Report and plan as necessary. (Drainage). • Alterations to existing school building- Architectural renderings on page A2 of the proposal show exterior changes to the historic school building planned as part of its rehabilitation including the restoration of 1903 bell tower. While the drawings are preliminary, they do indicate some changes that may be inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and historic preservation ordinance. For instance, plans show the upper gallery on the tower to be glassed in to create a room. Enclosing this area would negatively impact the historic character of the fa~ade of the school. Likewise, installing doors on the second floor (flanking the tower) is inconsistent with Section 3.7.6 of the Guidelines which states that "a window opening should be carefuliy preserved ..:' and should not be made larger or smaller to accommodate a differently sized window ...". The proposai to change the opening size of windows on other elevations of the building may also be inconsistent with this guideline. (Historic Preservation) • Compatibility of Broadway building with existing school building- The proposed new construction along Broadway may be inconsistent with the Design Guidelines in that it may overpower the site and will partially obscure highly visible historic west elevation of the Washington School (Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, and 4.1.3, 4.3(1,2,4,5), 4.3(1-3) and 4.5 of the General Design Guidelines). This aspect of the proposal might also be inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and as such, might preclude the rehabilitation of the school qualifying for state or federal historic preservation tax mcentives. To make the proposal more consistent with these guidelines, consideration should be given to locating the south elevation footprint further north on the property in order to preserve the view corridor along the west elevation of the historic schoof and provide space around that building. Breaking-up the mass of the 165' iong construction into two or three smaller buildings might act provide visual penetration into the site from the Broadway. (Historic Preservation) • Proposed commercial/office space- The commercial/oftice space proposed is greater than that originally intended with the Concept Plan. As discussed in the parking section of `zoning' below, staff has concerns that the amount of commercial/office space could be a factor of the project that exacerbates an already tight parking situation in that area of the city and further, that the extent of commercial/office space in that area may be greater than the Planning Board had intended and what would be considered appropriate for the immediate area. The Board noted that The office space should be more aimed to the surrounding neighborhood and the development itself, rather than more regionally focused technicaVprofessional offices as proposed with the Use Review. Staff has concerns that the amount proposed could change the character of the neighborhood, which along that portion of Broadway is almost entireiy residentiaf, and potentiaNy could have a negative impact as far as parking is concerned. Staff finds that the space may have to be reduced or altered in a manner that would be less intensive. (Land Uses) • Permeability of the site- Criterion 9-2-14(h)(2)(A) of the Site Review criteria aims to provide accessible and functional open space within developments. The site provides ample open space that appears to be functionally arranged, but is not necessarily accessible to the greater community. Staff understands the impetus for preserving privacy for future residents, however, city policies encourage permeability of sites where passersby can be drawn into the site creating a product that can become an integral part of the community. Although the response to code criteria notes that the development will not be a"closed" community, the current site design has barriers to the greater community from entering the on-site open space; namely the corridor connecting the existing school buiiding with the Broadway building. The Planning Board strongly encouraged a pedestrian Address: 1215 CEDAR A6~1~N1~l317EftN#~ SCPbG~ ~~ connection into the central open space by a walkway beneath the proposed connector, but this has not been done. Staff agrees with this observation and strongly suggests that an access walkway be provided under the connector to the central space to be more in line with the aforementioned criterion. (Site Design) • Utilities on single-family lots- The Preliminary Utility Report - Washington Village (Utility Report) states Lots 2-6 will be developed in the future" and no projected water or wastewater demands for the lots are included in the Utility Report. As mentioned above under Drainage, once the lots are subdivided, they become buildable lots, therefore the future developed conditions must be analyzed and accommodated at this time. Revise the Utility Report and plans as necessary. (Utilities) • Utility Report- The utility report does not adequately address the projects impacts on velocities in the water system. The water model in the Utility Report shows several sections of pipe with velocities over 8 fUs and a high velocity of 12.48 fUs for the max day plus fire flow. Redesign of the water system is required. Generally, the city's maximum allowable velocity under a combined maximum day demand/fire flow situation would be 8 feet per second. Make the following changes to the Utility Report: -Provide off-site and on-site recommendations for mitigating any excessive water velocities. -Provide any new modeling as needed to show that the post development velocities will meet City standards • Broadway building setbacks- At its closest point, the proposed Broadway building would be located 16 feet from the front property line as enumerated above. Other portions are located approximately 17.5 feet and 19 feet 8 inches as noted on the plans. Although there are portions proposed at approximately 23 feet, the distances noted above are closer to Broadway than other recently approved projects like Broadway Brownstones, which has its closest building bulk set at approximately 21 feet. Please provide a narrative of how the 16 foot distance was arrived at and further justification for its appropriateness to that area of the neighborhood. (Zoning) • Duplex building setbacks- Staff does not support the proposed setback of 7 feet 8 inches for the proposed duplex on Cedar as it does not correspond to any setbacks of other structures in that area. Existing structures on the opposite side of the street appear to be setback 25 feet or greater. Staff suggests that the duplex be revised to either line up with the front fagade of the library or at minimum the standard 12.5 foot setback for that side of the street. If the applicant does not agree, additional justification for the setback would be required. (Zoning) • Floor Area on RH-2 portion- Staff has calculated a total floor area (i.e., including on~y those spaces required by Section 9-8-3(c), B.R.C. 1981) greater than the limit for the RH-2 portion of the site. Based on the total size of the RH-2 portion (i.e., 88,633 square feet), up to 44,316.5 square feet would be permitted. Staff has estimated nearly 50,000 square feet on the site. Staff finds that the reason for the discrepancy is that basements for storage and laundry for units in the north and east building were not counted. These spaces would count, because they are not communal and are to be included based on the floor area stipulation of Section 9-8-3(c)(1), which includes areas for iaundry and personal storage. If the spaces were to qualify as uninhabitable space, then they would not count; however, the uses of that space may need to change per building code if ceilings are less than 6 feet in height. Further, please be advised that droo ceilinqs would not be acceotable to make the soaces uninhabitable (Zoning) • Parking reduction- Staff agrees with much of the justification for the parking reduction based on the restrictive nature of the parking requirements of the RH-2 zoning district, the projecYs location on a major transit line, its walkable proximity to Community Plaza and downtown for its residents, and iYs targeting of seniors as part of a co-housing project. However, staff is concerned that the parking reduction is excessive considering the fact that on-street parking is already parked up due to spillover parking from Community Piaza and the hospital, the considerable amount of commercial/office space proposed within the project, and the lack of parking provided for intended community events on the site. Staff finds that either more parking be accommodated on the site, and/or modifications to the uses, namely the commercial/office uses, be considered to lower the reduction. If the commercial/office space were primarily operated by residents of the development, there would be justification for less parking for those uses, but that does not seem to be the case. In sum, staff agrees that a parking reduction would be appropriate for the site, but perhaps not to the extent requested, which could be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. (Zoning) • Design of residences on single-family lots- Development of the single-family lots is of critical interest to the Pla~ning Board and the neighborhood. Despite this, no information regarding their development has been provided. Staff strongly recommends that the applicant provide a detailed response, including but not limited to design standards, indicating their intent for these lots. It has been mentioned in the pasi that design standards would be developed for these lots to ensure fhat any homes constructed on those lots would be compatible with the development on the high density residential lot and the neighborhood. Planning Board has expressed its interest in regulating the bulk of homes on those lots to ensure that their floor area ratios are not incompatible with surrounding homes. Square footages of residences in the area range from roughly 1,500 square feet to 3,000 square feet. As this is a Site Review application where compatibility is key, please be advised that the Planning Board may restrict the square footage and design of residences on the subject lots to ensure neighborhood compatibility. Please submit an appropriate response to how these Iots are to be developed and how their development will be compatible with the development and the neighborhood. (Zoning) Address: 1215 CEDAR ~c:~~n~ ire~ #~C ~~aG~ ~3 Rezoning- Staff finds that the applicanYs response to justifying the rezoning would not explicitly meet the criteria of Section 9-2-18(e). However, the City could support the zone line movement if a change to the land use designation of the site per the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) were done before the rezoning. This reauest could be done at no additional cost to the applicant and would necessitate an application for a land use designation change (see attached handout) and a narrative demonstrating how the project would meet each of the criteria. Please note this request would be referred to the County for comment, hut as a~ infill pro}ect, it is unlikely the County would not support the change. Once this change were done, then it could be argued that criteria No. 1 of Section 9-2-18(e) B.R.C. 1981 could be met by bringing the map into compliance with the BVCP. Essentially, the proposed land use would reflect the high density and iow density portions of the site by corresponding to the desired zoning line location. For the application to proceed, 15 new review sets and accompanying materials shall be submitted to the Project Specialists within 60 days. If revisions are not received within that time, the application will be deemed withdrawn, unless the applicant notities the Case Manager before the deadline of a good faith reason for delay. Once the new review sets are appropriatefy received, the plats wiN be routed to the reviewers who had commented on the application and those that may need to review the application due to changes. This project requires Planning Board approval of a Height Modification, a Parking Reduction greater than 50%, and to aflow a non-residential use in a residential zoning district. The Planning Board hearing date is tentatively scheduled for June 21. 2007. Preferably, revised plans should be resubmitted in appropriate time to allow enough time for staff to review the revisions, prepare responses, and ultimately, start preparation of a staff inemorandum to the Board with staff's recommendation. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Access/Circulation (Michelle Mahan, 303-441-4417) Public Imorovements All rights-of-way and easements are required to be dedicated concurrently with the final engineering submittai and prior to the time of building permit. Revise the Site Plan and Preliminary Plat to show the following rights-of-way and easements to be dedicated: 1. The Site Plan shows a"Private Alley' to the rear of the proposed single-family lots which serves both the single-family lots and the multi-family lot. Revise the plans to read "shared access drive". A public access easement will be required to be dedicated. The subdivision agreement will require a homeowner/unit owner's association for maintenance responsibility of this shared access drive. In addition, the single-family lots will be required to take access from this shared access drive, rather than 13`h Street. Add the following note to the plans: "Lots 2-7 must take access from the shared access drive:' 2. The sidewalk along Broadway Avenue will require a public access easement to be dedicated which includes the 8 foot wide tree lawn, the 8 foot wide sidewalk and an additional one foot beyond the back of walk. In addition, the adjacent transit stop will also require a public access easement to be dedicated which includes the bus shelter pad plus an additional one foot beyond the pad. 3. The sidewalks along Cedar Avenue and 13`" Street will require a public access easement to be dedicated which includes the 8 foot wide tree lawns, the 4 foot wide sidewalks and an additional one foot beyond the back of walk. 4. The required emergency access lane and associated turnaround must be entirely contained within a minimum, continuous 20' wide emergency access easement. Vertical ciearance from ihe surface of the emergency access lane shall be at least 13.5'. 5. Additional public access easement for city CIP reconstruction of the curb return at the northeast corner of Broadway and Cedar may also be required to be dedicated. The exact location of this additional easement will be determined at the time of finai engineering submittal. Note this on the pians. Emeraencv/Service Vehicle Circulation Per section 2.10(D)(4) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, the emergency access lane must provide a minimum turning radius ot 25 feet, or the radius needed to accommodate an SU-30 vehicle. The shared access drive cut a~d the `T" turnaround do not meet this requirement. Revise the plans to show this requirement being met. Pedestria~ Con~ectivitv 1. The sidewalk along Cedar Avenue is not shown to be the required width of 4 feet with an 8 foot wide tree lawn. Revise the plans to meet this requirement and clearly dimension all proposed sidewalk and tree lawn widths on the Site Plan. Address: 1215 CEDAR nr~ce~r~A ~~-+-~., . :']l/_ .. _- .,C~ 2. The pedestrian connectivity through the site is not well defined. A pedestrian connection from the bus stop should be provided either through the building along Broadway or a sidewalk connection should be provided just south of this building and around the proposed drop-off area. A pedestrian spine through the site could better connect the site to Broadway and the surrounding neighborhood. Revise the plans to address pedestrian connectivity concerns. 3. The existing curb ramps at the northeast corner of the intersection of Broadway and Cedar must be reconstructed to city standards. Federal ADA requirements mandate that truncated domes be used at all new curb ramps. Revise the site plan accordingly. These details will be reviewed at the time of tinal engineering submittal. The new ADA requirements for curb ramps can be found on the web at: www.bouldercolorado.gov Transit Stop on Broadwav A 50' bus stop pad is required to be installed along the Broadway frontage, to the north of the pedestrian signal crosswalk. This bus stop pad must allow a 5'x8' accessible loading area at the front (north end) of the bus pad. In addition, a 6'x13' shelter pad must be installed behind the sidewalk and aligned with the front of the bus pad. The following revisions must be made to the plans: 1. Several sheets show the required 6'x13' shelter pad to be installed between the back of curb and the sidewalk, instead of behind the back of sidewalk. This would require pedestrians to step into the street to access the shelter. All plans showing the required shelter pad must show it correctly located behind the sidewalk in order for pedestrians to safely access the front of the shelter from the sidewalk. 2. The northernmost tree grate shown within the 50' bus stop pad encroaches into the required 5'x8' accessible loading area. The bus pad should be shifted slightly to the north to provide the required 5'x8' accessible loading area beyond the tree grate. 3. Sheei LP-1 incorrectly labels the concrete bus stop pad as "concrete bus pull-ouY'. Revise the label to read "concrete bus stop pad". Travel Demand Manaqement (TDM) A Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan is required to which outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development and implementable measures for promoting alternate modes of travel. The submitted TDM plan must be revised to demonstrate that a significant shift in vehicular trips to and from the site will be provided. The applicant should contact Andrea Robbins (303-441-4139) with GO Boulder, to discuss TDM options. Submit the TDM plan as a separate document. Traffic Imoact Studv 1. Revise Figure 2 to include the eastbound through and left turning counts at Broadway/Cedar. 2. Several of the figures show Broadway incorrectly labeled as Hwy 7. Revise the figures accordingly. 3. The submitted trip generation calculations (Table 1) do not apply any Boulder specific reduction factors to account for the SKIP corridor, the 13~" Street Bikeway, the walking distance to groceries and neighborhood retail, etc. The applicant is encouraged to incorporate trip reduction factors into the estimated number of vehicle trips generated by the site. The report should discuss how the proposed Travel Demand Management plan (Section F) affects these rates. 4. The 30% north and 10% west trip distribution percentages in Section D appear to be too high, resulting in the10% south and 50% east trip distribution percentages appearing too low. In particular, estimating only 10% of the trip distribution to the south on Broadway seems very low. If this is the result of the difficulty to turn left out at Broadway, then the analysis should specify this. In addition, the analysis should describe the circuitous path necessary to get back to Broadway at a signal. Revise the traffic study to adequately support the proposed trip distribution percentages. 5. The traffic assigned at the site driveways (Figure 6) does not match exactly with the trip generation (Table 1). Although the difterence is not substantial, explain why the numbers are not consistent or correct the numbers accordingly. 6. Figures 7 and 8 show the 2010 and 2030 site driveway traffic projections rounded to the nearest 5 cars per hour, which has the effect of further inflating the site traffic. Do not show these numbers rounded to the nearest 5 cars per hour since it unnecessarily inflates the site traffic numbers. Address: 1215 CEDAR „~~~~~ ~~~~~;~ s~~~~~ as Conclusion 7 in Section G states "if parallel parking is added on Broadway in the future, the pedestrian-activated crosswalk on Broadway should be ~elocated to a location between Evergreen Avenue and Elder Avenue". City staff believes the current location of the pedesirian signal is optimal. In order for the pedestrian signal to be relocated, additional inSormation woufd be required to be included in the Traffic Impact Study to support the proposed relocation. A queuing analysis, showing the peak volume conditions and cycle lengths for the signal would be required to be provided. Supportive information in determining who is currently using the signal and how the proposed relocation will impact these users, including whether the SKIP passengers the signal is serving are primarily utilizing the site from the north or south, would also be required. Since the on-street parking is not being proposed at this time, this additional information is not required, but the aforementioned statement should be revised to clarify that additional analysis will be required to determine the best location for the pedestrian signal. Addressing The subdivision of this property will resuit in 7 additional lots, and the subsequent development of lot 1 will create additional address requirements. The address assignment for the additional units on Iot 1 will be handled during the technical document submittal stage for that fot. On future piat submittals, please include the new/existing addresses directly on the lot which the address has been assigned, as proposed below. Lot 1: 1215 Cedar Avenue (existing) Lot 2: 2941 13'h Street Lot 3: 2935 13'h Street Lot 4: 2927 13'h Street Lot 5: 2921 13'" Street Lot 6: 2915 13`h Street Lot 7: 2901 13'h Street Please contact Chris Meschuk, Address Administrator at (303) 441-4293 regarding any addressing questions. Buitding Design 1. It is currently difficult to determine how the buildings wilt appear on the site as the colors are not stated and the facades are labeled as "exterior finish system" To aid staff in assessing their compatibility with the existing school building and surrounding development, staff requests that color renderings of the site buildings be submitted and clarification of building color and materials be supptied. , 2. Siaff finds that the design of the Broadway building is well-ar[iculated and would provide an attractive streetscape along Broadway. Further, the buildi~g would complement the existing school with its use of compatible buildi~g materials without copying the school building as the applicanYs response states. However, staff questions how the other buildings on the site would complement the existing building, given their lack of any complementary materials from the school. Although staff certainly encourages the applicanYs to be creative in design and provide contrast, staff recommends that the applicant consider adding some elements of commonality among the structures that would compiement, while not replicating the school building. This may be achieved through an infusion of brick or other common materials to the other buildings. This could be (and is recommended to be) to a lesser extent than the proposed Broadway building. 3. Staff is also concerned about the lack of visual interest and detailing on the internal buildings. Staff recommends that, in line with the comment above, more building materials be integrated into the design and more distinction between units 6e done to improve the buildings' appearances. This could be done through creating more visual distinction of building modules through staggering heights where appropriate, off-setting the facades of some units, introducing more window size variations, and/or alternating colors and materials appropriately. Staff's principal concern in this regard is the east elevation of the east building and the north elevations of the north building. Such changes would enable the buiidings to meet Criterion 9-2-~4(h)(2)(F) relative to building design and its intent to incorporate architectural and site design elements to create visual interest to the pedestrian. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Drainage (Steve Buckbee, 303-441-3279) 1. Based on the Preliminary Drainage Report - Washington Village (Drainage Report) and the plans approximately 54% of the site will discharge undetained storm water runoff. Per Section 7.12(C}(4) of the DCS, the undetained drainage area may not exceed 5% percent of the entire parcel and tributary basin to be developed or redeveloped. 2. The Drainage Report states on page 1 that "the eastern portion of the site will be subdivided into 6 single family lots which will remain undeveloped for this projecP'. Once the lots are subdivided, they become buiidable lots, therefore the future developed conditions must be analyzed and accommodated with detention/water quality at this time. Revise the Drainage Report and plan as necessary. Address: 1215 CEDAR ^ tlta[~~iD~ w7'~it~ r, _'J~`% ~~~~ ~Q 3. Per Section 7.03(B)(1)(b) of the DCS, a discussion of groundwater conditions in the Preliminary Storm Water Report is required. Due to the proposed underground parking structure, groundwater water discharge may be an issue. The Preliminary Utility Report - Washington Village (Utility Report) states that 'Yhe foundation drain will be connected to an internal sump pump which will convey any collected ground water to the detention areas". Per Section 8-2-5 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (BRC), discharge of water (other than storm water) to sidewalks or streets is prohibited under certain conditions. Discharge of groundwater to the detention pond and subsequent curb and gutter of Cedar Avenue may not be permitted. 4. Page 3 of the Drainage Report states that "Basins C1 and C2 treat water quality by means of cobble lined bio- infiltration swales along the property lines", but only grassed swales are shown on the plans. Clarification is necessary. 5. Water quality features and detention facilities required by state and city regulations must be in outlots rather than easements crossing property lines. Revise the plans as necessary. Engineering The plans show proposed retaining walis for the access "circle" from Cedar Avenue with heights ranging from 3 to 7 feet in height. Additional building code requirements may apply to this area. Fees Please note that 2007 development review fees include a$128 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city response (these written comments). Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing system. Fire Protection Fire does not have any new comments for the concept plan. David Lowrey, 303.441.4356 Historic Preservation Landmark Designation The developer has submitted an application to designate the Washington School and a portion of land around that building as an individual historic landmark. This application will be reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board in June or July of 2007 and, if appropriate, by the City Council in September or October of 2007. Because a landmark application is pending, review for any proposed exterior alterations require a landmark alteration certificate per 9-11-18 ofthe B.R.C. Rehabilitation of the former Washinaton School Buildinq Architectural renderings on page A2 of the proposal show exterior changes to the historic school building planned as part ot its rehabilitation including the restoration of 1903 bell tower. While the drawings are preliminary, they do indicate some changes that may be inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and historic preservation ordinance. For instance, plans show the upper gallery on the tower to be glassed in to create a room. Enclosing this area would negatively impact the historic character of the fa~ade of the school. Likewise, installing doors on the second floor (flanking the tower) is inconsistent with Section 3.7.6 ot the Guidelines which states that "a window opening should be carefully preserved .." and should not be made larger or smaller to accommodate a differently sized window ...". The proposal to change the opening size of windows on other elevations of the building may also be inconsistent with this guideline. The submitted drawings lack the sort of detail required for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate. More detailed plans and specification regarding the restoration of lost features and general rehabilitation of the building will need to be submitted prior to the issuance of a landmark alteration certificate by the Landmarks Board. The applicant is scheduled for a preliminary landmark alteration certificate review by the Board on June 6, 2007. Proposed Additions to the School Buildinq The proposed connector between the historic school and proposed new construction at the west side of the property has been significantly lowered, narrowed, and lightened. These steps will lessen the loss of historic fabric and ensure reversibility. However, the proposed new construction along Broadway may be inconsistent with the Design Guidelines in that it may overpower the site and will partially obscure highly visible historic west elevation of the Washington School (Sections 2.1.1 and 2.12, and 4.1.3, 4.3(1,2,4,5), 4.3(1-3) and 4.5 ot the General Design Guidelines). This aspect of the proposal might also be inconsistent wiih the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and as such, might preclude the rehabilitation of the school qualifying for state or federal historic preservation tax incentives. Address: 1215 CEDAR ~tz~~~~.~ ~~~6~;. ~ ~~~~ a~ To make the proposal more consistent with these guideiines, consideration should be given to locating the south elevation footprint further north on the property in order to preserve the view corridor along the west elevation of the historic school and provide space around that building. Breaking-up the mass of the 165' long construction into two or three smaller buildings might act provide visual penetration into the site from the Broadway. James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner, 303-441-3207 Land Uses 1. A portion of the application indicates 6,800 square feet of office use, whereas other sections note 7,100 square feet of commerciaUoffice space. Please clarify. 2. The commercial/office space proposed is greater than that originaily intended with the Concept Plan. As discussed in the parking section of 'zoning' below, staff has concems that the amou~t ot commercial/office space could be a factor of the project that exacerbates an already tight parking situation in that area ot the city and further, that the extent of commercial/office space in that area may be greater than the Planning Board had intended and what would be considered appropriate for the immediate area. The Board noted that the office space should be more aimed to the surrounding neighborhood and the development itself, rather than more regionally focused technical/protessional offices as proposed with the Use Review. Staff has concerns that the amount proposed could change the character of the neighborhood, which along that portion of Broadway is almost entirefy residential, and potentially could have a negative impact as far as parking is concerned. StaSf finds that the space may have to be reduced or altered in a manner that would be less intensive. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Landscaping & Forestry 1. The handout, "City of Boulder Landscape Requirements for Streetscapes, Parking Lots and all other Developments" specifies preliminary submittal requirements of landscape plans for site and use review applications. In it is reference to a number of submittal requirements that must be shown on the project plans for staff to fully evaluate the proposed landscape plans. Those requirements are specified below in #2 thru #7. 2. Provide the botanical and common names and sizes of all proposed plant materials. 3. Label the caliper size and species type of all existing-to-remain trees. 4. Note that all existing trees to be removed within the public right-of-way require a tree removal permit through the city's Forestry Department, contact them at 303.441.4407. The Forestry Department is also concerned about waterlsewer lines and proposed walks coming into the building from Cedar, as they appear cfose to severaf existing trees. Please be advised that the applicant must meet with Urban Forestry staff on site to discuss final placement of these utility lines and walks. 5. Identify the sod or seed blend/mix for the turt grass. 6. Illustrate required site triangles on the landscape plan to ensure that there are no encroachments. Exceptions are made for trunks of trees whose branches are higher than eight feet above the roadway, objects less than 30- inches tall, or objects that are no less than 75 percent visually permeable. 7. Tree grates must be per city standard detail 3.03 of the Design and Construction Standards (DCS). 8. Provide the City's tree and shrub planting detail 3.02 of the DCS. 9. Adjacent to the vehicie drop-off area there are five trees shown to be planted in an area of "crusher fines:' Because of the amount of foot traffic that could be generated in this area, use of crusher fines is not recommended due to soil compaction. 10. There is a large tree located within the Central Activity Lawn that located in an area shown within the grading plan to be re-graded. Articulate plans for tree preservation both during and after construction. If a planter wall is proposed, detail the size and materials pfanned for the wall. 11. Several areas within the landscape plan are labeled, "Future Landscape by Others." Please explain why these areas are future landscape and not included in this application. Applicant should consider design guidelines for these landscapes to be consistent with the overall design intent and character of the rest of the site. Address: 1215 CEDAR tiC~~~~q~36;'iF ~h!!I S> ~~~'vt.~ ~O 12. Provide a description of the path material shown on the south side of the proposed east building. 13. Provide a description of the planned water retention gardens. 14. The dining terrace appears relatively small given the number of units planned within the development. Illustrate tables and chairs within the dining terrace to demonstrate that the terrace is functional for the number of potential users. 15. With the stated intent of an "intergenerational community" with seniors living in the development, consider the principals of "universal design" in the landscape. Among the tenants of "universal design" is that spaces be designed to be "simple and intuitive" and to "eliminate unnecessary complexity' by removing barriers to site accessibility. One concern noted by staff in that regard is that within the landscape there are a number of areas with grade transitions that require a lot of steps or stairs. Similarly, foot paths using (what appears to be) stepping stones could be less accessible for the older site user and may present challenges for persons with diminished spatial perception or impaired vision, as if often the case with older persons. Consideration should be made to provide a more simplified approach, particularly in walkways. reducing the number of steps, providing more ramps and generally making the site more accessible to all users. 16. Recent passage of the City's Climate Action Plan provides opportunities to explore creative approaches to reduce greenhouse gases and "carbon footprints" in ways both large and small. One consideration that should be made within the landscape and site planning is to provide a community garden that would, not only, encourage neighbor interaction it could also provide residents with "home-grown" local produce and help reduce dependence on long- distance produce shipping. For questions regarding Landscape comments, contact Elaine McLaughlin 303.441.4130. Legal Documents 1. Prior to decision on the application, the certification section of the application must be signed by the applicant. Parking (Michelle Mahan, 303-441-4417) 1. The Parking Plan (sheet 0.2) does not clearly delineate the proposed garage ramp slope. The garage ramp slope should not exceed the maximum grade of a local street (8%) if parking will be accessed from it. Revise the plans to show and dimension the garage access ramp in order to verify the functionality of the ramp circulation in accessing the parking stalis located off the ramp. 2. The plans show only 5 parking spaces (2 garage spaces and 3 parallel parking stalis) for the 6 units proposed in the "East Building Residential Space". Clearly show the additional required parking space on the plans. In addition, there appears to be a conflict between these proposed parallel parking stalls and a proposed fire hydrant. Revise the plans accordingly. 3. Bicycle parking is required to be provided in accordance with sections 9-9-6(b) and 9-9-6(g) of the Boulder Revised Code and section 2.11(E) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. The plans show a bicycle storage location proposed in the rear of the property. Per section 2.11(E)(2) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, bicycle parking should generally be provided within 50 feet of the main building entrance in a visible and prominent location that is lit at night. Although several bike racks could be installed in the rear of the buildings, the majority of the bike racks should be located near the front entrances and near the elevators in the parking garages. Revise the plans to show bicycle racks in accordance with the aforementioned standards and in areas where they will better serve residents, employees, and visitors. Review and revise the plans accordingly. ,4. The parking reduction request on sheet 0.2, must include the procedures, calculations, and associated data used in determining ihe number of vehicle parking spaces likely to be required by the proposed facility. See comments under Access/Circulation regarding the TDM plan requirements. Plan Documents 1. As noted below for height purposes, topographic contours must appear on the site plan. 2. Shading should be modified on the site plan to make underlying text legible. Further, other site features should be darkened as they are currently too light to be transferable to the City record. This applies to other plans throughout the plan set. Address: 1215 CEDAR ;~~:~~~~~, ~~~~~ ~s SC~,~~~ ~-9 3. The RL-1 lots should be labeled and have their setbacks shown as requested below. Further, the proposed lot lines of the RL-1 lots do not correspond to the preliminary plat. Please revise. 4. Some text throughout the plan set has an extremely small font size that is difficult to read. Please increase the font size of illegible text throughout the plan set. 5. Please add lines between spaces C17 and C18 and F22 and F23 on Sheet 1.0. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 3~3-441-4236 Site Design 1. Criterion 9-2-14(h}(2)(A) of the Site Review criteria aims to provide accessible and functional open space within developments. The site provides ample open space that appears to be functionally arranged, but is not necessarily accessible to the greater community. Staff understands the impetus for preserving privacy for future residents, however, city policies e~courage permeability of sites where passersby can be drawn into the site creating a product that can become an integral part of the community. Although the response to code criteria notes that the development will not be a"closed" community, the current site design has barriers to the greater community from entering the on-site open space; namely the corridor connecting the existing school building with the Broadway building. The Planning Board strongly encouraged a pedestrian connection into the central open space by a walkway beneath the proposed connector, but this has not been done. Staff agrees with this observation and strongly suggests that an access walkway be provided under the connector to the central space to be more in line with the aforementioned criterion. 2. Another critical element of discussion at the Concept Plan stage was the functionality of the park area at the corner of Broadway and 13'h. Staff recommends that the applicant consider further improvement of that space in line with the Useable Open Space standards in the Land Use Code to make the space more inviting. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Utilities (Steve Buckbee, 303-441-3279) Plans 1. The Preliminary Utility Plan shows a proposed wastewater main along the drive to the west of the proposed single- family lots. There is an existing wastewater main in 13'" Street directly east of the proposed lots. It does not appear that a secondary wastewater main to serve the single-family lots is necessary (based on grade, service access, etc.) and the additional maintenance burden to the city is not desirable. 2. Per section 9-12-12(a)(3)(D) of the Boulder Revised Code, "...Existing utilities are (to) also (be) placed underground unless the subdivider demonstrates to the manager that ihe cost substantially outweighs the visual benefit from doing so...". Revise the plans accordingly. 3. The proposed water meters for "Proposed Building Broadwa~', "Historic Brick & Stone Building", and "Proposed Duplex Annex" need to be relocated to the public right-ot-way or a public easement. All water meters are to be placed in city right-of-way or a public utility easement, but meters are not to be placed in driveways, sidewalks or behind fences. 4. The Preliminary Utility Plan shows the proposed domestic service line for the "Proposed East Building" paraileling the proposed water main in along the drive. Per Section 5.09(A)(4) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS), when the water service is located in the public right-of-way or easement, the service shall be installed perpendicular to the distribution main. 5. The Preliminary Utility Plan shows a 4" San Service for the "Historic Brick & Stone Building" with an 8"x6" Wye connecting to the main. Clarification is necessary. 6. There appears to be a conflict between a proposed parking stall and proposed fire hydrant to the east of the 'Proposed East Building'. Revise the Utility Plan to include the proposed parking spaces and revise the plans accordingly. 7. Per the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, trees must to be located at least 10 feet away from existing or future utilities and hydrants shall have a 10-foot radius of clearance to adjacent obstacles (fences, walis, shrubs, trees, etc.). The following utility fines (or trees) were identified as not meeting separation requirements: • All proposed trees (9) along Broadway - Existing wastewater main • Propose street east of Lot 2- Proposed domestic water service Address: 1215 CEDAR ,~~-+ a.~~tV€~r: ~'a ~~u? r.~ ."~~A~~ ~ Report 8. The Preliminary Utility Fieport - Washington Village (Utility Report) states Lots 2-6 will be developed in the future" and no projected water or wastewater demands for the lots are included in the Utiliry Report. As mentioned above under Drainage, once the lots are subdivided, they become buildable lots, therefore the future developed conditions must be analyzed and accommodated at this time. Revise the Utility Report and plans as necessary. 9. The utility report does not adequately address the projects impacts on velocities in the water system. The water modei in the Utility Report shows several sections of pipe with velocities over 8 fUs and a high velocity of 12.48 fVs for the max day plus fire flow. Redesign of the water system is required. Generally, the city's maximum allowable velocity under a combined maximum day demand/fire flow situation would be 8 feet per second. Make the following changes to the Utility Report: • Provide off-site and on-site recommendations for mitigating any excessive water velocities. • Provide any new modeling as needed to show that the post development velocities will meet City standards Zoning Buildinq Setbacks 1. The project will require the following modifications to setbacks: a) Front setback of 16 feet for Broadway building where 25 feet is the standard. b) Setback of 20.5 feet for covered and uncovered parking where 25 feet is the standard. c) Interior side setback ot 9 feet 8 inches for Broadway building where 10 feet is the standard. d) Setback of 7 feet 8 inches for the duplex where 12.5 feet is the standard. e) Minimum total for both side yard of 11 feet 9 inches where 20 feet is the standard. 2. Please note that the zero lot line setback for the accessory building by the north property line will require a maintenance easement on the abutting single-family residential lot to allow for any necessary maintenance of the accessory structure in the future. Such an easement must be a minimum of 3 feet and should be shown on the site plan and preliminary plat. 3. Some of the setbacks on the site plan do not correspond with the setbacks noted in the table on Sheet 0.0. Please revise. 4. Proposed setbacks for the single-family lots must be shown on the site plan. The table indicates a minimum 5 foot interior sideyard for each lot. Will the total 15 foot combined be accommodated? Also, the site plan should indicate the proposed street sideyard setback for the single-family corner lot. Code prescribes a setback of 12.5 feet in that case. 5. Please add the East building to the setback chart on Sheet 0.0. 6. At its closest point, the proposed Broadway building would be located 16 feet from the front property line as enumerated above. Other portions are located approximately 17.5 feet and 19 feet 8 inches as noted on the plans. Although there are portions proposed at approximately 23 feet, the distances noted above are closer to Broadway than other recently approved projects like Broadway Brownstones, which has its closest building bulk set at approximately 21 feet. Please provide a narrative of how the 16 foot distance was arrived at and further justification for its appropriateness to that area of the neighborhood. 7. Staft does not support the proposed setback of 7 feet 8 inches for the proposed duplex on Cedar as it does not correspond to any setbacks of other structures in that area. Existing structures on the opposite side of the street appear to be setback 25 feet or greater. Staff suggests that the duplex be revised to either line up with the front fa~ade of the library or at minimum the standard 12.5 foot setback for that side of the street. If the applicant does not agree, additional justification for the setback would be required. Buildinq Heiqht 1. The total requested building height of 41 feet in the Project Fact Sheet differs from the requested 45 foot height shown on the table on Sheet 0.0. Please revise as necessary. 2. It is difficult to verify the height of the proposed buildings from the submitted plans. In order to affirm the heights of the proposed buildings, topographic contours must be added to the site plan and the lowest points within 25 horizontal feet of each structure must be identified on the plan with an elevation point (i.e., 5266) and each corresponding elevation value added to the roof of each building on the plan to verify the height. These values Address: 1215 CEDAR :~~ ~mG~r~ ~-~€r~~ ~ s~% ~~~~.3~ _ must also be added to the building elevations. 3. It appears from the elevations that the proposed cupola on the historic school building will exceed the 55 toot height limit for the City of Boulder. However, a cupola is exempt pursuant to Section 84 of the City Charter. The addition of the cupola will, however, require a Landmark Alteration Certificate. The App~icant must adequately demonstrate with documentation that the appurtenance originally exceeded that height. Such documentation would be required as part ot the revised submittal packet. Please also revise the data within the Project Fact Sheet and that on Sheet 0.0 to indicate the proposed height of the building including the cupola. 4. Criterion 9-2-14(h)(2)(F) seeks to foster building heights that are compatible with the surrounding area. The applicant is correct in evaluating the neighborhood character, which contains a variety of building heights. Nevertheless, because the proposed buiidings on the site would be some of the tallest in the area, it is imperative that sensitively to neighbors is properly preserved as much as possibie. Staff commends the stepping back levels of the Broadway building to be more sensitive to the neighbors to the north. However, to better aid in this evaluation, sections of the north portion of the Broadway building and the north building must be submitted. If there are opportunities to lower building height through condensing plate heights in those areas and/or sinking the parking garage lower, staff recommends that that be done as part of the revised plans. Please be advised that solar drawings would also require changes if necessary. Floor Area- 1. For the purposes of determining total bulk on the site, it would be helpful if a table were provided below the floor area calculations on Sheet 0.4 that included the floor area noted in the Project Fact Sheet relative to commercial/office space, community facilities, garage, library etc. It is important that the table be kept separate from the residential table as to not confuse what counts in the RH-2 zoning district. The second table should include total square footage for all uses and spaces. 2. Staff has calculated a total floor area (i.e., including only those spaces required by Section 9-8-3(c), B.R.C. 1981) greater than the limit for the RH-2 portion oE the site. Based on the total size of the RH-2 portion (i.e., 68,633 square feet), up to 44,316.5 square feet would be permitted. Staff has estimated nearly 50,000 square feet on the site. Staff finds that the reason for the discrepancy is that basements for storage and laundry for units in the north and east building were not counted. These spaces would count, because they are not communal and are to be included based on the floor area stipulation of Section 9-8-3(c)(1), which includes areas for laundry and personal storage. If the spaces were to qualify as uninhabitable space, then they would not count; however, the uses of that space may need to change per building code if ceilings are less than 6 feet in height. Further, please be advised that drop ceilinqs would not be acceptable to make the spaces uninhabitable. 3. In order to clarify areas that would count as floor area, please label all rooms on the floor plans and add dimensions as necessary to exterior building walls. It appears that some portions, particularly third level rooms of the Broadway building and closet spaces within other units, were not counted in the square footage. Labels should clarify the use of those spaces and whether or not they would count. Currently, it is difficult to determine the difference between indoor and outdoor space; particularly on the Broadway building. Further, please be advised that personal storage units tor paRicular units, although not contiguous, would count as tloor area for purposes of ineeting the floor area requirements, not the parking requirements. Also, based on a recent determination by the Zoning Administrator, floor area counted on exterior stairs and elevated walkways would not count as floor area, since it would be against the intent of the RH-2 zoning district, which exempts communal spaces. Please revise the floor area as necessary. 4. What is the reasoning behind different shading for different buildings on the Floor Area Calculation sheet (Sheet 0.4)? Please provide a legend clarifying the different shades or change to one shade as necessary. Open Space 1. It appears that the project would provide well over the 20% required open space per Section 9-911(c) with at least 51 % of the site as open space. However, in order to affirm this on the plans for future reference, please provide a table of the amount and percentage of open space on the site keeping in mind the areas that would count per Section 9-9-11(e), (f), (g) and (h), B.R.G. 1981 of the Useable Open Space section and the fact that up to 25% of the private deck space may count in the number. 2. Will there be a wall separating the private open spaces of the two middle units on the third floor of the Broadway building? If not, staff suggests that an appropriate wall to ensure privacy be added. Further, the heights of similar separation walls for privacy must be noted on the floor plans (namely for the north building) to assess the quality of the private open space. Address: 1215 CEDAR C~'j'~~ ~~I.;S~iyGh Pk'€-,Ill9ts`_'_`%kjl~~~~~ 3. Criterion 9-2-14(h)(2)(A) encourages private open space for all units. In this case, the four ground level units of the Broadway building and six units within the historic school would not have their own private outdoor space. Staff finds that through time, this may be problematic requiring the developer to look into ways of providing such space for those units. Staff recommends that this be looked into now and creative solutions be explored to enable those units have their own outdoor space. 4. Although the narrative notes that mature trees over 15 inch diameters are to be preserved (consistent with the Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction), no intormation has been provided to ensure protection of those trees. Further, it appears that grading activities on the site may impact some mature trees; namely the tree to remain in the central greenspace. Please provide more information on the landscape plan and grading and drainage plan showing how existing mature trees are to be preserved. Parkinq 1. The total number of parking spaces listed in the Project Fact Sheet does not total 66 parking spaces as noted on the site plan. Please revise. 2. Please add the following information to the Parking Plan on Sheet 0.2: a) A note under 'Total Cars provided for the RL-1 zone on site' that one parking space per single-family unit is required. b) A table including the number of compact parking spaces provided and their percentage of the total. In this case, compact stalls may not account for more than 50% of the total spaces. 3. Please make the following corrections to the Parking Plan on Sheet 02: a) The total office parking would actually be 23 parking spaces instead of 24 as parking would round down. This would change the total for the site to 139 and the parking reduction to 52.5%. Please revise. b) The spelling of 'transiY in the `Parking Reduction Requested' section. 4. Proposed on-street parking must be shown on both the Parking Plan and the Site Plan. 5. What does the 'F' before the standard spaces mean? 6. Please add dimensions to at least one standard space and one compact space (90 degree parking and parallel) and note as typical (typ.) for the plan set. 7. Please indicate where the 24 spaces for the commercial/office uses will be located. 8. Staff agrees with much of the justification for the parking reduction based on the restrictive nature of the parking requirements of the RH-2 zoning district, the projecYs location on a major transit line, its walkable proximity to Community Plaza and downtown for its residents, and iYs targeting of seniors as part of a co-housing project. However, staff is concerned that the parking reduction is excessive considering the fact that on-street parking is already parked up due to spillover parking from Community Plaza and the hospital, the considerable amount of commercial/office space proposed within the project, and the lack of parking provided for intended community events on the site. Staff finds that either more parking be accommodated on the site, and/or modifications to the uses, namely the commercial/office uses, be considered to lower the reduction. If the commercial/office space were primarily operated by residents of the development, there would be justification for less parking for those uses, but that does not seem to be the case. In sum, staff agrees that a parking reduction would be appropriate for the site, but perhaps not to the extent requested, which could be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Trash Storaae 1. Please note that per Section 9-9-19(f) a minimum clearance of 6 feet 8 inches is required for enclosed trash storage areas. 2. The applicant should consider a more sensitive and perhaps central location for the trash enclosure such the noise and other impacts there associated are minimized to neighboring residential properties and dwelling units on site. Address: 1215 CEDAR %>~:.:~6~f4~Pa C`R'1=~! ~<~fr~/~~aC~.~ Solar Access 1. Please show adjacent structures on the solar plans. 2. Staff requests that the plans be drawn at a larger scale (i.e, 1'=20" or 1'=10"). Further, the tables should be simplified to match the sample table attached. 3. Please provide the same shade for each of the drawings; preferably the lighter shade of Drawing 1/0.1. 4. Please revise the points in the solar analysis for the North Building to be N, rather than E. 5. The solar fence would actually change just east of the north building since the zoning changes. This would cause the fence to drop from 25 feet to 12 feet. Please revise. Appurtenances 1. What are the elements shown on the east side of the Broadway buildings roof? 2. Sheet 1.3 shows a roof pfan indicating a mecha~icai screening area that appears to exceed 25% of the roof area, which does not comply with the limitations set forth in Section 9-7-7, B.R.C. 1981, Appurtenances. Please review that section and provide roof plans for all buildings demonstrating compliance with that section. Preliminarv Plat 1. Please revise title to say'Utility Connection Plan' rather than `Utility Connect Plan.' 2. Correct the spelling of `architectural' under Note #16 (twice). 3. Add a Note #19 indicating proposed usage of RH-2 zoned area (i.e., Lot 1). 4. Remove the note relative to lots 2-7 not meeting zoning requirements. After plat is recorded, plat will meet zoning requirements through meeting the Site Review criteria. 5. Show portions (closest to the lot line) of any off-site buildings that may be within 10 feet of the subject site. 6. Indicate any buildings or portions of buildings that are proposed for removal. 7. Add the existing and proposed zoning boundary lines on the plat. 8. Per Section 9-12-12(a)(1)(K), B.R.C. 1981, indicate on the plat any proposed tree plantings on the RL-1 lots to ensure compliance with that section. 9. The length of the north and south property line of Lot 1 appears to be incorrect. Staff estimates the line would be approximately 319 feet rather than 309 feet. Please look into this to see if the line length is correct. 10. Please note that the final plat for the subdivision may not be recorded until such time that the rezoning is officially approved. I1. The plat would not meet the standard under Section 9-12-12(a)(1)(D), B.R.C. 1981, because the single-family residentiai lots would be less than 7,000 square feet each. However, as the density of those lots would be no larger than that permitted in that area of RL-1 zoning, the lot size can be varied through Site Review and through meeting at least one of the waivers under Section 9-12-12(b). RL-1 lots Development of the single-family lots is ot critical interest to the Planning Board and the neighborhood. Despite this, no information regarding their development has been provided. Staff strongly recommends that the applicant provide a detailed response, including but not limited to design standards, indicating their intent for these lots. It has been mentioned in the past that design standards would be developed for these lots to ensure that any homes constructed on those lots would be compatible with the development on the high density residential lot and the neighborhood. Planning Board has expressed its interest in regulating the bulk of homes on those lots to ensure that their floor area ratios are not incompatible with surrounding homes. Square footages of residences in the area range from roughly 1,500 square feet to 3,000 square feet. As this is a Site Review application where compatibility is key, please be advised that the Planning Address: 1215 CEDAR I1C:~~1;~r1 h k r~~H a r a?, l.! f~~~~ ~~ Board may restrict the square footage and design of residences on the subject lots to ensure neighborhood compatibility. Please submit an appropriate response to how these lots are to be developed and how their development will be compatible with the development and the neighborhood. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Vested Riqhts The applicant has requested vested rights. Please review to Section 9-2-19 B.R.C. 1981 for applicanYs responsibilities and the requirement for a public hearing. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Rezoning The proposal to relocate the RH-2/RL-1 zoning boundary approximately 48 feet to the east was considered and supported by the Planning Board at the Concept Plan stage. This adjustment would increase the allowable density and floor area in the RH-2 portion. However, the applicant does not intend to increase the density by the movement, but rather just to encompass existing multi-family units ~ust east of the original school building and provide a more appropriate density transition from high density along Broadway down to low density along 13'". This change would increase the allowable floor area of the RH-2 district, but would be on the side where mass would be more appropriate along Broadway. Staff finds that the applicanYs response to justifying the rezoning would not explicitly meet the criteria of Section 9-2-18(e). However, ihe City could support the zone line movement if a change to the land use designation of the site per the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) were done before the rezoning. This repuest could be done at no additional cost to the applicant and would necessitate an application for a land use designation change (see attached handout) and a narrative demonstrating how the project would meet each of the criteria. Please note this request would be referred to the County for comment, but as an infill project, it is unlikely the County would not support the change. Once this change were done, then it could be argued that criteria No. 1 of Section 9-2-18(e) B.R.C. 1981 could be met by bringing the map into compliance with the BVCP. Essentially, the proposed land use would reflect the high density and low density portions of the site by corresponding to the desired zoning line location. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Access/Circulation (Michelle Mahan, 303-441-4417) 1. All rights-of-way and easements are required to be dedicated concurrently with the final engineering submittal and prior to the time of building permit. All rights-of-way and easements required to be dedicated to the city must be reviewed and approved through a separate Technical Document Review process. Application materials and requirements are located on the 3rd Floor of the Park Central Building, and can also be found on the city's web-site at: www. bou Id e rco lorado. qov 2. The existing curb and gutter along 13t`' and portions of the existing curb and gutter along Cedar must be replaced in conformance with current city standards, prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. Area Characteristics and Zoning History The property is surrounded by a variety of multi-family and single-family dwellings. This is evident in the zoning in the area, which include high. medium and low density residential. As noted below, the property is a split zone lot with RH-2 zoning along Broadway and RL-1 zoning along 13`h Street. Broadway Brownstones, a similar high density project, is being constructed just south of the site. The proposal is the result of a City initiated Request for Proposal (RFP) process to redevelop the Washington Elementary School site. The intent of that process was to work with the Boulder Valley School District, a developer, and the community on creating a development that meets City Council's goals for the site. The RFP was reviewed by Planning Board through Concept Plan application LUR2006-00031 and Landmarks Board prior to City Council action on the item on September 19, 2006, where Wonderland Hill Development Company was recommended as the preferred purchaser of the site. A subsequent Concept Plan application, LUR2006-00092, was reviewed by Planning Board in November 2006. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Engineering (Steve Buckbee, 303-441-3279) 1. At time of building permit application, a separate Fence/Retaining Wall Permit will be required for all proposed retaining walls and fences on the property. Address: 1215 CEDAR t#~.;ia:ilYd.~~1 g 9"~~d!)d Cr~L/~~~g~~, t_3__~ 2. The applicant is notified that any groundwater discharge to the storm sewer system will require both a state permit and a city agreement. The steps for obtaining the proper approva~s are as follows: Steo 1-- Identify applicable Colorado Discharge Permit System requirements for the site. Steo 2-- Determine any history of site contamination (underground storage tanks, groundwater contamination, industrial activities, landfills, etc.) if there is contamination on the site or in the groundwater, water quality monitonng is required. Step 3-- Submit a written request to the city to use the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). This submittal should include a copy of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) permit application. The written request should include the location, description of the discharge, and brief discussion of all discharge options (e.g., discharge to MS4, groundwater infiltration, off-site disposal, etc.) The request should be addressed to: City ot Boulder, Stormwater Quality, 4049 75th St, Boulder, CO 80301 Fax: 303-413-7364 Step 4-- The city's Stormwater Quality Office will respond with a DRA~f agreement, which will need to be submitted with the CDPHE permit application. CDPHE will not finalize the discharge permit without permission from the city to use the MS4. Steo 5-- Submit a copy of the final discharge permit issued by CDPHE back to the City's Stormwater Quality Office so that the MS4 agreement can be finalized. For further information regarding stormwater quality within the City of Boulder contact the City's Stormwater Quality Office at 303-413-7350. All applicable permits must be in place prior to building permit application. 3. No portion of any structure, including footings and eaves, may encroach into any public right-of-way or easement. 4. The project appears to be disturbing more than 1 acre of land. A construction storm water discharge permit is required from the State of Colorado for projects disturbing greater than 1-acre. In addition, the requirements of Section 7.13 of the DCS (revised Jan 5, 2005) apply. 5. All landscaping proposed in the right-of-way or public utility easements shall comply with the standards as set forth in Chapter 8-5, "Work in the Public right-of-way and Public Easements," and Chapter 8-6, "Public right-of-way and Easement Encroachments, Revocable Permits, Leases, and Vacations," Boulder Revised Code 1981. Land Uses The property is designated "Public/Semi-Public" in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. This category includes a wide range oS public and private non-profit uses that provide a community service and reflects the public ownership of the property and its use as a school. A land use designation change to high density residentiai and low density residential is requested above to bring the site into conformance with the underlying zoning and the intent to move the zone line to allow for the proposed layout of buildings on the property. Karl Guiler, Case Manager. 303-441-4236 Neighborhood Comments Several emaifs have been received which discuss the proposed project. All are from residents of the Red Arrow Townhouses to the immediate north. These residents are collectively concerned about the scale and height of the proposed Broadway building and the affect it could have on their homes. Several are concerned about the loss of their Flatiron views as well. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Review Process Per Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981, the project requires Site Review, because the property exceeds 2 acres and would include over 20 dwelling units. Further, Site Review is required for modifications to code standards outlined in the `Site Review' section above. A Use Review is required, because the applicant is requesting approval of a non-residential use (i.e., commerciai/office space, community facilities) in a residentiaily zoned area. Subdivision of the property must also be evaluated for compliance with the Subdivision Regulations of Section 9-12, B.R.C. 1981. The rezoning of the property, as described above, also requires Planning Board and City Council action. The applicable criteria are as follows: • SITE REVIEW: See Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. • USE REVIEW: See Section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981. • PRELIMINARY PLA7: See Section 9-2-7, B.R.C. 1981. • REZONING: See Section 9-2-18, B.R.G. 1981. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Address: 1215 CEDAR ,,~ax-~~;.n, a a~'~~s~ E~_''~r__e~~a~~:.~o Utilities (Steve Buckbee, 303-441-3279) 1. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along the property frontage may conflict with existing utilities, including without limitation: gas, electric, and telecommunications, within and adjacent to the development site. It is the applicant's responsibility to resolve such conflicts with appropriate methods conforming to the Boulder Revised Code 1981, the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and any private/franchise utility specifications. 2. Maintenance of sand/oil interceptors and all private wastewater and storm sewer lines and structures shall remain the responsibility of the owner. 3. The landscape irrigation system requires a separate water service and meter. A separate water Plant investment Fee must be paid at time of building permit. Service, meter and tap sizes will be required at time of building permit submittal. 4. The proposed project includes work within the public right-of-way or public easements. A right-of-way permit is required prior to initiating this construction. 5. The applicant is advised that at the time of building permit application the following requirements will apply: a. The applicant will be required to provide accurate existing and proposed plumbing fixture count forms to determine if the proposed meters and services are adequate for the proposed use. b. Water and wastewater Plant Investment Fees and service line sizing will be evaluated. c. If the existing water and/or wastewater services are required to be abandoned and upsized, all new service taps to existing mains shall be made by city crews at the developer's expense. The water service must be excavated and turned off at the corporation stop, per city standards. The sewer service must be excavated and capped at the property line, per city standards. d. Since the buildings will be sprinklered, the approved fire line plans must accompany the fire sprinkler service line connection permit application. 6. All water meters are to be placed in city R.O.W. or a public utility easement, but meters are not to be placed in driveways, sidewalks or behind fences. 7. Floor drains internal to covered parking structures, that collect drainage from rain and ice drippings from parked cars or water used to wash-down internal floors, shall be connected to the wastewater service using appropriate grease and sediment traps. Zoning The property is a split zoned lot with RH-2 (High Density Residential) zoning along Broadway and RL-1 zoning (Low Density Residential) zoning along 13'" Street. The number of allowable residential units permitted in the RH-2 zone is calculated by dividing the lot size by 3,200 square feet. However, a greater number of uniis (lot size divided by 1,600 square feet) could be permitted, if approved by Planning Board. The number of single-family dwellings on the RL-1 portion is the total lot area divided by 7,000 square feet. Based on the applicanYs estimations (i.e., 88,633 square feet within RH-2 lot after zone line adjustment), the RH-2 portion could accommodate up to 55 multi-family units and the RL-1 portion could accommodate up to 6 single-family dwellings. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 IV. NEXT STEPS For the application to proceed, 15 new review sets and accompanying materials shall be submitted to the Project Specialists within 60 days. If revisions are not received within that time, the application will be deemed withdrawn, unless the applicant notifies the Case Manager before the deadline of a good faith reason for delay. Once the new review sets are appropriately received, the plats will be routed to the reviewers who had commented on the application and those that may need to review the application due to changes. This project requires Planning Board approvai of a Height Modification, a Parking Reduction greater than 50%, and to allow a non-residential use in a residential zoning district. The Planning Board hearing date is tentatively scheduled for June 21, 2007. Preferably, revised plans should be resubmitted in appropriate time to allow enough time for staff to review the revisions, prepare responses, and ultimately, start preparation of a staff inemorandum to the Board with staff's recommendation. V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST To be prepared at time of recommendation to Planning Board. Address: 1215 CEDAR ;~~:;~d~,~~~~~;~~„~~~.~~~, 37 VI. Conditions On Case Not yet prepared. Address: 1215 CEDAR 1lC~Lt~d~/~ 61'~~ll~ #a ~P.~a~ ~~ -= i CITY OF BOULDER ,~/~~,~~r, Planning and Development Services "~'1r' ~~ 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 ~ phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: June 22, 2007 CASE MANAGER: Karl Guiler PROJECT NAME: WASHINGTON VILLAGE LOCATION: 1215 CEDAR AVENUE COORDINATES: N04W06 REVIEW TYPE: Site and Use Review REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2007-00016 & LUR2007-00017 APPLICANT: LAUREL FANNING DESCRIPTION: 1) SITE REVIEW: Request to construct a total of 40 residentia~ units on a 3 acre site. More specifically, 34 residential units and common facilities are proposed in a co-housing type community on the high density portion of the site along Broadway and 6 single-family residences are proposed on the low density portion along 13th Street. The multi-family units and common facilities would be located in the existing school building and in four new buildings on the site synonymous with the Concept Plan reviewed by Planning Board on June 15, 2006 and December 7, 2006 and by City Council on September 19, 2006. This request requires Planning Board approval to allow the following: -A reduction in the minimum lot area per dwelling unit pursuant to Section 9-8-3(d), B.R.C. 1981; -A reduction in the minimum lot sizes for the RL-1 lots below the 7,000 square foot minimum; -A parking reduction greater than 50%; -Modification to several setbacks; and, -A height modification to permit the Broadway building at a height of 41 feet (from the lowest point within 25 feet of the structure, not from grade), where 35 feet is the standard for the zoning district. 2) USE REVIEW: Request to permit 7,148 square feet of office/commercial space on the ground floor of a new building along Broadway and community facilities on the site analogous to government facilities (i.e., community use of ineeting space) and adult education facilities for classes as defined in the Land Use Code. This request requires Planning Board approval. 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT: Preliminary consideration of a proposed subdivision of the existing 130,709 square foot (2.99 acre) lot into a total of seven lots. Six of the lots would front on 13th Street and would range in size from 4,76~ square feet to 6,169 square feet and would ultimately accommodate single family residences on the low density residential portion of the site. The seventh lot would front on both Broadway and Cedar, would be roughly 93,425 square feet (2.14 acres) in size, and would accommodate the multi-family, community facilities, and office/commercial space on the high density residential portion of the site. 4) COMPREHESIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE/REZONING: Proposal to change the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Public/Semi-Public to High Density and Low Density Residential to correspond to the new proposed boundary as proposed in the rezoning described as follows; Request to move the existing zoning boundary between RH-2 and RL-1 approximately 48 feet feet eastward. This movement is proposed to encompass the multi-family residential units along the west side of the proposed al~ey on the site and to create an appropriate density gradient from west to east across the site. No increase in density is requested as a result of the zoning boundary adjustment. This request requires City Council approval. 5) VESTED RIGHTS: Request for creation of vested rights pursuant to Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981. REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: 1) A reduction in the minimum lot area per dwelling unit on the RH-2 zoning portion pursuant to Section 9-8-3(d), B.R.C. 1981; Address: 1215 CEDAR ;~,G'-~Np~ I7EP~i # sC PAGE ~ 2) A reduction in the minimum lot sizes for the RL-1 lots below the 7,000 square foot minimum to allow single-family residential lots ranging from 4,767 square feet to 6,169 square feet (would not increase the allowable density) pursuant to Section 9-2-14(c), B.R.C. 1981; 3) A parking reduction of 52.5% (requires Planning Board approval) pursuant to Section 9-9-6(f) and Section 9-2- 14(h)(2)(K), B.R.C. 1981; 4) Modification to the following setbacks for the RH-2 zoning district pursuant to Section 9-2-14(c)(1), B.R.C. 1981; a) Front setback of 17 feet 4 inches for Broadway building where 25 feet is required. b) Setback of 21.5 feet for covered and uncovered parking where 25 feet is required. c) Setback of 7 feet 8 inches for the duplex where 72.5 feet is required. (Measurement is made to the two- fevel deck. Building otherwise meets required setback.) d) Minimum total for both side yards of 11 feet 9 inches where 20 feet is required. ; and, e) Rear setback of approximately 23.5 feet where 25 feet is required. f) Side setback of 0 feet for Lot 7 where 12.5 feet is required. This lot is adjacent to an outlot. 5) A height modification to permit the Broadway building at a height of 41 feet (from the lowest point within 25 feet of the structure, not from grade), where 35 feet is the standard for the zoning district pursuant to Section 9-2-14(e), B.R.C. 7981. I. REVIEW FINDINGS The comments below reflect a second review of the proposal. Currently, staff is preparing a memorandum to Planning Board on the project. The following key issues have been identified (these issues may be modified and(or added to in the time before the final memorandum based on further review and additional information): 1. Is the proposed plan consistent with the previously reviewed Concept Plan? 2. Can the Planning Board support the proposed BVCP land use designation change and rezoning? 3. Does the proposed plan meet the Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction for the property? 4. Can the requested setback and minimum lot size modifications in the RH-2 and RL-1 zones and the proposed height of 41 feet for the Broadway Building be supported? 5. Is the proposed parking reduction of 52.5% justified? 6. Is the proposed project compatible with the existing school and greater neighborhood? Based on the resubmitted materials, staff is generally supportive of the application and finds that is it consistent with the previous Concept Plans and the Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction for the property. However, further analysis is being done regarding the projecYs overall compatibility with the existing school and greater neighborhood. This analysis will be realized in the final staff memorandum where a recommendation to Planning Board will be made. Staff is appreciative of the applicanYs cooperative nature lhroughout this review and finds that the revised plans have addressed many of the concerns previously raised. However, as the review before Planning Board is compressed, it does not allow as much time to deal with lingering issues before Planning Board decision. Therefore, staff requests that the applicant consider the comments below with high priority irt aiming to hold the Planning Board date at the set Julv 19, 2007 meeting. Prior to city recommendation for approval to Planning Board, the plans must show a fire turnaround area in conformance with city standards, the parking garage ramp slope must be verified, and a revised traffic impact study and travel demand management plan must be provided. Because a redesigned fire turnaround has the potential to significantly affect the site design, revised plans addressing that must be submitted for evaluation to the City before the end of next week (June 29, 2007). Assuming a logical solution can be made without significantly affecting other aspects of the project, staff intends on proposing a condition of approval that would require the change as shown on the revised plan or the change could be incorporated into the Planning Board review sets. However, the City does reserve the right to consider other options, including rescheduling Planning Board, if the solution creates other unevaluated impacts to the site. Once the issue above is dealt with accordinalv and assumina the oroiect can proceed to Planninq Board as oriqinallV intended, staff will request that the applicant submit the Planning Board review sets. The Planning Board review sets should generally be identical to those evaluated by staff during this review, with the exception of those requested changes above regarding the fire turnaround etc. and those comments that are [1ig,,~ below. The other requested changes are expected to be incorporated into the Technical Documents, since staff would not have enough time to evaluate all the changes as part of this review. To clarify the extent of changes Address: 1215 CEDAR ~,~aF~n~ rr~~u ~ ~C aar,~ on any subsequent sets, please cloud and date all changes on the plans. Please contact the Case Manager with any questions (303-441-4236). II. CITY REGIUIREMENTS Access/Circulation/Parking (Michelle Mahan, 303-441-4417) The following comments must be addressed prior to staff recommendation of approval to Planning Board: d the "T' turnaround do not meet this requirement. In addition, a"T" or "Y" turnaround must bE ot length and a 20 foot width. The 60 foot length is not shown to be met. In addition, becausE is not a standard `T" or "Y" configuration, additional easement will be required to provide a mir us of 25 feet, or the radius needed to accommodate an SU-30 vehicle. It appears that the req~ space will affect fhe lot IayouUbuilding footprint{s). Revise the plans to show this requirement Address: 1215 CEDAR ,~.~~~~~. ~~~E~~, ;s: sc~~~~~~~ . ~/ 2. The sidewalk along Cedar Avenue is not shown to be the required width of 4 feet with an 8 foot wide tree lawn. Revise the plans to meet this requirement and clearly dimension the proposed sidewalk and tree lawn width on the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. The plans show bicycle storage lockers for the residents and also bicycle parking in the parking garage and near the entrance of the existing library building. Per section 2.11(E)(2) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, bicycle parking should generally be provided within 50 feet of the main building entrances in a visible and prominent location that is lit at night_ In order to meet this standard, a minimum of 2 inverted "U" racks should be added to the plans in the following locations: near the Broadway entrances to the commercial spaces, on the bus shelter pad, and near the vehicle drop-off area. Revise the plans to show bicycle racks in accordance with the aforementioned standards and in areas where they will better serve residents, employees, and visitors. In addition, the plans clearly label the number of bicycle parking spaces proposed in each location. Bicycle parking is required to be provided in accordance with sections 9-9-6(b) and 9-9-6(g) of the Boulder Revised Code and section 2.11(E) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Building and Housing Codes No comments Kirk Moors (303) 441-3172 Building Design 1. Staff continues to have concerns about the architectural compatibility of the North, East and Duplex buildings with the historic school and encourages the applicant to consider adding elements of commonality among that structures that would complement, but not replicate the school building. Staff also agrees with some comments made by Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board members, that perhaps more relation between the Broadway Building and the school be done by incorporating more contextual elements from the school in a contemporary manner. Staff inet with the architect and was pleased to see that some common detailing was being infused into the Broadway Building. A recommendation to Planning Board on the design and overall compatibility with the buildings and the neighborhood will be made in staff's final memorandum for the July 19'h meeting. Karl 303-44 2. A Final Storm Water Report and Plan will be required as part of the Technical Document Review process. All plans and reports shall be in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. The Final Storm Water Report and Plan wilf be required prior to building permit application. 3. Per Section 7.03(B)(1)(b) of the DCS, a discussion of groundwater conditions in the Preliminary Storm Water Report is required. Due to the proposed underground parking structure, groundwater water discharge may be an issue. The applicanYs response to initial comments indicates that a stub out will be provided for future connection to a proposed storm main in Broadway. Label the stub and provide an explanation in the required technical document final storm water report and plan submittal. 4. Drainage easements are required for the two detention ponds not located in an outlot. Public access easements will be required if the ponds do not abut any existing/proposed public right-of-way or access easements or where maintenance access will be provided through private property. Revise the preliminary plat as necessary. 5. Show how the single family lots will access the sidewalk along 13"' Street on the other side of the proposed drainage swale. Provide a design to allow crossing of the drainage swale and include it in the required technical document final storm water report and plan submittal Fees Please note that 2007 development review fees include a$128 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city response (these written comments). Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing system. Inclusionary Zoning The units proposed to meet the requirements of inclusionary zoning do not "meet or exceed" those requirements. Given the size of the market rate units, the permanently affordable low income units need to average at least 1200 square feet, where the proposed inclusionary zoning units average 814 square feet. It appears that the permanently affordable units have decreased in size while the market rate units have increased in size. Please look at options for bringing the proposed inclusionary units into compliance with the inclusionary zoning ordinance. The Applicant might also consider adding private open space to the four very small permanently affordable units in the mixed use building in order to provide more livable units. Cindy Pieropan, HHS, 303.441.3157 Address: 1215 CEDAR ,i: i~ ~ `.!'~i;': ~ ~ ~`~.'1 ;'F ~~ 6~lat~r ~ ~~ Land Uses 1. The discrepancy of the 6,800 square feet and 7,100 square feet is actually on the vested rights form. Staff will only consider the 7,100 square foot request. 2. At the previous Concept Plan reviews, the Planning Board did not, in whole, support more regionally focused commercial uses on the site, but rather wanted to see more neighborhood based commercial uses like live/work. Since that time, staff has investigated the area along Broadway in more depth and agrees with the applicant that there are other comparable commercial projects in the vicinity. Staff intends to support the requested Use Review for the commercial uses (and the accessory community spaces within the project), but does have concerns about the size of the proposed coffeeshop and the traffic draw that it could present. Staff is not opposed to the coffeeshop and agrees that it would be an appropriate neighborhood meeting location, but finds that a smaller sized coffeeshop may be more appropriate. This will be recommended to the Planning Board. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Landscaping 1. Staff finds that the use of `crusher fines' could be problematic for any possible aging residents that live in the community and recommends that the paths be replaced with more stable and level patterned concrete paths. 2. Staff is concerned about grading activity that is proposed around the principal tree (a sugar maple) in the open space north of the school. The grading activity shows at least 6 inches of fill that would be placed around the tree. This is not addressed in the submitted arborist report and this activity is anticipated to damage the tree. Staff urges the applicant to reconsider the grading activity as proposed and propose an alternative that would at least leave an undisturbed perimeter around the tree to ensure its survival. Any proposed grading activity should be evaluated by the retained arborist. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Plan Documents `Plan Documents' Comment #4 of the previous comments regarding text size appears to have been addressed with the exception of the parking dimensions on the parking plan. Please increase the font size of those dimensions for greater legibility. Utilities (Steve Buckbee, 303-441-3279) 1. On-site and off-site water main and wastewater main construction per the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) as necessary to serve the development, as well as perpetuate the overall system, will be required. All proposed public utilities tor this project shall be designed in accordance with the DCS. A Final Utility Plan and Report per Sections 4.03, 5.02 and 6.02 of the DCS will be required at time of technical document review and prior to building permit application. 2. The existing 2" domestic meter and service along the Broadway frontage must be abandoned to city standards at the corporation stop with the main. A new 1" meter and service tapped of the existing main will be needed for irrigation as shown. Revise the final engineering plans required at technical document submittal as necessary. 3. The 6" fire service along Broadway will require an 8"x6" Tee with an 8" gate valve on the main and a 6" gate valve on the fire service line. Revise the final engineering plans required at tech~ical document submittai as necessary. 4. The Preliminary Plat & Utility Connection Plan does not show the sewer main relocation in Broadway. Revise the Preliminary Plat & Utility Connection Plan as necessary to match the utilities shown on C2.0. 5. Another fire hydrant is required near the southwest corner of the site to effectively protect the site. Coordinate location with the fire department and revise the utility plan, the preliminary plat and the utility report as necessary. 6. Revise Utility Note 3 on sheet C2.0. The developer will be required to pay the full cost of design and construction for sanitary sewer main relocation in Broadway. Coordination with the future city capital improvement project may allow the developer to eliminate street patching and restoration costs. 7. The worst case fire ffow scenario is for the Broadway/North Building, which is treated as one building for fire and building permit purposes. The Broadway/North Building has V-B construction, 52,421 square feet and a required fire flow of 3125 gpm. Onlv fire hvdrants FH-3. FH-4, the new hvdrant required near the southwest corner of the site and the 6 inch fire service line mav be used to distribute the reauired 3125 qqm flow Rerun the model and revise the Final Address: 1215 CEDAR /~ (~ 2 ; ;r ~ rR~C1A 9T~~Id ## ~4~ F'/aC~ .S ~ . / Utility Report for this scenario to ensure the city's maximum allowable velocity under a combined maximum day demand/fire flow situation does not exceed 8 feet per second in any of the 6" or 8" water mains surrounding the site. • Provide off-site and on-site recommendations for mitigating any excessive water velocities. • Provide any new modeling as needed to show that the post development velocities will meet City standards The cost of off-site water main infrastructure improvements could be substantial, adding considerably to the financial burden associated with this property's development. The developers are proceeding at their own risk will full knowledge that the approved plan does not show and may require several hundred thousand dollars of infrastructure improvements at their expense. Zoning Buildinq Setbacks 1. Staff has added one additional setback modification request for the rear setback under `Requested Modifications' above. See that section for other requested modifications. Staff intends to support the requested setback, height, and lot size modifications based on precedents in the neighborhood. This will be discussed further in the final staff inemorandum. 2. The easement for maintenance requested under `Zoning' comment #2 in previous comments was not done. Either the easement must be shown on the site plan and preliminary plat, or a condition of approval will require it to be depicted on the Technical Documents site plan and Final Piat. Bui~dinq Heiqht 1. Please add the height measurements and associated elevations from the site plan onto the building elevations. 2. not the wall shown. Please revise. Please also note that, for the purposes of height measurement, the Broadway Building is considered an addition to the original school and not a separate building. Coincidentally, the height measurement would still be measured from the Broadway Building as the lowest point is closest to that side. Open Space 1. Staff continues to suggest that a taller privacy wall be placed between units on the third floor of the Broadway Building and throughout the project to enhanced private open space. 2. Although private open space is not required for individual units, staff will discuss the absence of private open space of the four affordable units within the Broadway Building, as it is an issue of Site Review criteria consistency. Parkinq 1: The proposed on-street parking has not yet been added to the site plan and parking pian as previously requested. 4. Staff intends to recommend approval of the proposed 52.5% parking reduction considering the generally inapplicable requirements of the RH-2 zone parking requirements, the accessibility of the project to transit, biking and walking options, the co-housing nature of the development etc. This will be further discussed in the final staff memorandum. Solar Access 1. There is a minor error in the solar drawings related to the Solar Access Area I and II interface. Where the 25 foot solar fence is shown to fall upon the neighboring single family property on the December 21 2pm drawing, that area would actually be within the 12 foot Solar Access Area I protected area. Piease revise. 2. Staff has verified that the proposed Broadway Buiiding and North Building would comply with the solar access Address: 1215 CEDAR _ ~ ~;~ =~~~V'»l,_ A~"I~~'~,? r~ .. .~t~/-~~k°. . 7 ~ regulations. Preliminarv Plat 1. Please add a note to the preliminary plat that indicates that at least one deciduous tree of at Ieast 2 inch caliper is required on each single-family lot per section 9-12-12(a)(1)(K), B.R.C. 1981, if there are no trees of such size on the property. 2. Title: Revise the title to read as follows (changes shown in bold): Washington Village Subdivision Preliminary Plat & Utility Connection Plan A Replat of Lots 2, 3& Part of Lots 1& F, Joseph Wolff's Subdivsion Located in . . . Total Area = Sheet of 3. Remove the "5' Use & Landscape Easements" from the plat if they are to be private easements. The City is not aware of any need to dedicate these to the public. 4. Pursuant to 9-12-6(a)(17), B.R.C. 1981, the proposed ownership and use of the outlot must be provided. This could be added to the notes, but also it would be helpful to add a table on Sheet 2 of 2 providing this information. 5. Pursuant to 9-12-6(1)(8), B.R.C. 1981, the name, address of the ownership of the property and current title report must be provided. RL-1 lots Staff finds that the creation of a Design Review Committee under a Washington Village HOA would be appropriate to judge the architectural and scale compatibility of the single family residences to the development and the greater neighborhood. Staff is also pleased to hear that Wonderland Hill Development Company intends on developing the subject lots. Staff has analyzed the square footage of single-family lots in the area and has found an assoRment of 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 square foot dwellings with some limited recent remodels of around 4,000 square feet. The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.65 could result in 4,000 square foot homes on the subject properties, which are proportionally smaller than the average size of lots in the area. This has the potential of creating homes that are out of character with the neighborhood. Staff finds that an FAR of 0.6 would be more appropriate as a limit, since homes would not be able to exceed 3,700 square feet, which is a more common upper limit of properties in the area. This will be recommended to the Planning Board in the final staff inemorandum. Vested Riqhts The applicant has requested vested rights. Please review Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981 for applicanYs responsibilities and the requirement for a public hearing. Kar~ Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Rezoning The applicant argues that the rezoning is to encourage development that is in recognition of the changing character of the area. Although the character of the area may be changing, it is changing consistent with the intended land use and zoning of the area. Thus, staff finds that argument to be not entirely applicable. Rather, the criterion most applicable would be criterion number 1 of Section 9-2-18(e) that notes the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the applicanYs argument for the inherent need to change the land use from public to residentiai is clear and convincing and that the rezoning is merely recognition of this needed change to become consistent with the requested BVCP land use change. Staff intends to recommend that the Planning Board approve the BVCP land use change and rezoning based on this rationale. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Address: 1215 CEDAR :ac,E~`J6~G~ IY~~1fd t~~-~PA~i~ ~~ 111. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Access/Circulation (Michelle Mahan, 303-441-4417) 1. Alt rights-oi-way and easements are required to be dedicated concurrently with the final engineering submittal and prior to the time of building permit. All rights-of-way and easements required to be dedicated to the city must be reviewed and approved through a separate Technical Document Review process. Application materials and requirements are located on the 3rtl Floor of the Park Central Building, and can also be found on the city's web-site at: www. bo uldercolorado.9ov 2. The existing curb and gutter along 13'6 and portions of the existing curb and gutter along Cedar must be replaced in conformance with current city standards, prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. The curb and gutter replacement must be shown on the finai engineering plans. 3. The existing curb ramps at the northeast corner of the intersection of Broadway and Cedar must be reconstructed to city standards. Federal ADA requirements mandate that truncated domes be used at all new curb ramps. These details will be reviewed at the time of final engineering submittal. The new ADA requirements for curb ramps can be found on ihe web at: www.bouidercolorado.gov Area Characteristics and Zoning History The property is surrounded by a variety of multi-family and single-family dwellings. This is evident in the zoning in the area, which include high, medium and low density residential. As noted below, the propeRy is a split zone lot with RH-2 zoning along Broadway and RL-1 zoning along 13'h Street. Broadway Brownstones, a similar high density project, is being constructed just south of the site. The proposal is the result of a City initiated Request for Proposal (RFP) process to redevelop the Washington Elementary School site. The intent of that process was to work with the Boulder Valley School District, a developer, and ihe community on creating a development that meets City Council's goals for the site. The RFP was reviewed by Planning Board through Concept Plan application LUR2006-00031 and Landmarks Board prior to City Council action on the item on September 19, 2006, where Wonderland Hill Development Company was recommended as the preferred purchaser of the site. A subsequent Concept Plan application, LUR2006-00092, was reviewed by Planning Board in November 2006. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Engineering (Steve Buckbee, 303-441-3279) 1. Concurrently with building permit application, a separate Fence/Retaining Wall Permit will be required for all proposed retaining walls and fences on the property. 2. The applicant is notified that any groundwater discharge to the storm sewer system will require both a state permit and a city agreement. The steps for obtaining the proper approvals are as follows: Step 1-- Identify applicable Colorado Discharge Permit System requirements for the site. Steo 2-- Determine any history of site contamination (underground storage tanks, groundwater contamination, industrial activities, tandfills, etc.) If there is contamination on the site or in the groundwater, water quality monitoring is required. Step 3-- Submit a written request to the city to use the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). This submittal should include a copy of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) permit application. The written request should include the location, description of the discharge, and brief discussion ot a!t discharge options (e.g., d'+scharge to MS4, groundwater intiltration, off-site disposal, etc.) The request should be addressed to: City of Boulder, Stormwater Quality, 4049 75th St, Boulder, CO 80301 Fax: 303-413-7364 Step 4-- The citys Stormwater Quality Office will respond with a DRAFT agreement, which will need to be submitted with the CDPHE permit application. CDPHE will not finalize the discharge permit without permission from the city to use the MS4. Step 5-- Submit a copy of the final discharge permit issued by CDPHE back to the Citys Stormwater Quality Office so that the MS4 agreement can be finalized. For further lnformation regarding stormwater quality within the City oi Boulder contact the City's Stormwater Quality Office at 303-413-7350. All applicable permits must be in place prior to building permit application. 3. No portion of any structure, including footings and eaves, may encroach into any public right-of-way or easement. Address: 1215 CEDAR ,~ ~ ,i1~;~~(> 9`4 ~~111 #t ~~taCi~. ~ 4. The project appears to be disturbing more than 1 acre of land. A construction storm water discharge permit is required from the State of Colorado for projects disturbing greater than 1-acre. In addition, the requirements of Section 7.13 of the DCS (revised Jan 5, 2005) apply. 5. All landscaping proposed in the right-of-way or public utility easements shall comply with the standards as set forth in Chapter 8-5, "Work in the Public right-of-way and Public Easements;' and Chapter 8-6, "Public right-of-way and Easement Encroachments, Revocable Permits, Leases, and Vacations," Boulder Revised Code 1981. Land Uses The property is designated "Public/Semi-Public" in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. This category includes a wide range of public and private non-profit uses that provide a community service and reflects the public ownership of the property and its use as a school. A land use designation change to high density residential and low density residential is requested above to bring the site into conformance with the underlying zoning and the intent to move the zone line to allow for the proposed layout of buildings on the property. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Review Process Per Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981, the project requires Site Review, because the property exceeds 2 acres and would include over 20 dwelling units. Further, Site Review is required for modifications to code standards outlined in the 'Site Review' section above. A Use Review is required, because the applicant is requesting approval of a non-residential use (i.e., commercial/office space, community facilities) in a residentially zoned area. Subdivision of the property must also be evaluated for compliance with the Subdivision Regulations of Section 9-12, B.R.C. 1981. The rezoning of the property, as described above, also requires Planning Board and City Council action. The applicable criteria are as follows: • SITE REVIEW: See Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. • USE REVIEW: See Section 9-2-15(e). B.R.C. 1981. • PRELIMINARY PLAT: See Section 9-2-7, B.R.C. 1981. • REZONING: See Section 9-2-18, B.R.C. 1981. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Utilities (Steve Buckbee, 303-441-3279) 1. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along the property frontage may contlict with existing utilities, including without limitation: gas, electric, and telecommunications, within and adjacent to the devefopment site. It is the applicanYs responsibility to resolve such conflicts with appropriate methods conforming to the Boulder Revised Code 1981, the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and any private/franchise utility specifications. 2. Maintenance of sand/oil interceptors and all private wastewater and storm sewer lines and structures shall remain the responsibility of the owner. 3. The landscape irrigation system requires a separate water service and meter. A separate water Plant Investment Fee must be paid at time of building permit. Service, meter and tap sizes will be required at time of building permit submittal. 4. The proposed project includes work within the public right-of-way or public easements. A right-of-way permit is required prior to initiating this construction. 5. The applicant is advised that at the time of building permit application the following requirements will apply: a. The applicant will be required to provide accurate existing and proposed plumbing fixture count forms to determine if the proposed meters and services are adequate for the proposed use. b. Water and wastewater Plant InvesYment Fees and service line sizing will be evaluated. c. If the existing water and/or wastewater services are required to be abandoned and upsized, all new service taps to existing mains shall be made by city crews at the developer's expense. The water service must be excavated and turned off at the corporation stop, per city standards. The sewer service must be excavated and capped at the property line, per city standards. d. Since the buildings will be sprinklered, the approved fire line plans must accompany the fire sprinkler service line connection permit application. 6. All water meters are to be placed in city R.O.W. or a public utility easement, but meters are not to be placed in driveways, sidewalks or behind fences. Address: 1215 CEDAR ~~ ~~ ~K ':Y'Sb~~~ti'~G'~d~~__. S~A~~.- 7. Floor drains internal to covered parking structures, that collect drainage from rain and ice drippings from parked cars or water used to wash-down internal floors, shall be connected to the wastewater service using appropriate grease and sediment traps. Zoning The property is a split zoned lot with RH-2 (High Density Residential) zoning along Broadway and RL-1 zoning (Low Density Residential) zo~ing along 13'" Street. The number of allowable residential units permitted in the RH-2 zone is calculated by dividing the lot size by 3,200 square feet. However, a greater number of units (lot size divided by 1,600 square feet) could be permitted, if approved by Planning Board. The number of single-family dwellings on the RL-1 portion is the total lot area divided by 7,000 square feet. Based on the appticanYs estimations (i.e., 88,633 square feet within RH-2 lot after zone line adjustment), the RH-2 portion could accommodate up to 55 multi-famiiy units and the RL-1 portion could accommodate up to 6 single-family dwellings. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 IV. NEXT STEPS Prior to city recommendation for approval to Planning Board, the plans must show a fire turnaround area in conformance with city standards, the parking garage ramp slope must be verified, and a revised traffic impact study and travel demand management plan must be provided. Because a redesigned fire turnaround has the potential to significantly affect the site design, revised plans addressing that must be submltted for evaluation to the City before the end of next week (June 29, 2007). Assuming a logical solution can be made without significantly affecting other aspects of the project, staff intends on proposing a condition of approval that would require the change as shown on the revised plan or the change could be incorporated into the Planning Board review sets. However, the City does reserve the right to consider other options, including rescheduling Planning Board, if the solution creates other unevaluated impacts to the site. intended, staff will request that the applicant submit the Planning Board review sets. The Planning Board review sets should generally be identical to those evaluated by staff during this review, with the exception of those requested changes above regarding the fire turnaround etc. and those comments that are ~" #~ above. The other requested changes are expected to be incorporated into the Technical Documents, since staff would not have enough time to evaluate all the changes as part of this review. To clarify the extent of changes on any subsequent sets, please cloud and date all changes on the plans. Please contact the Case Manager with any questions (303-441-4236). V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST To be prepared for the final staff inemorandum. VI. Conditions On Case To be prepared for the final staff inemorandum. Address: 1215 CEDAR ,L p ,~: .UI~r~ B'~~6!!d rt ~_`-~'A~~ ?O ATTACHMENT C BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE DES/GNAT/ON CHANGE a) The proposed change is consistent with the po~icies and overall intent of the comprehensive plan. The Washington Village project has been found to be compatible with the policies of the comprehensive plan, including but not limited to, policies related to compact land use pattern, infill development, mixed-use, affordable housing, mixture of housing types, historic preservation, and sensitive infill and development. (b) The proposed change would not have significant cross-jurisdictional impacts that may affect residents, properties or facilities outside the city. As an infill project, there would be no cross-jurisdictional impacts from the project and as a result of the proposed change. (c) 7he proposed change would not materially affect the land use and growth projections that were the basis of the comprehensive plan. The proposed land use change would be to convert from public/semi public to high density and low density residential. The public designation is no longer necessary as the school is closed. Further, the high and low density residential proposed would match the existing designations to the north and the south along Broadway. The change would not materially affect the land use and growth projections, as the designation change is in line with the intended land uses along the Broadway corridor. (d) The proposed change does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area or to the overall service area of the city of Boulder. The site is well-served by existing urban facilities and services and the requested change would not alter this. (e) The proposed change would not materially affect the adopted Capital Improvements Program of the city of Boulder. The proposed project, which includes the BVCP change, is in line with expected development along the Broadway corridor based on the existing surrounding land uses and would not affect the City's CIP program. (f) The proposed change wouid not affect the Area II/Area III boundaries in the comprehensive plan. P,CiEPIbA 97E~d #~ ~CPAG~.~~ The project is within Area I and is an infill project that does not affect the perimeter areas of the City. ACENL~A 9'T~1lH #3 5~ ~A~~ ~ ATTACHMENT D REZONING (1) The applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Bouider Valley Comprehensive Plan; The rezoning would change the location of the high density and low density residential zone boundaries on the site to create an appropriate land area to accommodate the transition of high density residential down to low density residential synonymous of what is already in place on surrounding properties to the north and south, which already carry high and low density land use designations. The rezoning effectively aligns the zone district boundary with the land use designation boundaries that would be established for residential on the site, thus eliminating the public/semi-public designation that is no longer valid given the closure of the school. Therefore, there is a necessity to change the land use and accomplish the rezoning to match the land use to come into compliance with the Boulder Valiey Comprehensive Plan and its land use policies for the Broadway corridor. ;vG~Cill7/~ V°T~~tt tz j `~'pAfi~ J /- ATTACHMENT E S/TE REVIEW No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: (1) Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan: ~(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Washington Village project has been found to be compatible with the policies of the comprehensive plan, including but not limited to, policies related to compact land use pattern, infili development, mixed-use, affordable housing, mixture of housing types, historic preservation, and sensitive infill and development. ~(B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a three hundred-foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valiey Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: ~(i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, The density permitted in the BVCP for the western portion of the site is ~4 units or greater. The subject project would be approximately 16.7 dwelling units per acre on that side, which is just above the expected density. The applicant has requested additional density pursuant to Section 9-8-3(d), B.R.C. 1981. Based on the ability of the project to meet the other aspects of this criteria and that the applicant is only requesting 7 units above the by-right amount, the additional density is appropriate. On the eastern portion where low density residential development is intended, the density would be 6 dwelling units per acre, which is the maximum for Low Densiry Residential. _(ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981. ~1 (C) The proposed developmenYs success in meeting the broad range of BVCP policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques require to meet other site review criteria. The proposed project would require no public expenditure and costs for the development would be done by the developer. (2) Site Desiqn: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design Ar'aENDA CCEiVi tF ~CPAC~ ~d- techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this Subsection is met, the approving agency wilf consider the following factors: ~1 (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: ~(i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; The project incorporates a large amount of open space, primarily for the use of its co-housing community. Where 20% is required, this project would provide nearly 50%. The central activity fawn is well-designed and has a number of features (e.g., dining terrace, hot tub, grass turf, mature trees) that will encourage its uses. It is also well framed by the proposed buildings and the original school building. The space can be assessed through the principat entry to the Broadway Buiiding and the school building and also from a path entering the site off of Broadway just north of the Broadway Building. The open space in the southwest corner of the property would preserve views of the original school building and would have the dual purpose of an outdoor activity space and vehicular access point. Because of the vehicular nature of the space, its use functionality is not optimal, but the greenspace in front of the school and an entry plaza between the school and library building would be more insolated from automobiles. The site also benefits from a community garden and a number of private decks and terraces for residents. ~(ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; Private open space is not provided for all units, as it is not required by the RH-2 zoning district. However, a condition of approval has been provided that would require private open space for four (4) permanently affordable units in the Broadway Building to increase their livability. Otherwise, most units have ample private open space. ~(iii) The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, inciuding, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas, and species on the federal Endangered Species List, "Species of Speciai Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County, or prairie dogs (Cynomys ludiovicianus) which is a species of local concern, and their habitat; All mature trees have been evaluated by an arborist and recommendations of their protection have been provided. The arborist has also recommended the removal of several trees due to their condition. A majority of the mature trees to be protected are along Cedar Avenue and at the corner of Cedar and 132h Street. The applicant is proposing to increase the tree lawn in that area and increase the single-family dwelling setbacks tSC~F6VW~,~, ~T~l1N # ~~'{1~'uE ~ ~ `~ to 35 feet to protect these trees. ~1 (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; Much of the perspectives of the property would be from the corner of Broadway and Cedar where the area is required to be open space preserving viewlines to the school building. This area and the open space in excess of that required would adequately provide relief to the density within and around the project. ~1 (v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it wili be functionally useable and located in a safe and convenient proximity to the uses to which it is meant to serve; Most of the spaces for open space are located in close proximity to residential uses and thus, are of a more passive character. The spaces are large enough, however, for informal sporting activities and co-housing events. ~1 (vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas; and The site is an infill site where there are no sensitive natural areas are to be buffered. ~1 (vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. The site is located in a more urban location where connections to the sidewalk system are provided along the perimeter of the development. Community Park, three blocks to the west, is easily accessed by walking or biking. ~(B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments (Developmenis that contain a mix of residential and non-residential uses) ~(i) The open space provides for a balance of private and shared areas for the residential uses and common open space that is available for use by both the residential and non-residential uses that wiil meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tena~ts, and visitors of the property; and Most residential units have private open space for their use. A majority of the development, as a mixed-use co-housing development, contains ample open space for use of the residents and the greater community. ~(ii) The open space provides active areas and passive areas that will meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property and are compatible with the surrounding area or an adopted pian for the area. ~C~EN€~P 9T~f11! #k ~` m6'A~~ ~~~ As noted above, the project is an infill project that is mostly residential. Although double the required open space is provided, it is mostly for passive use and principally for the use of the residents. +1 (C) Landscaping •1 (i) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of piant and hard surface materials, and the selection of materials provides for a variety of colors and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where appropriate; The project includes a farge assortment of plantings filling landscape areas, as well as green spaces and hard surface areas that will be attractive and inviting to residents and visitors. ~(ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important native species, plant communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment into the project; The project has historically been used as a school and thus, its development is infill and would not impact any native flora or fauna. ~l (iii) The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Section 9-9-10, "Landscaping and Screening Standards" and Section 9-9-11, "Streetscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and With the ample amount of open space and variety of plants, the project would exceed the standards of the landscaping regulations. ~(iv) The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along pubiic rights-of-way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan. The applicant has proposed landscape terraces before the Broadway Building to allow for landscape treatments along that side. Further, the applicant has agreed to move utilities in that location to allow for the installation of street trees per the City requirements. New street trees are proposed and several street trees are proposed to remain along both Broadway and Cedar, which will contribute to an attractive streetscape. ~(D) Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not: ~l (i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project is provided; f~Gf'c.hVt~F; 9'T'~~IH 4x.,`~~~AC~. ~~ The site is primarily accessed by a shared access drive. The drive is narrow (roughly 20 feet wide), lined by garages and residences, and takes 90 degree turns, all of which discourage high speed travel. ~(ii) Potentiai conflicts with vehicles are minimized; Only two access points are provided for the project, which minimize potential conflicts with vehicles. All single-family residences would be rear loaded and thus, the need for driveways for each is eliminated, further reducing potential conflicts. ~(iii) Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including, without limitation, streets, bikeways, pedestrianways and trails; The project has various pedestrian access points that connect to the existing sidewalk system. The project is also conveniently located adjacent to an established bike route on 13`" Street. ~(iv) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle; The co-housing nature of the project is expected to generate less traffic. Beyond that aspect, the project has a large number of bicycle parking to encourage use of the bike (considering the nearby bike route). Further, a new bus stop will be provided along Broadway encouraging convenient transit usage. ~(v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single- occupa~t vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques; The applicant has agreed to implement TDM strategies to minimize the necessity of automobile use within the development. Such strategies are provided bicycle parking in excess of requirements and participation in the RTD EcoPass program. ~(vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; As noted above, the applicant has provided ample bike storage and a new bus stop to encourage alternative modes of travel. ~(vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; and r~,i:~k1?N~!•, tl~'CiiN;: SIJf~A(`s~. ~7(~ The site is accessed by one shared access drive leaving most of the site allocated to buildings and open space. ~(viii) The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust. The applicant has proposed a parking reduction; mostly due to the proximity to transit and the inapplicable, and somewhat excessive, parking requirements of the RH-2 district. The applicant has demonstrated that the amount of parking is sufficient (see parking reduction criteria below) and that the development is welf connected to 13`" Street, where a bike route exists, and the existing sidewalk system that provides easy walking access to Community Plaza and downtown. The Broadway Building is large and provides a buffer from the noise and exhaust of Broadway to the majority of the residential units within the development. The Broadway Building's residential units are proposed on the second and third floors of the building and would be setback further than the ground floor, which is proposed for commercial uses. This, in addition to street tree plantings, should provide adequate separation of the externalities of Broadway. These units are expected to draw those more adapted to urban living. ~ (E) Parking ~(i) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicu4ar movements; The parking areas provided in the development are linear in nature, which minimize the amount pedestrians must interface with automobiles. Where there is interaction, raised crosswalks and convenient access to stairways is provided. ~1 (ii) The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; Most of the parking areas are proposed in subterranean parking garages under the Broadway Building and the North Building, thus reducing their visual impact on the site and the amount of land dedicated for their use. ~(iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and As noted above, most of the parking areas are subterranean and would not significantly affect the aesthetics of the site. Lighting would be internal, also minimizing any externalities of parking areas. ~t~a~6lil~lad~"&-~J1/3;'s~~pA~i~ ~~ ~(iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Subsection 9-9-6(d), "Parking Area Design Standards," and Section 9-9-12, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Most parking is within buildings; however, the vehicle turnaround and drop off area in the southwest corner of the site would be the most visible area of vehicular activity. The applicant has proposed ample landscaping in that area to minimize its aesthetic affect. ~1 (F) Buiiding Design, Livability, and Relationship to ihe Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area ~(i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; Comments regarding the building height are below_ Othervvise, the mass of the buildings on the site would not overwhelm the existing school building, nor would they be the only buildings in the vicinity of such stature. Some projects along Broadway are being built to the intended densities of the area, such as Broadway Brownstones to the south and the Boulder Housing Partners project to the north. The massing of the proposed Broadway Building would be comparable to these projects. The apparent mass of the building is also reduced through ample setbacks (greater than 30 feet) on the upper floors of the building and terracing, which increases sensitivity to neighboring buildngs. Although the requested setbacks for that building are less than standard for the district, they would nonetheless correspond to other buildings in the immediate vicinity (e.g., first floor elements across the street at less than 10 feet and the 21 foot setbacks approved for Broadway Brownstones and Boulder Housing Partners). The configuration of the buildings are appropriately done given the constraints of the required viewshed of the school and the split zoning of the property. ~(ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; Most of the building heights within the project conform to the limits for the district, with the exception of the Broadway Building, which is proposed to be 41 feet, as measured from the lowest point within 25 horizontal feet of the building. The proposed height would be one of the taller structures in the area, but would be comparable to the Broadway Brownstones to the south, which was approved to be 40.5 feet, and the Boulder Housing Partners project at 3120 Broadway, which was approved at 41 feet. ;ial=h;3f_V` P~"i°E~/+;~ -- -~ i ~ - kC~..- . At its tallest point from grade, the building would be roughly 37 feet, which would be shorter than and subservient to the existing school, which is approximately 44 feet from grade and 47 feet as measured per Code. Upper story elements are pulled back from the property lines to minimize any looming effect and to address concerns of the neighbors. ~l (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; The Broadway Building would eliminate a majority of views towards the Flatirons from the Red Arrow Townhomes to the north. However, the circumstance of the northern property is unique in that the residents have benefitted from the open space of the school property preserving views for decades. It is expected, that any development that would occur on the subject site, whether complying with form and bulk regulations or not, would nonetheless, have a significant effect on the neighbors views. In terms of shadowing, the height and scale of the Broadway Building, would diminish access to light to the neighboring property. Essentially, this is in an area that is intended for high density development along the Broadway corridor. Further, the applicant is constrained by the required viewshed area retaining visibility of the school from Broadway. These aspects impact where development can occur on the site. In response to these issues, the applicant has designed the Broadway Building to be well- articulated with recessed upper floors and has reduced the height and building form of the north building to increase light to the neighboring property to the north. ~(iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; Much of the character of tfie development draws from the historic school building and from development that is occurring along Broadway. The Broadway Building incorporates the usage of brick, which creates commonality with the school; however the internal buildings do not share any resemblance to the school. A condition of approval has been added in the event the Planning Board finds that architectural modifications should be done to make the new buildings more compatible with the school and the greater neighborhood. Otherwise, the preservation of mature trees and ample open space provided on the site will maintain compatibility with the neighborhood, which is largely vegetated. The single-family residences are proposed to have a more historic character and would match some of the newer remodels existing in the neighborhood. Their scale, however, would be limited by the Site Review approval. ~(v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians; The Broadway Building would have the greatest effect on the streetscape %4t~:~6iif~ll 4~~ilti #_ ~ pA~~ c7 / as an exter~al building fronting on Broadway. The Broadway fa~ade indicates an appropriate usage of windows on the lower and upper levels that differentiate the commercial and residential components and introduces an appropriate level of fenestration and architectural variety that would encourage pedestrian activity along Broadway. As a large building, permeability into the site is limited. However, the applicant has provided two entries to the interior open space on each side of the building to make up for this. In essence, the expanse of Broadway Building's fa~ade along Broadway differs little from other recently approved projects, such as Broadway Brownstones and the Boulder Housing Partners project. Therefore, the building would be comparable to other approved projects along Broadway. The street scape of the singl~family homes would also be attractive, since the scale of the homes would be limited and the fact that in some of the lot, greater than required setbacks are proposed to distance the residences from mature trees along 13th Street. ~(vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; The project has a significant community facility component with over 9,000 square feet allocated to meeting/classroom spaces etc. open to the general public and the co-housing residents. With meeting space around Boulder's downtown in short numbers, the project would provide a meeting space of approximately 1,500 square feet, which would be beneficial to community functions. This was one of the identified community benefits of the project from the Request for Proposals process and enumerated in a Covenant and Deed Restriction on the property requiring such community benefit. ~(vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; The project provides a range of smaller one-bedroom affordable units up to larger market-rate units of two or three bedrooms, as well as single-family residences. ~(viii) For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; The Broadway Building serves as the largest buffer of noise, by blocking vehicular traffic noise from Broadway and created a more sedate internal open space framed by the interior buildings. The east building would serve as a buffer from interior automotive noise and an accessory building for trash and bike storage would effectively block noise and light from :-a~:~,i~E~~b ~~4 ~:~5~~ ~F ~"~Y~±,~«~m. ~O vehicles to a neighboring property. The construction of the on-site buildings would otherwise follow standard building code practices for minimizing noise between units. ~1 (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Lighting is required to be evaluated in detail at the Technical Documents stage. ~1 (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; See below. ~(xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to the naturai contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards. The project is on a largely level site, but does require some grading to level out intended open spaces and to create the subterranean parking underneath the Broadway Building and the North Building. Some contouring is necessary to facititate appropriate drainage, but is not excessive, nor would it create any impact to natural systems or create any potential geological threat. ~(G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shali place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: ~l (i) Placement of Open Space and Streets: Open space areas are located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. The applicant has been working on an optimal layout of buildings considering the location of the existing school, where higher densities are intended, and the required viewshed of no development in the site's southwest corner. Under these conditions, the applicant has positioned the buildings such that shadowing of the on-site open space and onto properties to the north would occur. Nevertheless, the project would conform to the solar regulations and considering the applicanYs attempts at minimizing impact on solar access to the north and the above mentioned constraining factors, the placement of open space is considered the most practical. ~(ii) Lot Layout and Building Siting: Lots are oriented and buildings are sited F`,C~~~S13'~ ~T°F;?R #< ~/k~/1(~~~._ ~ ~ in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited ciose to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading. Buildings are located closest to the north property line and shading of proposed on-site buildings would be negligible. The existing school would have the largest shading impact on the property. ~(iii) Building Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utiiization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet che solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The Broadway Building and other buildings on the site have flat roofs, which will be optimal for the installation of solar systems. ~(iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. Most of the mature trees on the site on concentrated along the south lot line and furthest from the majority of new buildings on the site. N/A (H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permiited Height: No site review application for a pole above the permitted height will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: Not applicable to this project. _(i) The light pole is required for nighttime recreation activities, which are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, or the light or traffic signal pole is required for safety, or the electrical utility pole is required to serve the needs of the city; and _(ii) The pole is at the minimum height appropriate to accomplish the purposes for which the pole was erected and is designed and constructed so as to minimize light and electromagnetic pollution. N/A (i) Land Use Intensity Modifications Not applicabie and not requested. _(i) Potential Land Use Intensity Modifications: (a) The density of a project may be increased in the BR-1 district through a reduction of the lot area requirement or in the Downtown (DT), BR-2, or MU-3 districts through a reduction in the open space requirements. (b) The open space requirements in all Downtown (DT) districts may be reduced by up to one hundred percent. ~=1~C~rzri°Yl~ .~"~_::V+,: ~Vt~nc.Y~.,_ 1002 (c) The open space per lot requirements for the total amount of open space required on the lot in the BR-2 district may be reduced by up to fifty percent. (d) Land use intensity may be increased up to 25 percent in the BR-1 district through a reduction of the lot area requirement. _(ii) Additional Criteria for Land Use Intensity Modifications: A land use intensity increase will be permitted up to the maximum amount set forth beiow if the approving agency finds that the criteria in Subsection (h) "Criteria for Review" of this Section and following criteria have been met: (a) Open Space Needs Met: The needs of the projecYs occupants and visitors for high quality and functiona~ useable open space can be met adequately; (b) Character of Project and Area: The open space reduction does not adversely affect the character of the development nor the character of the surrounding area; and (c) Open Space and Lot Area Reductions: The specific percentage reduction in open space or lot area requested by the appiicant is justified by any one or com6ination of the foilowing site design features not to exceed the maximum reduction set forth above: (i) Close proximity to a public mall or park for which the development is specially assessed or to which the project contributes funding of capital improvements beyond that required by the parks and recreation component of the development excise tax set forth in Chapter 3-8, "Development Excise Tax," B.R.C. 1981: maximum one hundred percent reduction in all Downtown (DT) districts and ten percent in the BR-1 district; (ii) Architectural treatment that results in reducing the apparent bulk and mass of the structure or structures and site planning which increases the openness of the site: maximum five percent reduction; (iii) A common park, recreation, or playground area functionally useable and accessible by the developmenYs occupants for active recreational purposes and sized for the number of inhabitants of the development, maximum five percent reduction; or developed facilities within the project designed to meet the active recreational needs of the occupants: maximum five percent reduction; (iv) Permanent dedication of the development to use by a unique residential population whose needs for conventional open space are reduced: maximum five percent reduction; ~,c.~=~~-~;a ~ ~~~, ti =f _S~~a~~. ~3 (v) The reduction in open space is part of a development with a mix of residential and non-residential uses within an BR-2 zoning district that, due to the ratio of residential to non-residential uses and because of the size, type, and mix of dwelling units, the need for open space is reduced: maximum reduction fifteen percent; and (vi) The reduction in open space is part of a development with a mix of residential and non-residential uses within an BR-2 zoning district that provides high quality urban design elements that will meet the needs of anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property or will accommodate public gatherings, important activities, or events in the life of the community and its people, that may include, without limitation, recreational or culturai amenities, intimate spaces that foster social i~teraction, street furniture, landscaping, and hard surface treatments for the open space: maximum reduction 25 percent. N/A (J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area Ratio Increase for Buildings in the BR-1 District Not applicable and not requested. _(i) Process: For buildings in the BR-1 district, the floor area ratio ("FAR") permitted under Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be increased by the city manager under the criteria set forth in this Subsection. _(ii) Maximum FAR Increase: The maximum FAR increase allowed for buildings thirty-five feet and over in height in the BR-1 district shall be from 2:1 to 4:1. _(iii) Criteria for the BR-1 District: The FAR may be increased in the BR-1 district to the extent allowed in paragraph (ii) of this Subsection if the approving agency finds that the foilowing criteria are met: (a) Site and building design provide open space exceeding the required useable open space by at least ten percent: an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1. (b) Site and building design provide private outdoor space for each office u~it equal to at least ten Qercent of the lot area for buildings 25 feet and under and at least 20 percent of the lot area for buildings above 25 feet: an increase in FAR not to exceed 025:1. (c) Site and building design provide a street front facade and an alley facade at a pedestrian scale, including, without limitation, features such as aw~ings and windows, well-defined building entrances, and other building details: an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1. ;1~~~§zD;1 ~ ~~~1'! ,''"t ._ ~"~r'/afa"~ ~w/ (d) For a building containing residential and non-residential uses in which neither use comprises less than 25 percent of the total square footage: an increase in FAR not to exceed 1:1. (e) The unused portion of the allowed FAR of historic buildings designated as iandmarks under Chapter 9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981, may be transferred to other sites in the same zoning district. However, the increase in FAR of a proposed building to which FAR is transferred under this paragraph may not exceed an increase of 0.5:1. (f) For a building which provides one full level of parking below grade, an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.5:1 may be granted. ~(K) Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions: The off-street parking requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be modified as follows: ~(i) Process: The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed fifty percent of the required parking. The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent. A parking reduction of 52.5% is requested and requires Planning Board review and approval. ~(ii) Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria, the approving agency may approve proposed modifications to the parking requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, if it finds that: (a) For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated; The property is located on Broadway where the frequency of the Skip bus is high. This location would allow residents to use the bus to get to locations in both North and South Boulder. The location o1 the property is also within walking distance of Community Plaza and only several blocks north of downtown. These aspects would diminish the need for excessive parking. Further, the applicability of the RH-2 parking standards are in question as follows; The RH-2 requirements were generally written to protect existing established single-family neighborhood anticipated for redevelopment to higher densities primarily in areas most impacted by the University. These areas often require more parking, because of multiple students sharing resldences. Essentially, the zone requires 1 parking space for the first 500 square feet of a unit, plus 1 space for every additional 300 square ~ac~~b~sl~ta ~Y~~o~~d;f ~C%~~c~r~, _ ~~ feet or portion of 300 square feet. This means that a single unit of 801 square feet would require three parking spaces. This is not reasonable when applied to areas that are not impacted in such a way, as is the case of the subject project, which does not target students, nor is it in immediate proximity to the University. Rather, if a traditional parking requirement of other high density residential zones were applied to the site, the percentage of the reduction wouid drop dramatically. For instance, most other RH zones require 1 parking space for a one-bedroom unit, 1.5 spaces for a two-bedroom unit, and 2 spaces for a three bedroom unit. If this is applied to the subject project, only 47 parking spaces would be required, as compared to the 116 spaces required in RH-2 for just 34 units. This amounts to only an 8.5% reduction for residential parking and an average of approximately 1.1 spaces per unit. This percent reduction is reasonable. (b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses will be adequately accommodated through on-street parking or off-street parking; Twenty-three (23) parking spaces will be provided for the 7,148 square feet of commercial space and for usage for community events. This complies with the requirements for the site. (c) A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses wiil be accommodated through shared parking; Twenty-three (23) spaces are proposed for the commercial component of the proqerty. Typicalty, these uses would not be active in the evening hours, when community events held at the site would be at their peak. These spaces have been designated for commercial use during the day, but would be designated for community usage during eveni~g hours. Most of the largest community functions on the property would be held in the library building on Cedar. Based on its square footage (1,544 square feet), roughly 30 parking spaces would be necessary for community gatherings there at 1 parking space per every 50 square feet. The aforementioned 23 spaces would satisfy a portion of this need and the remainder could be handled by available on-street parking (d) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and See above. (e) If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change. i\LaiCf~3~9i~ ~,~~~el'~'sF ~~~~2iC._~~ The applicant has described a co-housing development intended for the site. Typically, such housing caters to those of retirement age and those that share automobiles or use automobiles less frequently. It is anticipated that this development wili have less of a parking need than typical developments. The applicant has argued that at least 1 space per unit is typically sufficient in co-housing type developments. A change in this co-housing program would require reconsideration of the Site Review. N/A (L) Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking: The parking required under Section 9- 9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be located on a separate lot if the following conditions are met: Not applicable and not requested. _(i) The lots are held in common ownership; _(ii) The separate lot is in the same zoning district and located within three hundred feet of the lot that it serves; and _(iii) The property used for off-site parking under this Subsection continues under common ownership or control. r.,~~~~w ~ ~~ ~r ~~~~~~ l~7 ATTACHMENT F USE REVIEW ~(1) Consistencv with Zoninp and Non-Conformity: The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in Section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts Established," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non-conforming use; The RH-2 zoning districts are high density residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including, without limitation, apartment buildings, and where complementary uses may be allowed. The proposed project includes 34 attached residential units concentrated along Broadway as intended by the zoning code and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan for development along multi-model corridors. Commercial uses (i.e., professional and technical offices) and community facilities have been found complementary, as there are examples of office along Broadway in similar square footages and also since the site will accommodate parking needed for those uses. ~1 (2) Rationale: The use either (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; ~(B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; The proposed uses would be concentrated on the high density portion of the site nearest to Broadway where higher intensities are expected to occur and where poiicies encourage mixed-use. By locating the commercial uses at ground level on that side, they serve as a buffer to the residential uses on the interior of the site from the noise and traffic associated with Broadway. The project itself, in how it is arranged, is done to reflect a transition of the higher intensities of the RH (High Density Residential) district down to the lower intensities of the RL (Low Density) portion of the site where the density and scale decrease. The commercial uses would encourage more pedestrian activity on this northern stretch of Broadway, but would be appropriately buffered from the single-family character to the east. (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and non-residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or (D) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (f) of this section; ~ 3) Compatibilitv: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby :~~:~~~a ~~ # S~A~~ 6 ~ properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; As noted above, the uses would be concentrated on a portion of the site expected to have a greater intensity of use and scale, but would be appropriately buffered from the single-family character on the east side of the site. The size of the commercial uses is comparable to several office buildings that exist on this stretch of Broadway. Some examples are the North Broadway Building at the corner of Elder Avenue and Broadway that is entirely commercial with 6,745 square feet and 3093 Broadway, which is also entirely commercial with 3,799 square feet. Another mixed-use example is the Newland Court project at 3011 Broadway that contains condominiums and a 4,200 square foot office building in an old Victorian building. All of these projects have compliant parking for commercial uses. The applicant has targeted professional and technical offices that would generate a lower incidence of customers coming to the site. By having compliant parking and being concentrated directly on Broadway, the uses reasonably mitigate the potential negative impacts on neighboring properties. Therefore, the proposed uses are found to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood. ~l (4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land," B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a non-conforming use, the proposed development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets; There is no evidence that the introduction of commercial uses and community facilities on the site would create an adverse impact to City infrastructure above what would be permitted by-right on the property or as compared to other commercial uses that already exist along Broadway. ~ (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area; and The predominant character of this portion of Broadway is largely residential. However, there are a number of commercial establishments that are comparable in size and location to the subject proposal. This project would introduce a new development that incorporates a majority of residential with a smaller commercial component, which is in line with the emerging mixed-use, more urban corridor occurring along Broadway. ~ (6) Conversion of Dwellinq Units to Non-Residential Uses: There shail be a presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts to non-residentiai uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the change of one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. The presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in the community including, without limitation, a use for a day care center, park, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an educational use. The project would create 40 new dwelling units. No conversions from residential r1i~~~~-A B7EE1N k v~AG~ e.v~ to non-residential would occur. %dGEV\L~R ET~iI/i t't.~vP/aG~ ~~ ATTACHMENT G RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND DEED RESTRICTION This Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction ("Covenant") is made and entered into as of the _ day of , 2006 by the Boulder Valley School District RE-2, formerly School District Number 3, a public school district and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the "School DistricP'), 6500 East Arapahoe, P.O. Box 9011, Boulder, Colorado 80301, and is for the benefit of and enforceable by the City of Boulder ("City"). RECTI'ALS A. The School District is the owner of the real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which is commonly known as Washington Elementary School, located at 1215 Cedar, Boulder, Colorado. For purposes of this Covenant, the real property described on Exhibit A and all appurtenances, improvements and fixtures associated therewith shall hereinafter collectively be referred to as the "Property." B. The Property is to be sold by the School District pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated March 8, 2005, as amended, entered into by the School District and the City of Boulder (the "MOU"). C. The City and the School District amended the MOU on March 20, 2006 by way of the Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU Amendment"). D. The MOU Amendment authorizes the City to place a covenant on the Property for a period of up to 20 years after the Purchaser's proposal is completed to ensure that the Property will be used as was contemplated in the proposals submitted by Purchaser and that any changes to the use of the land that is not consistent with such proposal shall be subject to the prior approval by the City Council ("CovenanY'). E. The MOU Amendment anticipated that the Covenant would be created, in consultaUOn with the selected Purchaser and delivered to the School District prior to the closing. This MOU Amendment was included in the City's request for proposal ("RFP") in order to provide the respondents with notice of the terms of the Covenant which will encumber the Property. F. The City desires to subject the Property to this Covenant in order to ensure that the Purchaser completes those items that lead it to being selected in the RFP process described in the MOU Amendment. G. This Covenant is to be binding upon any subsequent buyer, devisee, transferee, grantee, owner or holder of title of the Property, or any portion thereof, and for purposes of this Covenant, the word "Owner" shall mean and include any entity or person who acquires an ownership interest in the Property, or any portion thereof, after the recording of this Covenant in the real estate records of the County of Boulder, State of Colorado. H. This Covenant is intended to be for the benefit of and [o be enforced by the City. RLENDA ITE{Vd # ~vPAGE ~~.. COVENANT NOW THEREFORE, the School District as the owner of the Property, for itself, its successors, assigns and all subsequent grantees and transferees, declares, creates and imposes the following land use covenants, restrictions and limitations on the Property, or any portion thereof, and declares that the Property shall, from and after the date of the recording of this Covenant with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Boulder, hereinafter be subject to the terms and conditions of this Covenant. This Covenant shall run with the land and the Property, shall be binding upon the Property and shall be binding upon any subsequent owner of the Property, or any portion thereof, and their heirs successors and assigns, and shall be for the benefit of the City. Acceptance of a deed or other instrument of conveyance of the Property, or any portion thereof, shall constitute acceptance and approval of this Covenant and agreement to be bound by this Covenant without the necessity of expressly providing for such effect with respect to any particular provision herein. 1. Restrictions. a. Affordable HousinQ The owner of the Property agrees to create the greater of 20% of the total units or 8 units that are permanently affordable to low income households and the greater of 27% of the total units or 11 units that are permanently affordable to middle income households. Covenants or deed restrictions to secure the permanent affordability of dwelling units shall be signed and recorded with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder prior to application for any residential building pemvts on the Property. The following conditions shall apply to the Subject Property: i. Low income Permanendv Affordable. Twenty percent or 8 of the dwelling units on the Residential Parcel shall have deed restrictions or covenants, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, as to the maximum price. The dwelling units shall be permanently affordable to low and moderate income households consistent with the provisions of Chapter 9- 13, B.R.C. 1981, "Inclusionary Zoning." ii. Middle Income Permanentlv Affordable. Twenty-seven percent or 11 of the deed restricted dwelling units shall be permanently affordable to middle income households which aze defined as those households earning less than 120% of the Area Median Income as defined by HLTD for the City of Boulder and shall have sale prices and resale terms acceptable to and approved by the City Manager. If acceptable prices and terms cannot be agreed that will enable the sale of the Middle Income Units, some or al] of the Middle Income Units may be converted to units permanently affordable to lower incomes or market rate units. Any additional market rate units created as a result of this paragraph will be subject to the entitlement premium described in the MOU Amendment. A+::ENbA IYEFUd # ~CPi~GE ~ iii. Covenants Required. Prior to the issuance of any residential building pernvts for the parcel, the Applicant shall execute, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and the City Manager, covenants and deed restrictions that guarantee the perpetual affordability of each of the permanently affordable units which shall include without limitation the initial maximum allowable sale price, the rate by which subsequent sale prices may increase, the income and asset limi[ations of the purchasers of each permanently affordable unit, and fair marketing and selection procedures. b. Barrier Free Desi¢n. The owner of the Property agrees to construct or otherwise provide a minimum of twenty four (24) Type B accessible dwelling units designed and constructed for accessibility in accordance with ICC/ANSI Al 17.1- 1998 "Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities.". Such units shall be accessible on the floor level that includes common areas such as the living room, dining room, and kitchen and shall have at least one bedroom and bathroom on that floor level. c. Tree Preservation. The owner of the Property agrees to protect and maintain all of the trees existing as of the effective date of this Covenant that have a diameter, measured four feet above the natural grade that exceed 15 inches and that are located in the area between the east property line abutting the 13~' Street right-of- way and the eastem 50 feet of the Property. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the City. The City will grant such permission if it can be demonstrated that the tree is unhealthy or threatens public safety. The City agrees to consider the advice of a qualified arborist or other landscaping professional. d. Communitv Use Space. The Owner of the Property agrees to provide at least 7,500 sq.ft. of floor area in the historic Washington School Building and/or the Library Annex which will be available for community uses for the general public. Such uses may include, but aze not limited to the following: artistic events and programs which may include art, music, dance, and theatre, temporary art gallery space; studio space; classes or workshops related to the arts, health, fitness; and other hobby activities; and cultural events such as talks or presentations . Such uses are limited to those uses specifically perniltted through the local zoning. The Owner of the Property agrees to apply for and diligently pursue all appropriate zoning approvals for the community use spaces to allow such land uses. e. View Shed, Park. No-Build Area - The Owner of the Property agrees that an area approximately 12,000 sq.ft. in size located at the south west corner of the Property as shown on Exhibit B shall be limited as follows: No structure taller than an elevation defined as 18 inches above the top of the basement window header in the Washington School Building shall be constructed in this area. ii. The area may only be used for access and parks purposes. AGEHIDR ~TEf1A ts ~vf~AG~ _/~ iii. No obstructions other than railings that may be required by the local building code, improvements related to accessibility and barrier free design, ]andscaping and associated benches, tables, planters, and improvements associated with landscaping, shall be placed in this area that would obstruct views of the Washington School Building and the Library Annex except as may be approved by the City pursuant to an alteration certificate required for individual landmarks. 2. AQreement. Prior to submitting any building permit applications to the City to add any floor area, to demolish any building on the Property, or prior to or concurrent with an application for site review, the Owner shall submit an application for the grant of local individual landmark status (the "Individual Landmark Application") for at least that portion of the Property that is shown on Exhibit C. The boundary shown in Exhibit C for the individual landmark boundary is illustrative. Prior to submitting the Individual Landmark Application, the Owner will submit the final boundary for the individual ]andmark application for the final review and approval by the City manager. The boundary shall include all of the following area: An area at ]east three feet around the entire historic portion Washington School Building, the area of any portion of a building that is intended to connect to the historic portion of the Washington School, and the View Shed, Park, No-Build Area described in Paragraph l.e. above. The Owner is not required, nor is prohibited, from including any other portion of the property in the application including a building that may be constructed on the westem portion of the property or the library annex. 3. Term. This Covenant and the restrictions contained therein shall be in full force and effect for a period of twenty (20) years from the date of [he recordation with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 4. Bindina Effect. This Covenant shall run with the ]and and shall be binding upon any transferee, grantee, or any Owner of the Property or any portion thereof. Any transfer of title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by deed or other instrument of conveyance, shall be subject to this Covenant and by acceptance of a deed or instrument of conveyance, the transferee, grantee or any Owner of the Property, or any portion thereof, shall be deemed to have consented to this Covenant and the restrictions contained therein. 5. Restrictions are for the Benefit of the Citv. This Covenant and the restrictions contained therein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the City and its respective successors and assigns, and any parties claiming under the City or its successors and assigns. Enforcement. This Covenant may be enforced by the City, its successors or assigns, and enforcement may be made by any lawfu] means, including a suit for injunctive relief and damages to reimburse the City or its successors and assigns for enforcement costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. Venue for any suit to enforce compliance with this Covenant shall be proper in the District Court for the County of Boulder, State of Colorado. As part of any enforcement action on the part of the City, its successors or assigns, the Owner shall be responsible for the payment of all court costs and reasonable r~,i:.Ei~1Jl~@~'~I!%i,f.J`iPACi~ ~7. attorney's fees incurred by the City, its successors or assigns, in connection with any action to enforce this Covenant. Miscellaneous Provisions. a. Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Covenant and any other related document shall be in[erpreted in such a manner as to be valid under applicable law; but if any provision of any of the foregoing shall be invalid or prohibited under said applicable law, such provisions shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or prohibition without invalidating the remaining provisions of such document. b. GoverninQ Law. This Covenant and each and every related document are to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Nothing contained in this Covenant shall be construed as a waiver of the City's police powers. c. Successors. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions and covenants contained herein shall inure to and be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the School District and its grantees, transferees, successors and assigns. d. Section HeadinQS. Paragraph or section headings within this Covenant are inserted solely for convenience of reference, and aze not intended to, and shail not govern, limit or aid in the construction of any terms or provisions contained herein. e. Waiver. No claim of waiver, consent of acquiescence with respect to any provision of this Covenant shall be valid except on the basis of a written instrument executed by the School District recorded in the real estate records for Boulder County. f. Modifications. Any modifications of this Covenant shall be effective only when made by writings signed by the City and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Boulder County, Colorado. g. Owner and Successors. As described in the Recitals above, the term Owner shall mean the person or persons who shall acquire an ownership interest in the Property, or any portion thereof, subject to this Covenant; it is understood that such person or persons shall be deemed an Owner hereunder only during the period of his, her or their ownership interest in the Property, or any portion thereof, and shall be obligated hereunder for the full and complete performance and observance of all covenants, conditions and restrictions con[ained herein during such period. r,t;~i~Ls~~`~ES~i;~~"C~Pl~G~ ~~ BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 By: HelayneJones President, Board of Education STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss: COUNTY OFBOULDER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me [his day of , 2006, by Helayne Jones, Presiden[ of [he Board of Education for Boulder Valley School Distric[ RE-2, formerly School DisVic[ Number 3, a public school district and poli[ical subdivision of [he S[ate of Colorado. Wi[ness my hand and official seal My commission expires: Notary Public ~~:~~~~. ~~-~~~~ ~~. 5c~~~~ 7~ EXHIRIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTI~N A~artion of L~t 1~n Jns~ph 1rVtrlifs Sub!i'svision oE ltie NUrth Nal~ of t}-~ ~l~~C!'tvtest C.~uarter o> 5c~,iior. 3(?, To~n~nsl~ip 7 North; ~tanao 70 l^le~t of th~ fi~ P.M.: G~unty of ~aulder, : t~te of Cotar~do dAscnbed .:s falio~vs to w"st- ~ec~inning at thE Sou,hwest eom~r o6 said Lo: 1, thenee l~o~heriy along the W~si [ine ot said Lot i a distance of ~5 feet; thence ~asterly aryd parall~sl i~ ths Nor;h line of said Lot 1 to ft~e East l~ne of sa~d Lot Z; thence Southeray.aiong t~ Easf line oi said Loi 1 a distance of 85 feat to tha Southeast c~rnnr af said Lot 1; thence Wester~}~ a(~3n~ the So~Eh line of said Lbt 1 to the p[ace of be~inn±ng. Lnts 2 and 3, Joseph Waif~`s Sub~ivis~on, Couniry af B~u~der, State oi Colorada; anct • Al! that portson of Lot 4 ot Jos~ph Yvblfi`s SubdivisioR oi the ~Jorth Nal10~ the Na~~twest Gluartr~r of Seciion 30, Township y North, Ranpe 7'~ YJest ai the 6" P.hA., Cflunty of &~ukier, State of Colorad~. describ~d as f~llov~s, to-vlit beginning at the SQUGhwest camer oi said i.ot 4, the~: e I~arthe~fy.~fpng the West line o'f ~ald Lat 4 a distancc ot 95 ~ee~ ttience ~asterly and Rarat)el to tt~e ~Jorth lirre of said Lat 4 co the ~a5i fine Of &ald l.ot 4; thene~ Southeriy aion~'~e East ti~e o~ said Lat 4 a ctstance oi 95 feei ta the 5outheast corner of said Lot 4; tha~ce ~"~esteriy along the So~tih lin~ of s2€o Lat 4#o tho pEsce of beglnning. '~~i:~~xj?C~~1:. u ~'k=•,}~a ;F ~v~~l;•€~„~-. ~~ EXHIBIT B BOUNDARY I~OR THE VIEW SHED, PARK, NO-BUILD AREA WASNlNGTON SCHOOL - 1215 CEDAR AVE PARCELID:1463302V800I LOT AREA: '1306a5 aq T _ ~~~ .rE>a~„f,.~~,._~ ,l ~_un~.c. M«wc+w.: /I~ i inrh aQ~ial; -0S (~;e: !'~laiL.~jdi~),~-~,, 4li~f_~~i`.'' ~- ,j~J~~~~.~~.'..~V EXHIBIT C ILLUSTRATI VE MINIMUM BOUNDARY FOR THE INDIVIDUAI. LANDMAI2K AI'PLICATION pARCEL 10: 1+pJ0208402 tDT AREA~ 130645 sq k ,`f~ 1 inch equela 45 fcet ~~~ ~~r,,~;;,~~~ ~~~ . 79 . 0 4 , „ .. . .. ~ WASHINGTON SCHOOL - 1215 CEDAR AVE ATTACHMLNT II CI1'Y ON' BOULUN;R PLANNING BOARD ACTION I~~llNUTI~,S December 7, 2006 1777 Broadway, Council Chambcrs A pet-manent set of thcsc minutes and a tape recordin; (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephonc: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/plannin~/plannin~board/agendas PLANNING BOANU MCMI3l+;ItS I'RESF.N't': Elise JoneS, Chair, Simon Mole, Vicc Chair John Spitzer Phil Shull Adrian Sopher, recused from agcnda item SA, returned 9:00 p.m. Claire Levy, absent Richard Sosa, absent STAI~ F PRI;SENT: Robert O. Cole, Land Use Review Manager David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Charlcs Fen~o, Planner Karl Guiler, Planner Michelle Allen, Adminislrative Assistant 1. CALL TO ORDI?R Acting Chair, E. Jones, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and lhe following business was conclucted. 2. APPROVAL Ol~' MINU'I'ES None 3. PUI~LIC PARTICIPAI'ION None 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOS[7'IONS, PLANNING BOAKD CALL-UYS 5. ACI'ION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration o1~ Concept Ylan LUIt2006-00092, Cedar Commons. The applicant is seeking additionnl comment from the ~3oard in response to the Board's previous commentai-y on June 15, 2006 rcgarding the proposeci redevclopment of the Washin~ton Elemcntary Schoc~l site at 1215 Cedar Avenue. The revi5ed conccpt is for 34 co-housinb units, 6,800 sc~uare feet of office use, and common = ~,; , ~V~I;4 ;1'- . O V facilities on the high density portion of the property (along Broadway) and 6 singie- family homes on the low density portion of the property (along 13 Street). Applicant: Wonderland Hill Development Co. Property Owner: Boulder Valley School District Public Participation Barbara Koser, 1614 Zamia, Boulder Michael Hibner, 2950 Washington St., Boulder Fran Brown, 2950 Washington, St., Boulder Jeff Frant, 1240 Cedar Ave., Boulder Janice Jennings, 2965 Valmont Rd. #109, Boulder Rena, Gabbay, 1321 Cedar Ave. Boulder Elizabeth Jacobs, 2950 Broadway #8, Boulder John Glass, 3ll W. L.edbee St., Fort Collins George Glass, 2940 13~' St., Boulder Libby Brown, 2151 14`h St., Boulder Zev Paiss, 1460 Quincy Ave., Boulder Todd Swanson, 1619 E. Ashbury Ave., Denver John Decker, 3435 17`h St. Boulder Sandra McManis, 1287 Elder Ave., Boulder Ken Ruggelston, 1450 Riverside Ave., Boulder Stan Kyed, 2949 13`" St. Boulder Jody Hereford, P.O. Box 1406, Boulder None of the board members had issues with the proposed rezoning, lot line adjustment, proposed height and setbacks. Elise Jones: No problems with height but not comfortable w/the relationship to the buildings to the north. The eleva[ion on Broadway is very big and long and reads as institutional. Would prefer open space that also preserves the view corridor to the school. Office space seems compatible with the eclectic commercial spaces along Broadway. Parking; cohousing has a legitimate case for parking reduction, needs better clanty on the why the office uses and non-cohousing housing support a reduction. Large 5,000 sq ft houses are not compatible with the neighborhood. The FAR swap could permit more open space on the swath of single family homes to the east. More work to be done but the proposal is on the right trajectory. Simon Mole: The elevation on Broadway is a good contrast to Broadway brownstones, likes the flat roofs to make the school stand out, but it could have more interest The East building is a good idea, would make it bigger if it helps reduce the mass of the West building on Broadway. Co-housing always wants to be part of the neighborhood but the design is not inviting to the surrounding neighborhood but this site design works because it provides a buffer between Broadway and the neighborhood to the East. Feels the larger public is getting too much conuol of the site because of landmarks, would be happy to let the site have the cloister for its residents. No issue with office space on Broadway. Likes that the ,a~:~.i~~asa m~ ~;b~ ~t ~S~taG~ ~~l connector between the school and the west building is transpazent. Parking, ok with the reduction, but the homes to the east should have the same parking requirements as any other single family home. In general would be happy to move density west but the site is constrained by the land mark issues. Homes in this area will eventually be larger. Strong support for the plan, but try to make the East building more architecturally cohesive with the rest of the buildings. John Spitzer: Trees will not be there in the winter, so he wants to see an elevation w/out trees. On the West building, could break up the massing better, it reads as one long building. Perhaps put the pocket-park in front of the school where it would be more sheltered. The site is compromised by retaining the view corridor to the school from Broadway. Explore no entrance to the underground pazking on the south, perhaps a right tum in/out off Broadway. The plaza is very institutional. No problems with the proposed ofFice space. BVCP addresses permeability and requires a high level but both the East building and the Broadway building aze highly impermeable. It would be nice if the pubiic could walk entirely around the school. The connection limits the ability of the public to get around the school. Ok with the parking reduction but also struck by the pictures brought in by a member of the public showing the street parking is maxed out. Recommends pursuit of a parking district. Does not want the possibility of 5000 sq ft houses on the easL Put more thought and attention into the SW comer. Phil Shull: The elevation on Broadway feels sterile, you can't tell what the building is, housing, commercial, institutional? The design needs to be more friendly. Ok with the height and setbacks but concerned about the relationship to the buildings on the north, very tal] in relation to those buildings. The site design is driven by the objective of seeing the school from Broadway, thinks something could be done on the corner. Needs to better understand the function of the alley to the East between the houses and the larger bldg. on the east edge, needs ro be cleazer how this works. How does the office space work, will people walk in off Broadway? Is it for service providers? The proposed Sq. ft. will generate traffic on the site. Likes that the connector between the school and the west bldg is transparent. A parking problem in the neighborhood exists and we shouldn't exacerbate it. It is a transit rich environment and a parking reduction is justified but this may be too much. Market rate may not justify the pazking reduction. Not sure where you'd put more parking but feels the proposed reduction may be too much. The FAR swap doesn't feel like it works (adding more FAR on the site) and will be a hassle with a special ordinance. The open space doesn't do any real service to the community, the developer has no responsibility to provide a pazk to the community but I wouldn't spend too much time on the park in the SW corner because he doesn't think that it will be too usabie no matter what you do with it. Feels the concept is 80% there. Adrian Sopher: Recused Break 8:50 - 9:00 B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment #LUR2006-00064, Vio[et Crossing. The Concept Plan application includes the kac?~1~41~la B~°~t1h ~s S't~/~~~ _ ~ ATTACHMENTI Site Review Criteria Response for Washington Village 1215 Cedar Street :•'~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE From: Laurel Fanning Wonderland Hill Development Company, Applicant r9c?hlV~~l~6'~'~rlfdtr~`_'~~.I~tkC~~..~/ '~ Washuigton Village Site Review Criteria Response Final Site Review Written Statement Item 6, A-D (A) Statement of current ownership: The Washington Village property is cunently owned by the Boulder Valley School District. Don Orr, Director of Planning, Engineecing and Construction, is their representative. (B) Objectives to be achieved by this project: This project was given conceived through a memorandum of agreement beriveen the Boulder Valley School District and the City of Boulder. Creating a Request for Proposal Process, the City Council laid out cleaz objectives which it wished to have potential developer(s) meet through submitting proposals. The principal objectives the City Council established for developers were: • Preservation of the historic values associated with the site Providing additional benefits to the community. This included cultural, scientific, education or aRistic civic life to the community, affordable housing, and senior housing. The Washington Village proposal supports the objectives described. We will preserve and upgrade the historic Washington School, utilizing ail of the space in the school building itself, as weil as the former library. In addition to residential space and common space for the cohousing community, there will be space available for use by the public, including; creative art workshops for seniors, cultural and artistic presentations, lectures, opportunities for local artists to display and meeting spaces for other community organizations and the neighborhood. Additionally, over 60% of the units will be accessible and almost 33% of the units on the site will be affordable. Architecturally, we are allowing the existing school building to stand out clearly but without over]y dominating the site. We will be using materials such as brick, stucco and accents of stone to balance and integrate the historic design with the natural environment to enhance the multi-use chazacter of the project. (C) Development Schedule: Preliminary deve{opment schedule for the project: • Closing on real property October, 2007 • Begin abatement, demo Last quarter, 2007 • Start site utility work First quarter, 2008 • Start vertical construction Second quarter, 2008 • Complete construction Fourth quarter, 2009 (D) Copies of special agreements, conveyances, restrictions or covenants: The use of the Washington Villa~e site will be determined to a certain degree by covenants that were agreed to between [he City of Boulder and the Boulder Valley School District. These covenants relate [o inclusion of: • Affordable housing • Barrier-free design • Tree preservation !SC-:4~i~!''/~. ~`k"f="r3 it ~Uk'/~~i;._" ~ Washington Viilage Site Review Criteria Response Final • Community Use (public) space • View Shed, Park, No-Build Area within the project. Please see copy of Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction, attached. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR ALL SITE REVIEW APPLICATIONS I. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: (A) How is the proposed site plan consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Compreheosive Plan? Our response: The General Policies of the Boulder ~alley Comprehensive Plan and our response to them are as follows: • Recognition of sustainability as a unifying goal to secure Boulder's future economic, ecological and social health. This policy recognizes: (a) critical interrelationships among economic, social and environmental health The Washington Village (WV) proposa[ is completely aligned with these 3 goals, most likely signifrcantly more so than most proposals broz~ght to !he city. Opportunities are created within this proposal for those of all economic abilities to become a part of this community, providing for low-income affordable, middle-income affordable and market-rate buyers. However, the biggest difference in what we bring is what can happen socially and environmentally when yozr integrate cohousiing principles into the proposal. Our residents tivill be a highly interactive commz~niry, they will know ench other before they move into therr new homes, and they will all actively take part in using their communiry-based space not only amangst themselves, but also with the residents of the city at large, creating a community that supports both the neighborhood and city nroa~nd it. Regnrdrng enviranmental health, by creating a higher densiry communrty on an infill site, residents of G[~ashington ViUage will have easy access to transit, and are within walking drstance of the local services they need (grocery, banks, medical, ete.). In addition, cohot~sing residents are rypically very environmentally oriented. By sharing resources with each other throz~gh communiry-based ideals, they can eliminate "dt~plicate capifalism ", ivherein everyone needs to have a complete set oJeverydiing to themselves. (b) ways we produce trade and consume Due partially to the convenient location to local businesses providing necessary goods and services and partially to the nature of a cohausing community, we e.rpect that this communiry tivill szrpport nnd trade primarily with nearby loc~l Boadder businesses. The community will also lrkely share more; tivhile at the same time constune less. As an e,rample, cohotrsing communities npicnlly hnve common drnners severnl times a week, for which they will buy staples in bidk nnd crente (ess ivaste due to hnving meal activities centralized. i~14~iL~.'3Fi 9~"~~1t! 7f. ~~jr',i~1CaGt _ " Washmgton Village Site Review Criteria Response Final (c) social and cultural equity and diversity to create valuable human capital The basic notion of cohousing is that social and cultura! equity is inherent in the model. More diversity is looked upon as being an educationa! opportunity, enabling the residents to share their individua! e.rperiences with each other to serve a greater whole. (d) planned physical development that has an impact on social conditions Arranging the community's homes around truly interactive indoor and outdoor community space will help to improve the social conditions ofall who live there and also those who will visit the site regularly for community activities and events. (e) the quality of environmental, economic and social health built upon the full engagement and involvement of the community. Ii is going to be very fortunate that residents from all over the City of Boulder will have access to this communiry for all kinds of activities and events. This will not be a"closed" communiry; rather it will reach out to all who wish to participate. • Commitment to open space preservation and the use of open space buffers to define the community. The WV proposal seeks to defne a new communiry within an infll area of the ciry, rather than to build outside the current developed area. • Use of urban growth boundaries to maintain a compact city (the boundazies of the service area have remained virtually unchanged since first developed in 1977). As previously discussed, the infill natn~re of this proposal will only help to maintain Boulder as a compact and vibrant commzmiry. • Encouragement of compact, contiguous development and a preference for infill land redevelopment as opposed to sprawl. Taking on the infill of an underutilrzed site, along with the reuse of a very significant historical school bt~ilding, demonstrates our commitment to encouraging compact deve(opment over the much easier choice ofsprawl • Provision of quality urban spaces, parks and recreation that serve all sectors of the community and traiis and walkways that connect the community. The preservation of the historic schoo! building together with the landmarked publrc use plaza and view corridor at the southtivest corner of the site and in front of the school. will contribtde to the qualiry of urban spnces in the ciry. The sire rs we!! connected to parks and recreation through the exrsting crry srreets, walks and trails. The pathway connec~ions that move people through the site ivil! be frrendly and rnviting not only to the residents but to the community at large. r1ta~.:~lz ):a i`f~>>JI ;i ~"_~PtaG~ _O,~ Washington Village Site Review Criteria Responae Final • Commitment to preservation of natural, cultural and historic features that contribute to defining the unique sense of place in Boulder. WV will fully support the comp plan by landmarking and improving the condition of the current historical Washington School, as well as preserving many signif:cant trees on this site. • Commitment to programs that support respect for human dignity, human rights and the inclusion of all residents in community and civic life. This was outlined in the MOU between the Boulder Valley School District and the City of Boulder. We fully support the ideals of the school district and the city, by providing the space in our communiry where all residenrs can take part. • Recognition of the importance of a central area (Downtown, University of Colorado, the Boulder Valley Regional Center) as a regional service center ofthe Boulder Valley and a variety of subcommunities and neighborhood activity centers distributed throughout the community. We feel that Washington Village will become one of the neighborhood activity centers in the ciry, because of the proposed mix of housing, commercial space and communiry space. The site is within walking distance of Downtotivn and is well linked by multimodal transportation corridors to the University of Colorado and other important activity centers within the City. • Recognition of the importance of the Federal Scientific Laboratories (NOAA, NIST, NCAR), the University of Colorado, and the private scientific and technology community that contributes to the economic vitality of Boulder. We czrrrently have members oJthe WV cohousing community that work at the Universiry of Colorado and Naropa University. Some of these mernbers have an interest and intention fo provide elder services in the proposed community space on the site and in conja~nction with the Universities. Additionally, cohoz~sing communities rypically attract proactive, progressive people who consider education to be of utmost importance, and we e,rpect tha! this community will support and respect the work that a[I these institutions do within the ciry. • Commitment to a diversity of housing types and price ranges to meet the needs of the Boulder Valley population. GVe are proposing a high level of diversiry in both housing type and price while being respectfirl of the surrounding neighborhood while achieving an appropriate level of density on the site. We propose both multi famrly housing, ranging from duple,res nnd toivnhomes, to small flats, as well as the single famrly hoc~sing on the site. The mz~lti fnmily hotrsing will be provided in three different price ranges; lotiv-income affordable, mrddle-rncome afjordable and market rate. • Commitment to a balanced multi-modal transportation system. By developing ~his communiry on nn nlrenclv established major bus rozrte, we are supporting and especting our resrdents and the gzrests who come to the communrry to often depart and arrive via t\t~a~ idi3.~-167~iU! 4! ~vI~ACi~ ~~.? _~ Washington Village Site Review Criteria Response Final the SKIP on Broachvay. In addition our proposed TDMshows that we will encourage the cohousing communiry to rideshare, bikeshare, and perhaps carshare. We expect them also to frega~ently walk to the retail and medical services just to the south ofthe site on Broadway, and even to downtown Boulder. (B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a 300 foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: (i) the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, (ii) the masimum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk and Density Standards," B.R.C.1981. How is the proposed site plan consistent with the above density criteria? Our response: In Section 2.26 Mi.red Use and Higher Densiry Housing, it states.• "The ciry will consider mixed a~se and higher densiry housing along certain mz~lti-modal corridors through an area planning process that engages the public and addresses issues such as the urban design, street network, and compatibiliry with the surrounding area. ° We have designed the WV site plan with consideration given to both the very high traffic commercial (Broadway) side of the development, as well as the very residential side (13`" St.). In so doing, we have proposed to ezpand the RH-2 zone on the site to allow for appropriate higher densiry along Broadway, anct still keep the RL-1 single fami[y residential zone along 13`~. The development will move from commercial/multi family residential uses (mi.eed use) on Broadtivay, to a mcdti family=one with the school building as its center, to a lower density use along the east side, thus being sensitive to all types of densiry that occur in the area. The densities proposed for the project are all within the guidelines of Chapter 9-7. tit?~rV'~ 3la 17'~'o~J! ;F ~uG~AG~ ~ Y Washington Village Site Review Criteria Response Final II. Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: A. Open space, including without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: 1. How is useable open, space arranged to be accessible and functional? Our response: The open space on the WV site is arranged in hva major areas; the frrst is the area delineated by the landmark boundary as a view corridor looking in from the southwest corner oJthe site. This area allows for unrestricted views of the historic school building, provides for a functional access to underground parking, and allows pedestrians an attractive way to approach and enter the site on foot, whether they are residents or guests using the communiry facilities. This area uses a combination of hard and softscape to achieve the desired effect oja public plaza and entryway to the historic building and the communiry. The school building itselfserves as the "center" of the development from which the second area of open space, the comma~niry common area, spills out. This aren will include an outdoor patio area just ou[side the community space on the northwest side of the historic building and will be developed beyond that into a series of walkways and lawn, garden and dry stream areas that will also provide a water retention/water qualiry function. The walkways are designed to pleasantly bring both residents and guests rnto%ut of and through the site. 2. How is private open space provided for each detached residential unit? Our response: The single family homes that ivill be bt~ilt can all have their own yard areas on front. side and back of rheir homes. With the exception of a fetiv units in the historic building, the mz~ltr family and duple,r units will all have either n private patio or balcony area off of therr unit. Several of the cohozrsing units have small private ynrds. .t~lost of the cohousing units are entered through walks and balconies open to the communiry comman area. Several outdoor sitting and living spaces are planned along the entry walks and balcanies. 3. How does the project provide for the preservation of natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, terrain, significant plant communities, threatened and endangered species and habitat, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, and drainage areas? Our response: The primary natura! feature of this site is the hundred-year old trees that were planted on Ihe site aroi~nd the time the school was bz~ilt. It is ozm intention to preserve all healthy rrees of l.i " or greater diameter (nt ~ft.) ns described in the covenant made benveen the Boulder I~alley School District nnd the City of Boufder. i\L:V='y~i~': \ 9`rl C'it~i 4t .~ v..(~'L1C4~ .__ ~ Washington Village Site Review Criteria Respunse Final 4. How does the open space provide a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development?; and Our response: The lazger open space provided in the center of the project creates a visual and physical relief from the denser residential and mixed use buildings that surround it, and provides a focus from residents' homes towazds the historical school building. The view corridor provided at Broadway and Cedar will continue to allow visual relief for those passing the site on Broadway. And the provision of single-family lots, which step back an additionai 25 feet as one moves toward the comer of Cedaz and 13`h (see proposed setback table in architectural drawings), will enable the east and south side of the project to be consistent with the homes across these streets. A setback ranging from 10 feet for first and second stories to 35 feet for third stories along the noRh edge of the property aliows the north building to step back from the condominium buildings to the north of the site. 5. How does the open space provide a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas?; and Our response: As previously mentioned, the view corridor will help to preserve the views to the school and of the e.risting trees that one has seen Craveling past the site for many years. The open space at the center of the project does not have any signif:cant rmpact on existing natural features. as most oJthe newly proposed open space occurs where there previously were buildings or where no vegetation existed. The arrangement of the single fami[y lots along 13`~' St. is sensitive to the retention of the existing trees on this frontage. 6. If possible, how is open space linked to an area- or a city-wide system? Our response: The open space will be connected through the site to the existing public way sidewa[k and street system. From there, people can travel multi-modally to the city-wide system of parks, trails and recreation areas. B. Landscaping: 1. How does the project provide for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and how does the selection of materials provide for a variety of colors and contrast and how does it incorporate the preservation or use of local native vegetation where appropriate? Our response: .ds previozrsly described, the view corridor at the southwest corner of the site will have a combinntion of harct and softscape. The plantrngs will inclt~de a variety ofxerrscape plants of different colors to complement the esisting trees. A bosqzee concept may be lntrodz~ced rn the circular entrance area. Hardscape will inclzrde concrete, pavers, and retaining walls. Overall, the plnntings and materials tivill be intended to complement, not overshadow, the vietiv of the existing school. The interior open space area will have a combination of lawn, garden, plan~er areas, nnd dry stream beds, bridges, natvral rock, pnvers and crusher fines paths. !t too ivil[ combrne a seledion of.reriscape plantings, ~lowers and likely vegetable gardens. The single-farnily lors tioill be a(lowed to design therr own landscnpe areas, except that drarnageiwnter qualrn~ mensures will be "bzult-in ° to the site. :,r ~~=n4 ~:a Q~'~,,ri a~ . '~ v~A~~ . 90 Washington Village Site Review Criteria Response Final 2. How does the landscape and design attempt to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important native species, plant communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment into the project? Our response: The existing long-life trees are the primary natural feature. These trees tivill be maintained wherever possible and to meet the covenant requirements of the site. 3. How does the project provide significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2 and 9-3.33, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements," and "Landscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and Our response: All of the plant materials added to the site will take into consideration the size of the existing trees, to make sure that they are of appropriate scale and that they integrate well. 4. How are the setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-way landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan? Our response: The proposal ensures that additiona! street trees wil! be introduced where required and/or needed to screen or enhance building features, as well as to fit in with the existing trees. The view corridor/courtyard area at the southwest corner creates an especially attractive view towards the existing school. C. Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by t6e developer or not: 1. How are high speeds discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project provided? Our response: The major site issue with high speeds is the traJf c which occurs on the Broadway side of the site. II is our understanding that, in the future, parking may be added along the Broadtivay frontage. With that in mind, we have provided an 8' tree lawn area right at the back of the eristing curb, then an 8' wide sidewalk, and further a bus shelter pad that occurs behind the sidewalk. While thrs may not discourage high speeds from Broadway, it wil! certainly provide a safe route for pedestrians and bus riders on this frontage. Again, the view corridor/cozirryard area will help to separate cars from people as a"safe haven" way to pass through the southtivest part of the site. Sidewalks and tree Imvn will also be maintained on Cedar and 13`h, which are me~ch lower trnffic areas. 2. How are potential conflicts with vehicles minimized? Otrr response: The answer ro#I nbore summnri>es how we plan to minimize conllicts with street traffic. For cars entering/leaving the t~ndergroa~nd parking gnrages under the north and west (BroachvayJ buildings, we have limited the ingress/egress to nvo places, an alley entrance and an entranceie.rrt from the gnrnge, both located on Cednr. While the garage entry/exit at the soiuhwest corner of the srte is combrned into the overnll courtyarcl, the use of appropriate paving t\c~i5-o,y)!lY`~"k;~'~;t,~~i~f~f~~°. /~ Washmgton Village Site Review Criteria Response Final materials and more meandering design will make drivers more aware that this is a multi-use and a low-speed area. In addition, the areas where pedestrians will enter/exit this courtyard are clearty separate and delineated from the traffic lane. 3. How are safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems provided, including without limitation streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails? Our response: The WV proposal incorporates commniniry use space both in the existing school building and in the existing library annex bieilding. There is e.risting street parking all a[ong Cedar and !3`h St. for people visiting the site by car. There is excellent lransit service which stops on Broadway right at the site. The project connects into all the existing sidewalk systems that occur around the site. From these sidewalks, we have provided accessible sidewalks and/or pathways to all community use space. 4. How are alternatives to the automobile promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single occupant vehicle? Our response: The site enjoys great transit access on Broadway, sidewalks surrounding 3 sides of the site, and a network of walkways that wilt enable people to pass through the site from one side to the other. In addition. our TDM encourages transit use, ridesharing, bikesharing, carsharing and walking to nearby services on Broadevay ~. Where practical and bene5cial, how is a significant shift away from single- occupant vehicle use to alternate modes promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques? Dur response: Please see our proposed TD~~I (a separate document we have submitted). This plan includes making sure the communiry is integrated into a neighborhood Eco-Pass program, and encozrrages ridesharing, carsharrng, bikesharing and walking. 6. What on-site facilities for externa{ linkage w+th other modes of transportation are provided, where applicable? Our response: We are very fortunate to have an RTD bus stop/she!!er and pedestrian crossing signal located right on our Broadway frontage. In addition, we will be providing bike storage for residents and gtrests on site, and garage parking can be made available for a car share program, shou(d our residents 6e able to implement such a program. 7. How is the amount of land devoted to the street system minimized? Our response: IVe hai•e very little "street " on the WV site. G3~e have designed a single private allev thnt will provide nenrly all of our access to on-site pnrking within the rivo parking garages ive have for the midti Jcrrni(y units and offece,%commercial space. In adctition, this alley will also :~~;E: ~va;~ ar~::~y~~;f. 5~!N,~~~ m 9d~- Washington Village Site Review Criteria Response Final serve the parking access needs for the single family lots. Secondary to this alley, we have one additional access !o the parking garages at the southwest corner of the site. 8. How is the project designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and how does it provide safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust?; and Our response: As previously described, we have put the aa~tomobiles for the multi family units and commercial undergroz~nd, and we have minimized the access points. This allows us to have much more freedom with the design of the pedestrian ways on the surface and provides a safe separation from auto traff c. The alley will provide an off-street access for the single family lots, thus eliminating potential for numerous points of conJlict by accessing multiple times off of 13'" St. 9. How will city construction standards be met, and how will emergency vehicle use be facilitated? Our response: With the design of the alley, we have taken into consideration the fact that al! city standards will have to be met, along with the needs of the various wet and dry utilities and the drainage needs of the site. We have met with the fire department numerous times and designed this alley with the appropriate hammerhead turnaround and discussed f:re department connections and located them appropriately. In addition, we have discussed with the ftre department that fire access for Broadway and Cedar buildings will be done from Cedar St., therefore the only entry point for emergency vehicles wil~ be the alley entrance. D. Parking: 1. How does the project incorporate into the design of parking areas, measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements? Our response: :Vearly all on-site parkrng is undergrozrnd Pedestrians movrng through the site rvrll have little or no interaction with vehicles. The parking garages have accessible elevator access to the surface and to units above. 2. How does the design of parking areas make efficient use of the land and use the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project? Our respoirse: G[~ashington Village will have a!1 multi familv and commercial parking underground, ivhich uses no surface area on the properry, escept for the entrance and e,rit points. 3. How are parking areas and lighting designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets?; and Our response: Because the pnrking arens nre primm-ily undergrouncf, they will have Irttle to no vrsua! rmpact on the sio-rounding areas. In acldition. exterror lightin,; is going to be mtnimired, ;,~.E~~~~~,~ ~~~ ~~,~a ;, ~5~~~~ . 93 Washmgton Village Site Review Criteria Response Final kept on buildings only, and most likely kept to doorways and potentially low bollard-style or solar lighting along alleys, walkways and stairs. 4. How do parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981? Our response: Drives wil! mostly be shaded with trees and most parking is underground. E. Buiiding Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area: 1. How are the building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area? Our response: The mass, scale and orientation of the buildings on the site will reflect the transitions seen from the surrounding streets. The west side of the site will provide for the largest masses in buildings, which will reJlect the apartment sryle buildings found across the street on Broadway. This will also help to create the "walkable " mixed use character that is now developing along Broadway. The school will retain its current massing, with flat roofs proposed on the buildings around it, allowing it to "pop up" above the rest. As one moves from west to east, the building masses will be reduced on the single family lots, to reflect the mass and scale of the single family homes in the neighborhood east of 13`h street. The massing of the north building is designed to "step back" from the properry line to be sensitive to the 2 story buildings on the north. . Overall, there currently exists a mixture of 1, Z and 3 story buildings all around the site. 2. How is the height of buildings in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area? Our response: As discussed in #1 above, a variety of building heights occur around the site, ranging from 1 to 3 stories. The proposed building heights on this site will not e.rceed what is jound around the site. 3. How does the orientation of buildings minimize shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties? Our response: The only buildings that have real potentia! to cast shadows on adjacent properties are the :Vorth building and the northern portion of the Br•oadway building, which have therefore been "srepped back" substantially to minimi~e shadowing on the neighbors to the north. The vietiv corridor estnblished nt the southwest corner of the site, which is inclz~ded in the landmark boundary, will ensure that the primnry view to the historical school evill remain in perpetuity. No olher buildings on site are anticipated to have detrimental shading or view effects on neighboring properties. ~',i;E~~~,;aI7; ~v1;3 ~t~la~~~9=/ Washington Village Site Review Criteria Response Final 4. If the character of the area is identifiable, how is the project made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting? Our response: The character of the specific area is significantly defined by the historic school site itself The materials proposed for the buildings and sire surrounding the school will try not to copy. but rather to complement it. The school will remain the centerpiece of the project. The view corridor at the corner of Broadway and Cedar will be attractive at ground level far those using the courtyard access, btrt will not usurp the view of the school. Signage will be as minimal as possible, with likely one sign placed on the lot to identify the cohousing community, and minimal but adequate wayfinding signage to help residents and guests travel through the site. Signage for the commercial space will be limited to the Broadway building fa~ade. Exterior lighting will be designed to minimize ouhvard glare and will be primarily limited to doorways and !ow bollard style or solar lighting for pathways and drives. 5. How do buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians? Our response: Washington Village has provided an opportunity to continue the mixed use feel that is now developing along Broadway. The building fronting on Broadway will make use of massing and materials to develop a more "walkable " street. First floor office%ommercial spaces will be larger scale in window and door treatments than the residential units above. Brick will be incorporated to reflect the existing school, but additional metal railings and sunshading devices will provide an updated feel. 6. To the extent practical, how does the project provide public amenities and planned public facilities'. Our response: We have provided dedicated communiry use space in two areas: the first level of the school bz~ilding, as well as the entire Library annex bc~ilding. This will allow for diversifrcation and concarrrent schedarling of community activities. Both these areas are easily accessible from the primary (existing) school entrance areas on Cedar. This dedication of space for public zrse in a private development project is fairly arnprecedented, however, it complete[y supports the intent ofthe MOUagreement betrveen the school district and the city. 7. For residential projects, how does the project assist the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multifamily, townhouses, and detached single family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units? Ottr response: We hnve provided nll three types of housing in this project, including a duples, 3Z one and hvo story multi family and to~vnhouse units, and 6 single family lots. The units vary in si=e from appro.rimately 600 SF ro approsimately ?, 000 SF. ~~iC~~~l@'~AB'FCF~;xa` v~'AG~ /~~ Washmgton Village Site Keview Criteria Response Final 8. For residential projects, how is noise minimized between units, behveen buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials? Our response: Because our residential units are primarily clustered in 4 buildings, acoustical contro! will be achieved through insulated, tested demising wall assemblies, as well as insulated, tested~loor assemblies with concrete topping. We have placed 2 ofthe units in a separate burlding as well as additional units in the existing school building. This separates the groups of units nicely on the site. The proposed landscaping will generally help to soften noise as it occurs on the site. Placing parking underground also helps to minimize noise around the site from vehicles. 9. If a lighting plan is provided, how does it augment security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics? Our response: Lighting rs going to be considered wherever needed for safety and wayfinding, however, we intend to minimize e.rterior lighting on the site. We primarily intend to provide lighting at doorways and on pathways where needed. Any electrical lighting praposed will likely be compact~luorescent or other energy ejficient lighting. For pathways, solar lighting will be considered 10. How does the project incorporate the natural environment into the design and avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to natural systems? Our response: As rovas extensively discussed in the open space section, the natural environment of this site had been previously altered by the construction and use of the school. We have a commitment, however, to retain all healthy trees of signif cant size. wherever possible, on the site in an effort to retain the historical nature and meet the covenants required by the ciry. 11. How are cut and SII minimized on the site, and how does the desigu of buildings conform to the natural contours of the land, and how does the site design minimize erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimize the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards? Our response: The existing site is relatively flat, having been gracled that way in the past as the schoal tivas developed and altered for its varying trses. Our proposal will need to incorporate cut and fcll ro enable us to build the lrvo parking garages with the goal of minimizing the impact of parking on Che site. GVherever possible, we rvi!! try to balance cz~t and fifl. All areas graded will be designed with groundcovers or other means to keep erosion to a minimum. There appenr to be no geologic hazards on fhis site. :a~.~ ,~!_~,a ~~s;vs;~.~~tir~ ~9(~ ~Vashington Village Site Review Criteria Response Final F. Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of insuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: 1. Placement of Open Space and Streets. Open space areas are located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent prope~-ties. Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. How is this criterion met? Our response: Ozer proposed buildings should not suffer significant impacts on salar shading from sz~rrounding buildings, due to the layout of the site and surrounding streets. We have arranged our proposed buildings to allow for as much solar exposure as possible, knowing that the existing school building is a major constraint !o siting buildings on the property, and recognizing the solar access righrs of the properties directly north of the site. 2. Lot Layout and Building Siting. Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north 1ot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading. How is this criterion met? Our response: The principal multi family buildings can make some use ofpassive solar and the Jlat roofs allow for numerous opportunities for solar heating or photovoltaics, should the commz~nity want to incorporate them. All of the single family lots have bz~ilding envelopes that are longer in the east/west direction providing greater so:rth side exposure. The single family homes should have adequate sotar nccess and can utilize south facing solar roof exposztre for heating or photovoltaics. 3. Building Form. The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. How is this criterion met? Our response: As much as possible, roaf overhnngs and shading wrll be designed to enable passive solar to be zeti(i~ed rn the matlti family barildings. flat roofs on these buildings will provide additional potential for heating or photovoltaics, and the single family homes tivill have roof pitches desioned to increase solar access. 4. Landscaping. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. How is this criterion met? Our response: ,Llost ojthe lnndscaping proposed directlv aroztnd buildings is planter st}de. Trees ancl other Inrge scale plnntrngs are pulled more towar-ds the mrddle af the site around the cornmon use areus Larger trees capable of cnstin~ solar shndotivs tivill be deciduous and selected io opti~ni;e iv~nter solar access. ~1Z:~ ~~?'.~): , B"~t~El'I ;k J.~PAU~ ~ ~ ~ Washmgton Village Site Review Criteria Response Final G. Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height. No site review application for a pole above the permitted height will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: Our respanse: These criteria do not appear to apply to this project. 1. The light pole is required for nighttime recreation activities, which are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, or the light or traffic signal pole is required for safety, or the electrical utility pole is required to serve the needs of the city?; and 2. The pole is at the minimum height appropriate to accomplish the purposes for which the pole was erected and is designed and constructed so as to minimize light and electromagnetic pollution. If applicable, how are these criteria met? Additional Criteria: Parking Reduction - Section 9-4-11(m) Our response: The reqz~est for parking reduction has been discussed in detail in previous concept plan reviews. In summary. For the single family lots in the RL-I zone, we are providing for 2 cars per lot, or I2 spaces total, whrch meets the code-reyuirement for these lots. We are proposing 66 on-site (surface and underground) spaces total for the RH-2 zone plus an estimated 2-/ spaces available on street. The 66 spaces include 24 spaces for the off ce%ommercial area at 1 space per 300 SF, and 42 of these solely for residential use, which equates to 1.23 spaces/unit, or a 64% reduction. We expect that for this cohousing community, tivhich will be within easy tivalking distance and transit distance of all necessary basic services, that this number is completely adequate. Additionally, this cohousing community will be more sc~pportive of the idea of working together to rideshare, carshare and bikeshare than most multi- family communities, and there is a commitment to this in our TDM The makeup of this communiry is expected to be similar to that ojour Silver Sage cohousing communrry under construction rn north Boulder. Both of these communities are expected to be adults in the .i0-70 year old range with similar transportation models. Parking reductions ojup to 70% are typically a!(owed by code in the city for communities with elderly residents. For Silver Sage, there will be 16 parking spaces Jor (16) 2-bedroom units, plus an additional2-J spaces available on the street. Transit is available, but not nearly as close as it is for bi'ashington Vilinge Ot~r experience with cohousing commzrnities across the country has borne out the fact that parking reductions work in communities where residents know and support each other. ,~~~.~~~~:~.pV~c~E~a;.~~g~_~,~,i:.~ ._ • (/ Use Review Written Statement for Washington Village Use Review Application 1215 Cedar St. WASHINGTON VILLAGE From: Laurel Fanning Wonderland Hill Development Company, Applicant ~~~~ti~~;a ~~~,~,k5~~~~~~_ 9'9 Washington Village Use Review Written 5tatement Final USE REVIEW WRITTEN STATEMENT KEY INFORMATION Please provide the following information. Please TyQe or print complete, detailed responses. Please also select use categories from the Boulder Revised Code Land Use Charts (Section 9-6- 1(d)). EXISTING PROPOSED Use of eaisting building and land: Surplused School Building Community activiUes, classes, etc. Hours of operation: Generally 8am-Spm and some evening Number of employees: All activiries have only visiting employees Estimated number of trips to site/day: 2~ by bus 20 by caz Proposed use of buildings and land: MuIG-family residenUal Single-family residential Cohousing-based community activities accessory to the residential provided Public/community-based activities to meet the MOU covenant between the City of Boulder and the Boulder Valley School District Commercial Hours of operation: Commercial generally 8am-Spm Cohousing-based community and public/community space primarily during evening hours Number of employees: Commercial enterprises are expected to have a range of full-time employees. EsNmated number of trips to site/day: 10 by bus to commercial 20 by bus to public/community use azeas 15 by caz to commercial 10 by caz to public/community use azeas 34 by caz to multi-family residential 8 by caz to single-family residential Uses on adjacent / surrounding properties: Single and multi-faznily residential, commercial Narrative In the space provided below or in an attached letter, please Type or print a narrative describing the proposal in specific detail. Only one written narrative is necessary per development project. Our response: The lazger portion of the property is currently zoned RH-2 High Density Residential (formerly HZE) and the smaller portion is currenUy zoned LR-1 Low Density Residential (formerly LR-E). 1t_,~=i13'~.';\ ii~;~~9;1 ~~F'F~~~ ~V~ Washington Village Use Review Written Statement Final RH-2 Zoae: In the 5-5-06 stafF comments re: the concept plan, it was noted by staff that the BVCP designated this use as public, because it was hisiorically a school site; however, the underlying zoning has always been residential, and therefore would still be consistent with the BVCP, especially since we are not proposing a density increase. There are three principal uses we are proposing for the RH-2 Zone: 1. Residenrial and cohousing-based commnnity uses accessory to the residential 2. Commercial Space: Technical and professional offices, and art studios. 3. Public/Community Use: Includes uses and services beaefiting the cohousing community, the neighborhood and the greater Boulder community as accessory to the residential. Residential: We aze currently proposing residential uses in this zone which aze consistent with the allowable density. 34 multi-family residential units are proposed, includ'mg two of them in a duplex building. These aze allowed uses per table 6-1. For both Commercial Space and Public/Community Use space the following characteristics are being used as guidelines for proposed use: a The Commercial Spade is for firms/organizations which do not generate a lot of car tr~c or visits by clients, but aze principally places of administration or work, or aze places which add vibrancy to the neighborhood without creating pazking issues. b. Art studios aze for artists to do their work and not primary places of sale, thereby they would create little, if any, tr~c. a Some PubliclCommunity use will occur during the day in the lower floor of the school and at times in the former library. The greater amount of use will be in the evenings. This will be outside of the regulaz business hours typical for the Commercial Space. Therefore, the pazking typically used during the day for Commercial Space, both on site and on the street, can instead be used for these activities in the evening. Commercial Space: We aze proposing 7,100 SF of commercial space in the building located on Broadway. At present, it is anticipated that this space may be subdivided into 4 spaces, thus giving each space approximately 1,775 SF; however, it is plausible that the space could easily be divided into more or less suites than four. For this review, we would like to propose that professional o~ces as well as technical offices with less than 5,000 SF of floor area and other lower traffic businesses be permitted. Examples of what we would consider meeting these types of uses would be; financial services, accountants, financial planning, administrative headquarters of a service organization (non- profit), consulting firms, think tanks and reseazch organizations, and limited personal services. In addition to professional offices we propose art studios of less than 2,000 square feet, the studios being principally places of work, and a small coffee shop falling under the category of restaurants witL less than i,00t1 SF in floor area. The cafe is seen as a gathering place for the immediate residential azea, a place for neighbors to meet, talk and feel a greater sense of ~~. ~~.7~".).~ 5~~.;a.n ~F ~~~{a~'a~.. ~~~ Washington Village Use Review Written Statement Final community and energize awareness of what is happening in the area. People coming off the bus can stop in on their way home to see their friends; a real neighborhood meeting place. The commercial space will be sold, not leased or managed by the developer or community. All of these proposed uses, because they are each likely to be equal to or less than 1,775 SF, will have limited negative impact on the neighborhood. More so, they will enhance the available services in the area and promote the desirable mixed use goals of the city. The fact that transit can bring one to the very front door of these commercial businesses promises inherent success for the right mix of tenants who can fulfill various needs of the community. Public/Community Use: We prestune that the City will support the uses that aze outlined for the requested accessory community-based space which aze delineated in the covenants between the City of Boulder and the Boulder Valley School District for the RH-2 zone (see copy attached). Examples of proposed uses include; meeting space for Boulder community organizations, creative arts workshops for seniors, art and cultural presentations, and programs introducing contemplative disciplines, such as Tai Chi, yoga and meditation. These proposed uses aze all accessory to the residential uses pmvided in the RH-2 zone. We aze not proposing any uses other than single-family residenGal for the remaining RL-1 zone on the properry. CRITERIA In the space provided below, please indicate how the proposal will meet the Use Review criteria. 1. Consistency with Zoning and Non-conformity. The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in Section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts Established", B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non-conforming use; Our Response: The majority of our site is to be used for its originally established residential zoning. We aze proposing a very limited amount of azea, 7,100 total SF, to be used for commercial purposes as described above, all of which aze identified in the tables as potentially allowable uses. 2. Rationale. The use either: Our Response: We feel that our proposed use meets the rationale for A, B and C below: (A) Provides a direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; Our Response: Our proposal to add commercial uses as well as community-based uses to the site will only increase the service capability of the site and help to create it as a vibrant neighborhood center. (B) Provides a compatible transiUOn between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; i1C:k=fi`~ ;^, il`[v~1;9 ;i Jv F'lafat~.1 v~ Washington Village Use Review Written Statement Final Our Response: The split zoning of the site and the arrangement of our proposed buildings allows for a natural gradient of more dense, multi-family and commercial uses along Broadway, to a more subdued, residential feel along 13~' St. This project is a very good example of how these transitions can and should occur. (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the BVCP, including without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and non-residential mixed uses in appropriate location, and group living arrangements for special populations; Our Response: This project will allow the IongeviTy of the school and its historic value to be extended way beyond its current utilization. It will provide opportuni6es for low-income, middle-income and mazket-rate housing, it makes available accessible housing in over 60% of the units thereby meeting the needs of seniors. It provides a commercial element to allow creativity in the provision of services for others, and it offers space dedicated to providing beneficial activities to all azea residents and the general public. OR (D) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is pernutted under subsection (e) of this section. Our Response: This criterion does not apply to this project. 3. Compatibility. The location, size, design, and operating chazacteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development aze such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of the neazby properties; Our Response: There exists a mixture of uses azound the Washington Village site, including single and multi-family housing and office/commetcial development, along with new mixed use being built just south of the site on Broadway. Because we too aze proposing mixed use and residen6al, it will be completely in character with what is now going on up and down the Broadway comdor now and in the future. Rather than having a negative impact, the mixed use is expected to bring life and vibrancy to the azea, and create services that heretofore did not exist. It will also haue a positive effect on the caze and longevity of the historic school shucture that exists as its centerpiece. 4. Infrastructure. As compazed to development permitted under Section 9-6-1, "Permitted Uses of Land", B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compazed to the exisUng level of impact of a nonconforming use, the proposed development will not significantly or adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding azea, including without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm draining utiliries and streets. Our Response: The proposed development, being completely within city guidelines for density and type of use, is not expected to unduly stress any of the utilides that aze necessary to serve it. We will actually be improving the future potenrial of Broadway by altering the tree lawn and sidewalk dimensions to help provide for future parking that may be provided there and we will be improving bus stop facilities. We have also minimized the entrances to the site to only two places, thus providing minimal impact to surrounding streets. ;,i,~-i:_~;a d~~~~~a ;, SC ~~~~ ._/ 03 Washington Village Use Review WritYen Statement Final 5. Character of Area. The use will not change the predominant chazacter of the surrounding azea. Our Response: The azea is residen6al with the school having served many families living in the area. In our meetings with the neighbors, many told us that they have been living there for over 25 yeazs. Now, with a gradated densiTy which has single fanuly residences facing neighbors on 13th street, we aze able to maintain ilus neighborhood quality. By going through the landmazking process to preserve an historic Boulder struchve, creating a view corridor and preserving existing significant trees in perpehuty, we have taken a big step towazds keeping the character that the school brought to the azea. The Washington Village proposal works with this landmazk as a major element of the entire development, ensuring that it will be enjoyed by the neighbors and the city for a long time. 6. Conversion of Dwelling Units to Non-Residential Uses. There shall be a presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts set forth in Subsection 9-6-1(d), B.R.C. 1981, to non-residential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the change of one non-confomung use to another nonconforming use. The presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in the community including, without limita6on, a use for a day caze center, pazk, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an educational use. Our Response: We have cazefully considered all of ihe uses and how they may interact in order to create a balance in designing the site. We have been sensitive to the higher intensity uses along Broadway and the lower intensity uses on the east and west sides of the property. We have tried to create a very interactive community/neighborhood center that will serve the uses of many people. These uses and their access points have been cazefully located within the site plan. It is highly unlikely that any conversion of space would be necessary, as we have designated azeas for all types of uses on the site. ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR MODIFICATION TO NON-CONFORMING USES Our Response: This criterion does not apply to this project. n G~;~E,a 97a~ r~ :~ S`..PR~ E~ .. 10 / ATTACHMENTJ Response to City Comments on Rezoning dated 4-25-07 regarding Washington Village Rezone Appiication 1215 Cedar Avenue W4SHINGTON VILLAGE From: Laurel Fanning Wonderland Hill Development Company, Applicant l-;C;~hi€''(,-`. 87Li~'i ;x ~`-!.`k~RZ°aC ./~ Washington Village Response to City Comments of 4-25-07 on Rezoning Final I. REVIEW FINDINGS, Rezoning, page 4 of comments, and II. CITY REQUIREMENTS, Rezoning, page 15 of comments This response is to two separate issues that were brought up by city staff: 1. Staff Comment: "applicant's response to justifying the rezoning would not explicity meet the criteria of Section 9-2-18(e)" and 2. Staff Comment: "the City could support the zone line movement if a change to the land use designation of the site per the BVCP were done before the rezoning" In regards to the first comment: We (the applicant) believe that our proposal to move the zoning line does indeed meet the criteria ofSection 9-2-I S(e), as the land itself and the surroundings are both changing; the school site is no longer used as a school, having been designated as surplus by the school district, and it is obvious that the area along Broadway is now undergoing continual redevelopment to mixed use all along the corridor. We reiterate our earlier response to the rezone criterion here: 5. The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area Response: The proposed Washington Village sits on the site of the Washington School building, built in 1903 and used as a school building until recently, when it qualified for "surplus" status with the Boulder Valley School District. Since it ceased being used as a school, it has since served the purpose of accommodating other community needs, but has underutilized the potential and value of the site. Our proposal is to support the longevity and purpose of this historic school site by creating a vibrant community with the school as the center; where community- based activities, residential activities and commercial activities can all coexist and enhance each other, as well as reflect the nature of the residentiai areas surrounding it. We are starting to see redevelopment occurring all along Broadway that injects more vibrancy into the existing areas along this major street. Projects such as Ihe Broadway Brownstones, just to the south of the site, are indicative of the trend [o mix work and live areas. Our proposal [o include a limited amount of low impact new commercial along Broadway, along with creative multi-family housing and new community space in the RH-2 zone, will make a positive contribution to the neighborhood vibrancy. i!,i;i'R?^ );~ 9i"~~;~;t ;k.~~PA~`: . < ~(~/ Washington Viilage Response to Ciry Comments of 4-25-07 on Rezoning Final In order to accomplish this, and to provide an organization of structures on the site which uses the existing historic structure as the centerpiece and core ofthe community's activities, we aze proposing that the ]ine sepazating the RH-2 Zone from the RL-1 zone be relocated to the east by approximately 50 fr. (144 fr. west of the eastern property boundary). This will leave the site with more than adequate RL-1 frontage along 13`~ St., enabling 6 single family residential lots that will relate directly to the uses across 13`~ and across Cedar. However, in regards to the second comment made by the city regarding the underlying land use as it re[~tes to dte BVCP, we agree that the comp plan does indeed need fo be brought up to date with the new land uses on and around the site. In researching the underlying land use, it is true that the school site as well as some of the single and multifamily just north of the site, is listed as "pub[ic" use on the land use map. This area of public use is virtually an "island" at this point, surrounded by high, medium and low-densiry residential uses. Because the schoo! site is no longer used as a public school, it no longer makes sense to designate it as a"public" land use. It now makes much more sense to redesignate it as high or medium-densiry residential on the western portion, and low-densiry residential on the eastern portion. This is consistent with our original request to move the zoning line to help create the two different areas on the site (see copy of land use map attached). In response to the specific criterin listed for a[and use designation change: (a) The proposed change is consistent with the policies and overall intent of the Comprehensive plan. Response: We anstivered this with the origrnal site review application, and will repeat it here: I. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: (A) How is the proposed site plan consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan? Our response: The General Policies ojthe Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and our response to them are as follows: • Recognition of sustainability as a unifying goal to secure Boulder's future economic, ecological and social health. This policy recognizes: (a) critical interrelationships among economic, social and environmental health The Washington Village (WV) proposal is completely aligned with these 3 goals, most likely signif:cantly more so than most proposals brought to the i~L•'aE~i' ),'19`1~E~;~;l;f `~~.-„k'AC~.r.( O~ Washington Village Response to City Comments of 4-25-07 on Rezoning Final ciry. Opportunities are created within this proposal for those of all economic abilities to become a part of this community, providing for low-income affordable, middle-income affordable and market-rate buyers. However, the biggest difference in what we bring is what can happen socially and environmentally when you integrate cohousing principles. into the proposal. Our residents will be a highly interactive communiry, they will know each other before they move into their new homes, and they will all actively take part in using their community-based space not only amongst themselves, but also with the residents of the city at large, creating a community that supports bo[h the neighborhood and city around it. Regarding environmental health, by creating a higher density communiry on an inf ll site, residents of Washington Vil[age will have easy access to transit, and are within walking distance of the local services they need (grocery, banks, medical, etc.). !n addition, cohousing residents are typically very environmentally oriented. By sharing resources with each other through communiry-based ideals, they can eliminate "duplicate capitalism ", wherein everyone needs to have a complete set of everything to themselves. (b) ways we produce trade and consume Due partially to the convenient location to local businesses providing necessary goods and services and partially to the nature of a cohousing community, we expect that this community will support and trade primarily with nearby local Boulder barsinesses. The communiry will also likely share more; while at the same time consume less. As an example, cohousing communities typically have common dinners several times a week, for which they will buy staples in bulk and create less waste due to having meal activities centrali~ed. (c) social and cultural equity and diversity to create valuable human capital The basic notion of cohousing is that social and cultural equiry is inherent in the model. More diversiry is looked c~pon as being an educational opportc~niry, enabling the residents to share their individua! experiences with each other to serve a greater whale. (d) planned physical development that has an impact on social conditions Arranging the community's homes around truly interactive indoor and oz~tdoor commarniry space will help to improve the social conditions of all who Irve there and also those who will visit the site regularly for community activities and events. (e) the quality oF environmental, economic and social health built upon the full engagement and involvement of the community. ;~~:~~~ ~:~ ~~~~~~e;,5~~~~e.~..~o$ Washington Village Response to City Comments of 4-25-07 on Rezoning Final It is going to be very foriunate that residents from all over the City of Boulder wrll have access to this community for all kinds of activities and events. This will not be a"closed" communiry; rather it will reach out to all who wish to participate. • Commitment to open space preservation and the use of open space buffers to define [he community. The WV proposal seeks to define a new community within an infi[1 area of the city, rather than to build outside the current developed area. • Use of urban growth boundaries to maintain a compact city (the boundaries of the service area have remained virtually unchanged since first developed in 1977). As previously discussed, the infill nature oJthis proposal will only help to maintain Boulder as a compact and vibrant communiry. • Encouragement of compact, contiguous development and a preference for infill land redevelopment as opposed to sprawl. Taking on the inf Il of an underutilized site, along with the reuse of a very significant historical school building, demonstrates our commitment to encouraging compact development over the much easier choice of sprawl. • Provision of quality urban spaces, pazks and recreation that serve all sectors of the community and trails and walkways that connect the community. The preservation of the historic school building together with the landmarked publrc use plaza and view corridor at the southwest corner of the site and in front of the school, will contribute to the qz~aliry of urban spaces in the ciry. The site is well connected ro parks and recreation through the existing ciry streets, walks and trails. The pathway connections that move people through the site will be friendly and im~iting not only to the residents bt~t to the community at large. • Commitment to preservation of natural, cultural and historic features that contribute to defining the unique sense of place in Boulder. WY" wil/ fully szrpport the comp plan by landmarkrng and improving the condition of the current historical Washington School, as well as preserving many significant trees on this site. • Commitment to programs that support respect for human dignity, human rights and the inclusion of al( residents in community and civic life. ;~~~~,-ti.~,-a;;~~,:~;f.~~~~, .1~9 Washington Village Response to City Comments of 4-25-07 on Rezoning Final This was outlined in the MOU between the Boulder Yalley School District and the Ciry ojBoulder. We fu![y support the ideals of the school district and the city, by providing the space in our communiry where all residents can take part. • Recognition of the importance of a central area (Downtown, University of Colorado, the Boulder Valley Regional Center) as a regional service center of the Boulder Valley and a variety of subcommunities and neighborhood activity centers distributed throughout the community. We feel that Washington Village will become one of the neighborhood activity centers in the ciry, because oJthe proposed mix ofhousing, commercial space and community space. The site is within walking distance of Downtown and is well linked by multimodal rransportation corridors to the University of Colorado and other important activiry centers within the Ciry. • Recognition of the importance of the Federal Scientific Laboratories (NOAA, NIST, NCAR), the University of Colorado, and the private scientific and technology community that contributes to the economic vitality of Boulder. We currently have members of the WV cohousing communiry that work at the Universiry of Co[orado and Naropa University. Some of these members have an interest and intention to provide elder services in the proposed communiry space on the srte and in conjunction with the Universities. Additionally, cohousing communities typically nttract proactive, progressive people who consider edz~cation to be of utmost importance, and we expect that this community will support and respect the work that aU these institutions do within the city. • Commitment to a diversity of housing types and price ranges to meet the needs of the Boulder Valley population. We are proposing a high level ojdrversity in both housing type and price while being respectful of the surrounding neighborhood tivhile achieving an appropriate level of densiry on the site. We propose both multi family housing, ranging from duplexes and townhomes, to small flats, as well as the single family housing on the site. The multi family housing will be provrded in three different price ranges,- low-rncome affordable, middle-income affordable and market rate. • Commitment ro a balanced multi-modal [ransportation system. By developrng this community on an already established major bus route, we are supporting and especting our resrdents and the guests who come to the communiry to often depart and arrive via !he SKIP on Broachvay. In addition our proposed TD.LI shows that tii~e will encoura,;e the cohousing community to rideshare, brkeshare. and perhaps cnrshnre. GVe e.rpect them also ro frequently P,GEN[7A 17E{1A # `~ vPAGE ~ ~~.V Washington Village Response to City Comments of 4-25-07 on Rezoning Final tivalk to the retail and medica! services jasst to the south of the site on Broadway, and even to downtawn Boulder. (b) The proposed change would not have significant cross-jurisdictional impacts that may affect residents, ~roperties or facilities outside the city. Response: 13ecause lhis project is proposed for an infill site well within the ciry limits of Boulder, we do not anticipale any impacts on jurlsdictions outside of the city. (c) The pro~oscd chan~e ~vould not materially affect the land use and growth projections that were the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. Response: 13ecazrse thc site is no longer valid us a"pirblic" site, the proposed change is only to make it consistent with the rest af the uses thul occur all around the site and with the RH-2/RL-1 zoning already in place on the site. (d) The proposed change does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facitities and services to the immediate area or to the overall service area of the city of Boulder. Response: Since the site is already zoned for RfI-2 (mz~lti-family) and RL-1 (single- family) residential, the facilities and services already in place are adeqa~ate to serve this site the immediate aren, and the ciry aroir~rd it. (e) The proposed change ~vould not materi~tlly affect the adopted Capital Improvements Program of the city of Boulder. Response: In olrr discatssions with ciry e~ngineering staff regarding this prvject, t{115 project tivill actuully fit in nicely with the schedule for capital irnprovements the ciry is planning to nzake in 1he ne,rt year on Broadway. As part of that ciry project, we have commilted to improving the treelawn area on Broadway by agreeing to help the city move a sanitar-y sewer line that interfe~-es with providing desired street trees along that frontage. The project has no other negative impacts on city capital improvements. ~ The proposed change would not affect the tlrea II/Area III boundaries in the Cornprehensive Plan. Response: This criterion does nor upply to this project, as it is an infill project well tivithin the area boarndaries. In sumnrar}~, we contpletely support anr! reqttest the redesignation of Nte site from public to ~rrultifamily a~rd sifrgle jcnr~ily residentia! iir tl:e BVCP, dtre to tlteJact it no IOi1aC'/'Jc~nctions as a public school site. Tl~is redesigrration will allow it to becorrre co~rsiste~rt witl~ t/re l~tnrl uses arourrd ~t and the zonin~ tliat lras alrendy been estrrblislred jor this sitc~. ~~.~~:IE`_'a ~'~' ~r`~ 1 ,~~ '~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ;-~ ~ ~~J ,. . , .. .ti-~R~'t .'i~-... tled City of Boulder ted with eMaps at '~ISI ismaps.htr ~d for this map is at Le nd ucts and atl underlying data for use by the city of Bouider rposes only, and were not tided for generel use by public The city makes no warranty as to its accuracy, mpleteness, and in particular, ibeling or displaying ours, property b0undaries, or ation of any map features 1Y OF BOULDER MAKES OF MERCHAN?ABILITY OR 4 fITNESS OF USE FOR A JRPOSE, EXPRESSED OR ESPECT TO THESE MAP THE UNDERLYING DATA. se map products, map ata. accepts same AS IS, 5, and assumes all the use thereof, and turther rees to hold the city d against all damage, loss, from any use of this map eration o~ the city's having tion avadable Independent data con!ained herein shouid y user of these map nderlying data. The city ail not be held liable for, any loss, or liability, whether consequential, which erises hese map products or the person or entity eMap is ity o1 Boulder Planning `Services In/ormation For information call visit us on the web et er co us/pwplan/ rinted on OSJ17/2007 05:18 PM ATTACHMENT K WASHINGTON VILLIAGE TREE SURVEY 1215 CEDAR AVENUE BOULDER COLORADO In an attempt to preserve the existing trees that are scheduled to remain post constructioq certain steps should be followed. Each tree that is being preserved has been evaluated and certain recommendations are prescribed. Construction damage to trees can often cause an irreversible chain of stress which leads to decline, and ultimately death of the tree. Most of these causes of damage can be mitigated if not completely avoided. Trees are often slow to react to stress factors. The effects of damage to a tree's root wne are not immediately noticed and can often take several growing seasons to fuily manifest itself in outward signs. Following is a list of recommendations that should be followed for each tree to be preserved. 1. Protect the drip Line af the tree. The drip line is the area under the entire canopy. Tree roots will grow as far as 2 '/: times the distance of the drip line and generally aze located in the top 6- 10 inches of soil. The azea under the drip line is the most crucial that it is protected. A. Avoid compacting the soil. This can be caused by driving heavy equipment under the trees, storing excess dirt or rocks or construction materials under the tree, or even excessive foot uaffic. B. Avoid using the area under the canopy for a staging area for portable saw mills and miscellaneous constniction activities. Saw dust from treated lumber can be toxic to tree roots. Dust from mixing concrete can also be toxic. C. Avoid leaning materials against the trunk such as lumber, scaffolding, concrete forms, etc. This can lead to compression of the cambium layer and/or tearing bazk off the tree. D. Don't move earth or rocks that have been excavated under the canopy of the tree. Ttris can lead to compression of the soil and also smothers the roots. Additionally, don't pile any extra dirt, rocks, bark, mulch up against the base of the tree. E. Avoid grade changes under the drip line. Due to the fact that the majority of tree's roots are in the upper 8- 10 inches, they are sensitive to grade changes. Digging down to lower grade, will sever the roots located in this zone. Adding soil will burry these roots and will lead to root die back from smothering the roots, and soil compaction. I~G~NC7f1 ITEi\N # V v F'AG~ ~~~ It is stro t recommended that a temporary fence be erected corresponding to the drip line of each tree and these areas are kept free from all activities related to construction. It has been observed that the multiple contractors on job sites such as this are rarely informed of the sensitivity of the drip lines, and telling the general contractor is not enough. It needs to be a no-brainer for anyone that walks on to the site to stay off that part of the site. It has also been observed that excavators tend to ignore these temporary barriers and need additional supervision when working around these fences. 2. Pnine and maintain the trees. All of the trees observed on this site are in need of pruning. Some are in severe need of pruning. Each tree is labeled on the drawings and recommendations for each tree is listed. A. All of the trees on this site are showing signs of nutrient deficiencies (chlorosis). Most notably is an Iron d~ciency, but also a few other micro and macro nutrients are noted. This is evident by the relatively lighter color of the leaves and slight yellowing between the veins of atl the leaves in all the trees. Some trees are more chlorotic than others. B. Proper watering of the trees will make a significant difference in tree vitality. See attached watering guide. C. Proper mulching wili also make a significant benefit. This is also noted in the watering guide. D. Proper use of soil amendments will add significant benefit to the trees. We have a specially formulated soil treatment designed for our soil conditions. See our attached "Soil Treatment" literature. 3. Duri~ construction inspections. Periodic visits and guidance should be performed by a qualified arborist. This will help to ensure uee vitality will be maintained during construction. 4. Post construction maintenance. Once construction is complete, any unavoidable damage should be dealt with accordingly. Either pruning, ferti(izing, or removals should be performed prompt(y to mitigate further decline. If it is unavoidabie that certain trees root zones must be akered, take necessary steps to keep it at a minimum. If the grade must be altered on one side of the tree, avoid disturbing the other side. If roots must be excavated, keep it as far away from the main stem as possible. Never excavate roots immediately adjacent to the main stem of the tree. This will lead to a hazard tree. ,~c~~vr~r~ sr~~,~ ~ S('!~A~~ ~~~ For the trees that root damage beneath the canopy is inevitable, use a"Cambistat" treatment. This is a growth regulator that helps allocate tree resources into new root growth. Use of Gambtist~t can greatly help a tree that has suffered root damage. Use the Cambistat in addition to a soil treatment and proper watering and mulching. The trees on the drawings have had their health evaluated_ The range for evaluation is Excellent, Good, Moderate, Poor, Dying, Dead. Most trees are in Good health. The trees in good health are labeled in Yellow_ The ones in poor health are labeled i<_~`~`:`""k~":'The trees in need of removal are labeled i Following these guidelines and taking these steps prior to construction will greatly enhance all the trees chance of not only survival during the construction process, but also thriving. We at Out On A Limb Tree Service are available for consultation and welcome the opportunity to help preserve the historic trees on this site. For further questions feel free to contact me at the office or on my cellular. Sincerel3;~ . .. --~ l , ~ ~ C ~~ ~~ ; ~~ ;- ,~~ ~ Jesse Hodge Owner Out On A Limb Tree Service 303-543-7410 ot~ice 303-349-7479 cellular ~~tl~L.~~.E~e.i .YO"`'. 1~~laEi~ 15. ~ ~.,'fJ~t_`. ~~~. ~ ~/~ rr,,~ , :tr. ~~. -~ ~~~~='' Taddiken 'Tree Company & Out On A LimU ~'''~.''~~ .i7i ~ Arapahce r\ti-c . Iioulder . Cc~ . 8~3~~3 . ,- . . ~ y~-~ . .Tcl 303•~54•7~35 TE'~ 3o3~:i43~74io }~a~ gc~3~5:i4•5939 ;~ infol« taddikentrce.com d r SOIL TRFATMENT . Why do our trees need Soil Treatments'? t1 trees natural habitat is onc where the soii is constantly replenished from the dccay of dropped Ieaves and grass as well as other organic maurr. This decaying plant matter creates a natural layer of mulch, insulates the soil from temperature extremes, and hcfps to enrich the nutrient layer of the soil. The top 6 to 8 inches of the soil is the most nutrient rich portion and, consequently, where 80% to 90% of the trecs roots will bc located. T~rees in an urban setting often have thc leavcs raked up and discarded with lhe trash. Grass clippings are also often raked up and discarded. As a tree grows, it also uses nutrients t~om the soil to fuel its ~rowth. Uver time, this leaves the soil in a state of nutrient deficiency. Additionally, Colorado soils tend to be Alkaline on thc PH scale. Alkaline soils hinder trees ability to uptake important minerals. Zinc, Manbanese, and [ron are among these. The most notable of these is [ron. One tell tale si~n of an Iron deficicncy is yellowing of the leavcs between ihe veins. When a tree is growing in soi! with a nutrient deficiency, it lives in a state of constant stress. A stressed tree is more susceptiblc to infestation from insects, as well as possible infection from disease and pathogens. Our soil treatment is a water-based solution of minerals, nutricnts, and soil amendments designed to increase plant vigor and vitality by increasing fine root uptake of ti~ater, gases, micro and macru-nutrients. How often do you need to a~plv thc Soil 'I'reatment? nt Icast once rer year, sometimes twice per year is necessary for a stressed tree or harsh growing conditions. What is in our Soil i'rcatmcnt solution'? SEA KELP, HYDRO HUME: Stimulates rout growth and overall tree health. Provides macro and micronutrients necessary for the lifc functions of the tree. 'I~his ads organic matter and invi~orates necessary organisms for healthy root growth. MICROYLEX, FERRUS PLUS: Minerals (Iron) K nutri~nts speeitic to the needs of the leavc, as ~vell as overall trce health. SOAKEK: This is a wetting agent for soil penctration and root growth. SUPER THRIVE: Vitamins and hormones needed mainly for root growth. SLOW RELEASE NITROC:EN: Very small amount used sparingly. A macronutrient needed for all functions of the tree. SUGAR: Ads carbohydrates utilired for storage within the tree. (On occasion, in our judgment, if circumstances warrant, we may amend the soil treatment ingredients based on specific site nceds) How will the Soil ~I~rcatment bc applied'? The treatment insredients are mixed into a water solution. This solution is injected into the top 4 to 6 inches of the soil under the entire drip line of the tree. Some portions of the drip linc may not be accessible. What are the benetits to vour tree? 1. An invigora[ed imrnune system; which will enhance the trees ability to fight off infestation, disease, and pathogens. 2. More efficient uptakc of minerals already in the soil. 3. A drink. The tree will end up getting a thorough watering as a result of our soil treatment. 4. A robust root system to feed the tree canopy. 5. A notably thicker canopy with darker leaves. A vi~c~rous root system will leacl to a thriving and more beautitiil canopy. ~.r,_ ~<<,-, ~ ~~~~~~ . ~~~~4~~ ~~~- .ll~ CARE OF TREES BENEATH OUR FEET Tree roots usually will extend beyond the canopy by 1'h times the spread of the drip line. Or, until they encounter a barrier suc6 as a house or a street. The majority of tree roots are usually going to be fou~d within tbe top 8 to 12 inches of soil. The majority of the fine absorptive roots can be found just beneath the soil surface. When watering, try to water out to the drip line as a minimum. Watering beyond the drip line is preferred for an established tree. For both young and mature trees, less frequent but more thorough is the preferred method of watering. It is important that you completely soak the soil down to about 6 or 8 inches with each watering. It is also very important that the soil is allowed to dry out in between watering. Each site has differing soil compositions and drainage. This will affect how frequendy you'll need to water. A good rule of thumb to start from is to water once every 2 weeks. Once a month in winter is generally accepted. This frequency can be amended to accommodate your soil drainage rate. Sites with poor drainage, or high clay content, can be watered less frequently. Sites with excellent drainage, or high sand content, can be watered more frequently. Often, property owners set their sprinklers to water 2 or 3 times a week for very short durations. This usually results in only the top inch of soil getting, and staying wet. Tree roots that stay perpetually wet can start to rot. Too frequent watering can result in surface roots, raised salinity of the soil, and root and crown rot. Turf roots and tree roo[s generally don't get along. Turf roots are usually more aggressive. This is one reason why you don't see grass growing on the forest floor, and you dodt see trees growing in the great planes Yes, of course, there are exceptions. Watering for wrf is generally not beneficial for trees. Watering for trees is generally not beneficial for turf. One way to mitigate the conflict between turf and tree roots is to apply mulch under the drip line of the tree. This is also an important factor in tree care. Ideally, apply mulch out to the drip line. Many people don't want an entire yard of mulch, so it's understandable that this is not always an option. However, a small ring of mulch at the base of the tree no more than 3 or 4 feet in diameter does little to bene5t the tree. Consult with an ARBORIST, not a landscaper, to determine what is best for your trees. Apply the mulch at a depth of 3 to 4 inches out to the pre-determined boundary. Not too deep! Too much mulch can smother the roots. Do not pile mulch against the base of the tree! Leave about 4 to 6 inches of bare soil around the base of the tree. It is very important that the base, or crown, is allowed to dry ou[! Mulch piled up against the base of the tree can lead to crown rot, and will kill a tree. Ou~ On A I,imb Tree Sercric~e, Inc. 303-543-7410 outonalimbinc.com ou[onalimbinc@comcasLnet er~~nu-~n~rc~iau V`~nnnc /I~ RECOMMENDED TREES FOR THE COLORADO FRONT RANGE CONIFERS 5mall trees 1. Chinese Juniper(Juniperus chinensis) 2. Rocky Mountain 7uniper (Juniperus scopulorum) 3. Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) 4. Mugo Pine (Pinus 5. Bristlecone Pine (Pinus Lar eg trees 6. Alpine Fir (Abies lasiocarpa) 7. Norway Spruce (Picea abies) 8. Colorado Spruce (Picea pungens) 9. Beach Pine (Pinus contorta) 10. Austrian Pine (Pinus nigra) 11. Western Yellow Pine (Pinus ponderosa) 12. White Pine (Pinus strobus) 13. Scotch Pine (Pinus sylvestris) 14. Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 15. White Fir (Abies concolor) BROADLEAVES Small trees 1. Amur Maple (Acer ginnala) 2. Redbud (Cercis canadensis) 3. Cherry Plum (Prunus cerasifera) 4. Peach (Prunus persica) 5. Callery Pear (Pyrus calleryana) 6. Golden Rain Tree (Koelreuteria paniculata) Lar e~ trees 7. Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) 8. Red Maple (Acer rebrum) 9. Westem Catalpa (Catalpa speciosa) 10. White Oak (Quercus alba) 11. Bun Oak (Querws macrocarpa) 12. Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra) 13. Red Horse Chestnut (Aesculus x carnea) 14. Common Horse Chestnut (Aesculus hippocas[anum) 15. Sweet Buckeye (Aesculus octandra) 16. Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) 17. Kenmcky Coffee Tree (Gymnocladus dioica) 18. American Linden (Tilia Americana) 19. Littleleaf Li~den (Tilia cordata) Out On A Limb Tree Seroice, [nc. 303-543-7410 outonalimbinc.com ou[onalimbinc@comcast.net /dGEND/-~' 17Ek1rY #i.~CPACaF.- //~ ATTACHMENT L LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303)333-I705 FAX (303) 333-1107 E-mail: Isc@ lscden ver.com Web Site: http://www.Iscdenver.com May 21, 20Q7 Mr. Charlie Hager JVA, Inc. 1319 Spruce Street Boulder, CO 80302 Re: Washington Street Village Boulder, Colorado (LSC #061710) Dear Charlie At your request, we have prepared this pazking analysis for the Washington Street Village development in Boulder, Colorado. The proposed site plan includes 66 on-site paridng spaces. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the pazking demands of the mixed-use development and to determine whether the parldng supply is adequate. The remainder of this letter summarizes our findings. Shared Parkinq in a Mixed-Use Develooment There are many transpor[ation benefits of a mixed-use development, including reduction of vehicle-trips due to multi-purpose trips and encouragement of walking due to putting various uses in close pro~cimity to each other. Another benefit is a reduction in parldng due to peak parking demand for different land uses occurring at different times of day. For exaruple, residential uses have peak parking demand during evening and early morning hours while office uses have peak demands during mid-day. The report Parking Generatiort, 3"' Edifion, 2004, published by the Institute ofTransportation Engineers, contains information on peak parking demand for various land uses as well as percentages of each demand during various times of day for selected uses. Based on this information, Table 1 was compiled to calculate the estimated parking demand for the Washington Street Village development. This table displays the peak demand for each use based on the parking demand rates contained in Parking Generation, along with the percentage of peak demand for night, mid-day, and evening 6me periods. Copies of the applicable parldng generation data sheets aze enclosed with this letter. For example, the planned 34 multi-family residential dwelling units, with a peak demand of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, will have a demand of 51 spaces at night, 35 during the mid-day, and 39 in the evening. The office uses on the other hand will have a demand of one space at night, 17 during the mid-day, and 3 in the evening. AG~rt~[~~ t~~tlv~ r~ ~!r ~r~ ._~/9 Mr. Charlie Hager May 21, 2007 Note that assumptions were made about the 5,700 square feet of "public use" space to be provided in the school/annex building. The most closely related use found in Parking Generation was Library. Since this "public use" space is expected to be used mostly in the evenings, 100 percent of peak demand was assumed in the evening and 25 percent during the daytime period, with minimal use during the late night period. Totaling up the parking demand for each use for each time period yields a maximum shared demand of 64 parking spaces during the mid-day period. This is a reduction of 27 spaces compared with the total peak demand of all land uses. The Pazking Plan for the site shows that 66 pazking spaces will be provided on-site. An additional analysis was prepared to account for the transit-oriented community in which the site lies. Parking Gene~ation contains urban categories for selected land uses. In this case, the Low/ Mid-Rise Apartments (H221), Office (#710), and High-'l~rnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant land uses had urban categories. Using the urban parking generation rates, Table 2 was prepared showing a peak demand of 48 vehicles. Summary and Conclusions Based on the foregoing analysis, the following conclusion can be made regarding the parking requirements of the Washington Street Village development: The development will contain a mix of residential, office, "public use" and retail uses which will have varying pazking demands during different times of the day. The maximum pazking demand for the development will occur during the mid-day when a total of 64 parked vehicles can be expected. If an urban azea is assumed, the total demand would be 48 parked vehicles. 2. The Parking Plan for Washington Street Village includes 66 parking spaces provided on-site, enough to satisfy the project peak demand for the proposed land uses. ~GENE~AITCIVl;re~ PAC~~.,~~ Mr. Charlie Hager Please call us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. By AJAJwc Enclosures: Tables 1 and 2 Parking Generation datasheets \\SrnR 0\filc smcc\LSC\Progcts\4006\Obl'!l0\Puking\F-ParkingMalysiswpd May 21, 2007 ,a~~~~~~ ~~~,,,a ~f S~~A~~ _/_al Alex J. Ariniello, P.E., PTOE Table 1 Shared Parking Analysis Washington Street Village May, 2007 (LSC #061710) Suburhan Assumptions Percent of Percenl o( Percent o( Peak(1) Mm~mum Minimum Minimum ITE Lantl Use Demantl Weekday Peak Required (1) RequireG (1) Reqwred (7) Parkinp Oemand Cateqory Lantl Use Descnpbon Fvea Units Rate DemaM 10 PM - 7 AM 8 AM - 5 PM 6 PM • 9 PM 10 PM - 7 AM 8 AM - 5 PM 6 PM - 9 PM 230 Residenual-MF 34 DU 146 50 100% 64°/ 77°/ 50 32 38 770 ORite 6 1 KSf(2) 6.1 KSF 2 84 17 56% 100°/ 78% 10 17 3 932 RetaO 7,0 KSF 7 0 KSF 70 70 10 46°/ 100% 81 k 5 10 8 590 MeetingSpace 5.7 KSF 57 KSF 261 15 Ok 25°~ 100°/, 0 4 15 12.8 Total 92 Total 64 63 64 Maximum Shared Demand 64 ReducUOn~Peak -Shared Deman 26 Notes (1) Source: Park~ngGeneratron, 3rd ECition, 2004, InsGlule of Transport alwn Engineers. (2) KSF = 1,000 sQUare feel Y ~ ~ ~ i:? )> °$ fs7 ~i( ~ !~1 ry~ a~ °~ D ~;D i u`F P\ 14` 'J Table 2 Shared Parking Analysis Washington Street Village ~ May, 2007 (LSC #061710) Urban Assumptions Percenl of Percenl of Percent of Peak(1) Minimum Minimum Minimum ITE Land Use DemanO Weekday Peak Required (t) Required (i) Required (t) Parkino Demand Cate arv LaM Use Oesaiplion Area UnKS Rate Demand 70 PM - 7 AM 8 AM - 5 PM 6 PM - 9 PM 10 PM • 7 AM 8 AM - 5 PM 6 PM • 9 PM 221 Resitlential-MF 34 DU 1 00 3a 100% 64°h 77°/, 3a 22 26 770 OKce 6.1 KSF(2) 6.1 KSF 240 15 56°k 700°h 18°/a 8 15 3 932 ReteA 1 0 KSF 1.0 KSF 5.55 6 46°~ 100°h 81°,6 3 6 4 590 Meeting Space 5.7 KSF 5.7 KSF 2 61 15 0°b 25°h 700°k 0 4 15 12.8 Total 69 Tolal 45 46 48 Maximum Shared Dema~d 48 Reduction: Peak - Shared Deman 21 Notes (7) Saurce~ Paikmg ~ene2tion, 3rd ECltion, 2004, Institu te o(TranspoAa6on Engineers (2) KSF = 1,000 square feet Land Use Group: 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Location: Suburban Peak Period 5:00-6:00 a.m. ~ Number of Siud Sites 5 Avera e Size of Stud Sites 120 dwellin units Avera e Peak Period Parkin Demand 1.46 ehicles er dwellin unit Standard Deviation 0.33 Coefficient ot Variation 23% Ran e 1.04-1.96 vehlcles er dwellin unit 85th Percentile 1.68 vehicles er dwellin unit 33rd Percentile 1.38 vehicies er dwellin unit Weekday Suburban Peak Period Parking Demand y 400 ~ 350 ---- ----------~ 1- .c 300 - ----- - ~-.,~- ~ j 250 ------ ;--~-! - -- - ~ 200 -- ------ ~ ----~-- - '~ 150 -------- -~ ------------ a 100 --- ~~------ p= 96.8Ln(x) - 272 a 50~ --- --------------- RZ = 0. 90 -- 0 100 200 300 x = Dwelling Units • ActualDataPoints -FittedCurve ----AverageRate Inatituta of hamportation Enpineers PerkiR9 Ge~rera6on. 9d EQidan :1t;;~i'vr );.', h`f~klat,~ ~vP~Ca~ ~~ Land Use: 221 Low/Mid-Rise Apartment For the urban study sites, the parking demand data consisted of single or discontinuous hourly counts and therefore a time-of-day distribution was not produced. The iollowing table presents a time-of-day distribution of parking demand at the suburban study sites. Parking studies o(apartments should attempt to obtain in/ormation on occupancy rate and on the mix of apartment slzes (in other wo~ds, number of 6edrooms per apattment and num6er of units In fhe complex). Future parking sfudies should also indicate the rtumber of levels contained !n the apartment bullding. Additional Data Apartment occupancy can affect parking demand ratio. In the United States, successfu~ apartment complexes commonly have a vacancy rate between 5 and 8 percent.2 While auto ownership has increased over time, based on the limited data sample, the parking demand ratios for the provided data set did not vary significantly with age. There Is a wide range of data from the 1960s to 2000s (primarily from the 1980s to 2000s) in the database. In fact, a series of surveys conducted in 1961 and 1963 found a peak parking dema~d ratio very similar to the data collected in Pa~king Generation. The study conducted in Hayward, CA3 surveyed 53 apartment complexes with a total of 1,759 dwelling units between ihe hours of 3:00 and 5:00 a.m. on seven consecutive days in both years. The study found an average of 1.26 parked vehicfes per dwelling unit. and Homeowner Vacancy Rates tor ihe United Sfates: ~960 to 2001, U.S. Census Bureau. elin, Robert. Planning for Parking: Residential Requiremenls, Proceedings of the 16fh Califomia Street and Conference. UC Berkeley: Institute oi Transportation Studies, January 30, 1964. 1}enspurtation Engirteers PaA~ing GeneBGm.3rd ENtbn ;'`,laF=1~Si;:y 87~E~114s ~~F'/aCa~~l !~-/ Land Use: 701 Office Building Average Peak Period Parking Qemand vs: 1,000 sq, ft. GFA On a: Weekday Location: Saburban Peak Period 9:00 a.m.-12:00 .m.~ 2:00-4:00 .m. Number of Stud Sites 173 Avera e Size of SSUd Sites 136,090 s. ft. GFA Avere e Peak Perfod Parkin Demand 2.84 ehictes er 1,000 s, ft. GFA Standard Deviation 0.72 Coe~clent of Variation 25~0 95% Confldence Intervai 2.73-2.95 vehicles er 1 000 s. ft. GFA Ran e 0.86-5.58 vehicles r 1,~0~ s. ft. GFA 85th Percentile 3.44 vehicies er 1 000 s. ft. GFA 33rd Percentile 2.57 vehictes er 1 p0~ s. ft. GFA Weekclay Suburban Peak Period Parking Demand 2a~~ y ~ u 1500 :c m ~ 1000 ~ a 50Q n °' 0 0 200 400 6Q0 8Q0 x= 1,000 sq. ft. GFA • ActuatOataPOints ---FittedCurve ----AverageRate Inatltute o1 haraportatlon Engineers . ~' ~~ i . . ~ , =•y r ~ •+ • ,. P=2.51x+27 ; R2 = 0 91 ~ . PaAvnp Gene~2uw4 8rd EdiCon fa~.~~st~a ~rtit~~r a~ ~ ~~e,a~- ._1~~ Building As noted, peak parking demand rates were different between sites located in suburban settings and those located in urban settings for the independent variable 1,000 sq. ft. GFA. The individual site surveys did not enable a quantitatlve explanation of the factors that caused the difference. One potentiai explanation may relate to differences in the availability of aiternatlve modes (for example, transit, bike and pedestrian) available at the urban sites. Of the studles with data on transit availabilify and presence o/ a TDM program, the suburban sites reported about 55 percent with available transit services and 20 percent with TDM programs. The urban sites reported 100 percent with available transit and 83 percent with TDM programs oi some form. Weskend parking demand data were available at two study sites. At one site, the Saturday peak demand was less fhan 10 percent of peak weekday damand at the same sita. At the other site, the Saturday and Sunday demand approached 90 percent of the weekday peak demand for the same site. It was not possibls to derive reliable weekend parking demand rates due to lack of information on tfie nature of work conducted dur+ng the weekend at the two sites. The size o~ one site (1.9 millfon sq. k. GFA) resulted in a data plot with a scale that did not allow lhe 12 data points for sites less than 500,000 sq. ft. GFA to be reasonably distinguished for user analysis. Therefore, the large site was not included in the data plot for urban sites. The peak parking demand rate for the 1.9 million sq. ft. GFA site was 2.58 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA, which was approximately the same as the average for the other 12 study sites. The following table presents the time-of-day distributions of parking demand variation for suburban and urban sltes. The onty sites included ln the tabie data were those ihat submitted at Ieast four consecutive hours of parking demand observations (note; the majority of the parking demand data in the overall database consisted of one or two houriy observations). Land Use: 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs: 1,000 sq. ft. GFA On a: Weekday Land Use Code Subset: Famity Restaurant (No Bar or Lounge) Location:Suburban Peak Period 11:00 a.m.-2:00 .m. Number of Stud Sites 21 Avera e Size of Stud Sites 4,500 s. R. GFA Avera e Peak Period Parkin Demand 10.1 ehlcles er 1,000 s. ft. GFA Standard Deviatian 5.7 CoeKcient of Variation 56% 95% Confidence Interval 7.7-12.5 vehicles er 1 000 s. ft. GFA Ran e 0.9-21.8 vehicles er 1 000 s. ft. GFA 85th Percentite 16.1 vehicles er 1,000 s. ft. GFA 33rd Percentite 7.3 vehicles er 1,000 s. ft. GFA Weekday Suburban Peak Period Parking Demand {Family Restaurant) ~ 100 ~ 80 > 60 ~ Y 4O ~ a 20 a 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 x= 1,000 sq. ft. GFA • Aclual Data Points I~utitute o( Ttansportatlon Engineera u . .' i . . . .. -___,_ • Parkbg Genere6on, 3rd Edfion ,,~~~~r ;:~, ~ ~~.~,f, ~f ~~~~~~~.1a7 Land Use: 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant The following tables present the time-o£-day distribution of the variation in parking demand during the course of the day was available for weekdays. The data represents a combinafion of urban and rural study sites. Institute o( Transportatfon Engfneera Parxirp Gvreiatla6 3rt! Ed6on [~n I+f/ ;. ; ~ Land Use: 590 Library Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs: 1,000 sq. ft. GFA On a: Weekday Location; Suburbart Peak Psriod 3:00-4:00 .m. Number of Stud Sites 7 Avera e Sfze o( Stud Sites 34 000 s. ft. GFA Avera e Peak Period Parkin Demand 2.61 ehicles er 1,000 s. ft. GFA Standard Daviatlon 1.32 Coefficiant of Variation 51°fo Ran e 1.11-4.67 vehfcfes er 1 000 s, ft. GFA 85th Percentite 4.19 vehlcles er 1 000 s. ft. GFA 33rd Percentite 1.99 vehides er 1 000 sq. ft. GFA__ WeekdaySuburban Peak Period Parking Demand y 350 ~ 300 ~ 250 ~ 200 , ~ 150 a 1Q0 u 50 a ~ 0 50 100 150 x= 1,000 sq, ft. GFA •_Actual Data Points - Fitted Curve ---- Average Rate Metituta of Transportation Engirreers ~ ~ i . ~i . ~ ~ P = 1.48x + 27 ' R2 = 0.63 r • PeAorpGerteratfar,3rd Edilkn .~~~~~~~~ a~ y~..:,~, ~s.s~~~~~ ~a-y Land Use: 590 Library Land Use Description A library can be either a public or private facility that consists of shelved books, reading rooms or areas and sometimes meeting rooms. Database Description The database consisted of all saburban sites with the exception of one urban site. Parking demand at the urban site differed from the suburban sites and therefore the data were analyzed separately. • Average parking supply raiio: 3.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA (seven study sites). • Average numher of employees: 32 (two study sites). For lwo suburba~ sites, parking demand was observed on a weekday, Saturday and Sunday. For those particular sites, peak pa~king demand retes were 3_1, 22, 2.7 vehicles per 1,Q00 sq. ft. GFA, respectively. The urban site that was submitted had significantly different parking characteristics. The site was 400,000 sq. ft. GFA and had approximately 400 employees. The peak parking suppiy ratios were 0.43 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA and 0.44 spaces per employee. It was surveyed between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. on a weekday and had parking demand ratios of 0.42 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA and 0.43 vehicles per employee. The following table presents the time-of-day distribution of weekday parking demand. ~Mtltute of Transportation Engineers PoMug G~eraf+a4 9rc1 EdNon I~/~ j+~~Y°\3.~^ i'~.~~~~~F~HL]!~-..*~-~V~ ,L16.1 dc~N ~ ~~ 5 ATTACHMENT M CITY OF BOULDER LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD Washington School Redevelopment June 6, 2007 Landmark Designation The Landmarks Board reviewed and forwarded to the City Council the applicant's request to designate the historic 1903 Washington School building and 1922 addition (and a defined portion of land around the school) as a local historic landmark. As per the code, the application to landmark the property will be reviewed by the City Council within 100 days of this decision. Landmark Alteration Certi£cate Review The proposed rehabilitation of the historic school and portions of the proposed addition lying within the proposed landmark boundary was reviewed by the Landmarks Board. The Board issued conditional approval of the proposal provided designs for the south (front) of the building be revised to preserve the size of all existing window openings and remove proposed second story terraces on that face, that mature trees in the landmarked area be preserved, that details regarding masonry work and details regarding final finish and colour be reviewed and approved by the landmarks design review committee prior to the issuance of a landmark alteration certificate. Advisory Site Review Comments In general, the Landmarks Board expressed support for the redevelopment of the Washington School property acknowledging the many challenges and constraints of the site. The Landmarks Board made the following comments at their June 6`h, 2007 meeting. Landmarks Board chair Tim Plass expressed concem that the design of the proposed Broadway building does not relate to the historic architecture of the Washington School. He expressed his belief that the design might be made more contextual to the historic building in a contemporary manner. While acknowledging the many challenges and constraints of the project, Plass noted that the proposed Broadway building appeared quite massive in comparison with the sunounding buildings and that there was little permeability into the property from the west. Board member Leonard May commented that he did not find the proposed Broadway building massive, but that the proposed buildings do not look cohesive (`jumbled') and should better reflect the simplicity of the Washington School in a contemporary manner. Board member Kirk Watson stated that on the street level of the Broadway building the windows should be smaller and that retail storefront of the west elevation seems out of context of neighborhood. Watson stated that some reduction in the size of the fenestration on the first floor of the Broadway building was appropriate for this transitional location along the Broadway arterial. Stacking fenestration such as done on the historic School .J _ 1~4.I~.1 V i iTV E~`(.`.6~F) Sj ~~~IrHla~ l-V / building and repeating the same size windows, in some cases including a reduction in the size of the third floor windows would be appropriate. Board member Lisa Podmajersky stated that in her opinion the view comdor from Broadway is too minimal to ailow most of the public to ever experience the preservation of the school building itself. Podmajersky considers that the historic school is swallowed up by the scale and proximity of immediate sunounding buildings in the proposed development and that the preferred plan would have included a larger landmark site for the school building. Podmajersky also commented that the design of the new buildings should more thoughtfully reference the architectural simplicity of the existing school, thus showcasing it on the site. Vice chair Nancy Kornblum stated that the historic school appears to get lost in the overall development and commented that the new construction could better relate to the school and immediate neighborhood context. ,~~:~,~_-;,n~~~r~.~~s;f 5~~~~,a._l3~ ATTACHMENT N June 13, 2007 Dear Karl, In response to inquiries from the city we would like to further clarify the uses of the proposed commercial space at the Washington School site. As you know, the proposed commercial/office space is located in the first floor of the Broadway building and totals approximately 7,100 square feet. Our original submission last summer to the City Council showed commercial/office space totaling approximately 6,600 square feet but since then with more accurate property and site elevation surveys, this latest version (which is 7% greater than the original) has not been increased but more accurately reflects the actual squaze footage and connecting points between the buildings. First, as part of the Use Review Application I would like to make it clear that we are not requesting a reduction of parking for these office and commercial uses. We are meeting the city's requirement of one car per 300 square feet of office space We believe that our requested parking reduction for the residential portion of the site is reasonable for area's similar to this site. Additionally, we are sensitive to the neighbors concerns about additional potential car traffic and parking in the area by focusing our marketing,plan for the commercial/office space on attracting those office uses which minimize the amount of customer traffic in general and car traffic in particular. The following are examples of targeted businesses: • Financial Planner/Asset Manager • CPAs (Not primary tax preparers) • Ad agencies • Computer/Web Design • Architects • Non-Profit administrative offices • Think Tanks • Art studios • Property management firm • Engineers • Research organization/company - (market, economic development, demographics, etc.) • Venture Capital • Executiv~ Placement • Consulting firm • Financial Services including insurance (in some cases limited to back office operations/processing ) :,.~.~,a ;~ ~~t-;U,~ ~f s~~A~~.133 All of these firms have their primary customer interface by phone, e-mail or means other than office visits. When there are on-site visits they are a relatively small number during any given day. In addition to looking at targeted firms by use with low car traffic generators, we have scaled our marketing to those firms with 25 or less employees. The largest firm could take the entire commercial space and still fit within the per parking space/office square footage ratio established by the City. We have created an initial target list of 330 cxisting businesses in these categories/parameters within a 14 mile radius of Boulder. To summarize our criteria for businesses/organizationslindividuals to occupy the commercial/office space in the Broadway building: 1. Small companies (defined as 25 or less) 2. Categories of business such as those listed above whose customer contact are primarily through phone, e-mail or mail. 3. Businesses which have a small number of customer visits to the office and therefore generate sma11 amounts of car traffic 4. Individuals who can use the space for private interests. A good example ot~ this is we have been speaking to several individuals who are artists about buying a combined space which creates individual working art studios (not for display) while sharing storage area. There were two other points which were raised by some Planning Board members during our presentation last year as part of the RFP review process that I would also like to address. 1. Encouragement to have small businesses in the commercial space which drew their customer base from the community residents and immediate neighborhood. While being a worthy goal, it is not very feasible. This space like other commercial space near downtown Boulder is not inexpensive. To expect any businesses to rcasonabty thrive with such a small customer base is not realistic. 2. The potential for work/live. We are pursuing this option and we have been targeting selective potential buyers on this basis. However to solely market the commercial space in this manner is to narrow down our potentia] market dramatically. Both of the above points if followed to the letter, wouid jeopardize the financial feasibility of the project by reducing the potential buyer market to an extremely small pool and by pursuiag businesses which could not afford quality space along the Broadway comdor. The commercial/office space is an integral and important component of the overall financial modei for the site which enables the total site development to be economically viable. Finally, one other area which City staff and/or the Planning Board may have a question on is our inclusion of a possible coffee shop at the southwest corner of he Broadway building, which we requested by use review. The intention here is to have i ~L;:i-sl' l.'~ ~y ~~?r7 Sc ~l./I~E-1Z~r° ./~ a small shop of approximately 500-600 square feet with a seating capacity of 15-18 which could have a thriving business as a neighborhood meeting place. It is not designed to be of large size or to attract drive in customers. Given the proposed landscaped plaza at the comer of Broadway and Cedar wc saw this as an attractive place for neighbors to gather both indoors and out. If you have any questions concerning anything outlined in this memo, please let me know. Thank you for all your time and energy on this project. Jonathan Barbieri Wonderland Hill Development W- 303-449-3232 X216 C- 303-775-9426 :at~ii ~i`,;a c'9°~?;l;l: `"'l~Af-i-.~~" ATTACHMENT O ~ DRAFT Washington Village Proposed Design Guidelines And Design Review and Approval Process for the Single Family Homes along 13~h Street The intent of the Design Review and Approval Process is to promote and ensure a high level of design quality and compatibility ~vith the existing neighborhood for the six single family homes on the lots along 13`h street. The single family neighborhood to the east and west of the Washington Village site is somewhat in transition. It currently consists of some traditional older (over SOyears old) one and two story homes, some 1960s era production brick ranch type homes, some new rivo story larger homes, and some remodeled older homes with significantly sized additions. New homes to be built on the Washington Village lots will be most like the latter two types in size and scale. Although the design quality varies throughout the existing neighborhood, the intent is to utilize the higher quality design elements to help establish guidelines for the Washington Village lots. The design guidelines include the followin~ elements that that would relate to the best characteristics of homes in the neighborhood regarding: • Building Size and Bulk • Yard Setbacks • Mass and Scale • One Story Element • Architectural Character • Front Entry • Roof Form • Building Height • Windows • Building Materials • Accessory Struc[ures • Landscaping Enforcement of Design Guidelines: Desian quality will be maintained through a review and approval process administered by a Desi2n Review Committee. This committee will be established and operate through the Liaster Home Owners Association (HOA) for the Washington Village development. For ;,~~~;~~~:a ~~'tr,v~ ;~ ~6~ At~~ ._/?v~v FINAL DRAFT Design Guidelines for Single Family Lots at Washington Village the initial homes and accessory structures to be built on the lots, the committee will include; an architect appointed by Wonderland Hill Development Company (WHDC), a representative for WHDC, a representative for the Washington Village residents, a neighborhood representative, and an independent architect agreed upon by the all of the above. This committee is empowered through the Washington Village HOA and its covenants to approve all initial home designs to be built on the six lots. General Guidelines for Design These guidelines for design review committee decisions will apply to the six new lots of single family development along 13th Street: 1. Building Size and Bulk: Although design quality is more important than building size, consideration shall be given to limiting the FARs (Floor Area Ratios, the building area as compared to the lot area) for the lots to less than the 80% typically allowed by the city. Guideline: a. In general, the FAR for each lot will be limited to 65°/a of the lot area. . Design elements that will be promoted include; detached garages that incorporate caniage/studio space above, generous porches and sunspaces. In addition the homes should be built to much higher than cunent energy code and environmental standards, and include accommodation for solar elements. 2. Yard Setbacks It is generally prefened that a ne~v building fit within the range of established setbacks that occur. However, for this site, upon which covenants are placed for the protection of some of the existing trees and for the sake of allowing good solar access to all lot owners, the following setbacks are established for the single Yamily lots: FRONTYARD SETBACK FOR 1& 2 STORY BUILDING MASSES (for Lo[s 2& 3) 2~.0' F[iONTYARD SETBACK FOR i& 2 STORY BUILDING MASSES (for Lots 4, 5, 6& 7) 35.0' INTERIOR SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL & ACCESSORY BU[LDIiJGS (for Lot 2) MINIMUM SOUTH SIDEYARD SETBACK IS 0' less north sideyard setback ~1INIMUM NORTH SIDEYARD SETBACK 5.0' CUMULATIVE SIDEYARD SETBACKS 15.0' INTERIOR SETBACK POR PRINCIPAL & ACCESSORY BUILD[NGS (for Lots 3, 4, 5& 6) MINIMUM SOUTH SIDEYARD SETBACK li.0' less nonh sideyard setback MINIMUM NORTH SIDEYARD SETBACK 5.0' CUMULATNE SIDEYARD SETBACKS I5.0' INTERIOR SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL S ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (for Lot 7) Y11NIh1UM SOUTH SIDEYARD SETBACK 0.~' (plus 1Z0' Oudot) MIMMliM NORTH SIDEYARD SETBACK 5.0' ;1~~~JA d7~<Ul ;f ~ SCf~A~ti m ~ J7 FINAL DRAFT Design Guide-ines for Single Family Lots at Washington Vitlage MINIMUM S[DEYARD SETBACK FROM CEDAR AVENUE 12.5' PRIVATE ALLEY SiNGLE FAMILY RESiDENCES & ACCESSORY BLDGS REARYARD SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS 25.0' REARYARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 4.0' MAXIMUM BUILDRJG HEIGHT FOR PRINC[PAL BUILDINGS 35.0' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR ACCESSORY BUILD[NGS 20.0' MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL & ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 6.0' ALL SIAiGLE FAMtLY RESIDENCE PARKING MUST BE ACCESSED FROM THE ALLEY Guideline: a. When constructing a new building, locate it based upon the setbacks and conditions established above. 3. Mass and Scale Traditionally, larger buildings in the neighborhood were designed to appear to be divided into smaller components. Many have a single central mass, with small volumes attached. Others have variations in wall surfaces that contribute to this effect. Guideline: a. Use building elements that will create variety in mass and scale • On larger structures, subdivide the mass with the use of various elements such as; porches, sun rooms, and carriage houses. 4. One Story Element Including a one-story element at the front of a building will help to reduce its perceived mass. For example, a one story entryway or porch could serve this function. Guideline: a. Incorporate a one-story element at the front of a building to reduce the building's perceived mass as seen from the street. • This could be a porch, eave or enclosed building space. • A building inset in some cases can also help to reduce the perceived mass. This can be achieved by varying wall planes, limiting the height of the opening to one-story, and sizing it similar to a traditional porch element. :,u~~,,_,..~;~._~,~~,s~-y~~~~~ .-/38' FINAL DRr+.FT Design Guidelines for Single Family Lots at Washington Village 5. Architectural Character A variety of forms, materials and details reflect the diversity of the neighborhood azound Washington Elementary School. It is the intent to support new designs that are both innovative and compatible with the chazacter of this neighborhood. Guideline: a. Provide creative new designs that are compatible with the character of the neighborhood or enhance the design quality of the immediate neighborhood. 6. Front Entry Ivlost buildings in the neighborhood are oriented to the street. The front wall plane of the building includes a front entry that is visible from the street. The majority of front entries are composed of a front door that is sheltered by a porch or stoop. A primary entry that is clearly visible from the street helps to establish a sense of scale and aiso helps to convey a sense of connection with the neighborhood. Guideline: a. Clearly identify the front entry to a primary structure. . Aligning the entry to be oriented in the same plane as the front property line is generally prefened. . Covered front porches are encouraged and may extend into the front yard setback. 7. Roof Form Gable roofs are predominant in the neighborhood, but hip forms also are seen. In some cases, variation in roof form helps to give a sense of scale to a building. When a roof is divided into smaller segments, with an intersection ridge or a change in ridge line, the eYfect is to reduce the mass of the building. In some cases, variation occurs along the eave line, where an extension or gable element provides variety. The intent is to encourage roof forms that reflect new design approaches, but which are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Guideline: a. Using roof forms that are compatible with those in the neighborhood is encouraged. . Use sloped roof forms in the neighborhood; these include ~able and hip types. . Other roof forms that help to reduce the perceived scale of buildings are also appropnate. . Roof forms and slopes that allow for maYimum solar exposure aze encouraged. . Solar collectors on sloped roofs should be mounted flush with the roof except for flat roofs ~vhere they should not be mounted in an attractive way. i 1f.;i "n-.~.~."~ ~_ )Sa A`i'imu~;l 4f ~ k'A~`"~°~ .-.f ~ FINAL DR.1FT Design Guidelines for Single Family Lots at Washington Village . Flat roofs may be appropriate when the overall mass and scale is compatible wiih the context. 8. Building Height Residential structures in the neighborhood vary from one and one-and-a-half stories to neazly three stories in height. A key objective is to reduce the perceived scale of new buildings, while accommodating some increase in actual building heights above those seen traditionally in older homes in the neighborhood. This can generally be achieved by keeping the height of the building wall relatively low. In some areas, including a floor in a sloping roof form is a technique that reduces building height while still providing func[ional space. Guideline: a. Consider incorporating roof forms that keep the building in scale with the neighborhood. b. Building heights shall not exceed those listed in the schedule above. 9. Windows Windows give scale to buildings and provide visual in[erest to the building planes in the neighborhood. Consider how the location of windows along front and side wall planes can affect the perceived scale of a building from the street. Guideline: a. Windows should be in scale and be placed in a similar solid-to-void relationship as traditional buildings. . Consider placing windows in a similar arrangement as those seen traditionally in [he neighborhood. • Consider placing windows to provide passive solar erposure. . Large expanses of glass are discouraged on the front wall plane. . Divide large glass surfaces (picture windows) into smaller windows to reduce their perceived scale. . Locate windows on the north side with a minimum sill height of S'-6" to allow privacy for the neighbor to the north. 10. Building Materials Building materials vary throughout the neighborhood. Use traditional or new building materials that reflect the building character found in the neighborhood. Guideline: a. Use building materials that contribute to the sense of scale on the block. ~.~~~~z;.~,n~:~.r~~,~;r Sc~~~;~~._f~ FINAL DI~FT Design Guidelines for Single Family Lots at Washin ;ton Village Materials that are made of components that convey a sense of scale are preferred. Examples are lap siding (of wood or synthetic materials), brick and stone. b. Use buil~ing materials to reduce the perceived scale of a building. • In some cases, a change in building materials along a wall surface can help to reduce the perceived scale of the building. 11. Accessory Structures Traditionally, accessory structures such as sheds and garages, were subordinate in scale and character to the primary building and were located at the rear of the lot. They were typically simple shed and gable roof forms. Using an accessory structure to accommodate parking and storage is encouraged, because doing so will help to reduce the perception of the overall mass of building on the site. Guidclinc: a. Locate an accessory structure to the rear of the lot. . Locate an accessory structure at the rear of the lot and offof the.rear alley access. • Consider placing some of the allowable floor area in a carriage/studio space above a detached ~,~arage. 12. Landscape Maintainin~ a sense of green space in the front setback is an objective. In general, a minimum of 60-70°% oF the required front setback area should be plant material. This may inclLide Qrasses, around covers, shrubs, trees and other vegetation. Guideline: a. The use of drou~ht-tolerant plantings in front setback is encouraged. b. Draina;e paths should be maintained ~er the site engineering and should be landscaped n~~ropriately. !';E:i~..':!_ ~ -~. i~~~l- , ;-, `~~~~f:C~_;= , ~~~ Existing Homes In The Washington Village Neighborhood Carriage House Older Home Newer Home Remodels with Large Additions Solar Exposure New Homes In The Washington Village Neighborhood With Desirable Features ~'!~'lll~~ii~iiiii iIIIIII .~ ~.~..~--_~, ~..L, . ATTACHMENri' P Karl Guiler - RE: Washington School 4. - _ `~=~r_-~.~_-~ _.. _..~.,>>:..~~,_s^~:.~_.,.- . ~.."~r~._`:;~:sz!:'~i~ . . ~.~:~~~i~~«SS~.s-~ a'~'>"~ffi€'l From: Aslilcv Clarke To: Datc: 5/24/2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: Washington School CC: <guilerk a,bouldercolorado.gov>, Bob ['e~eschl , Aaryn Kay Dear Jonathan, Thank you for your follow-up to the recent meeting. I think those of us representing Red Arrow would like to take you up on your offer of continuing the discussion of creative solutions, but only if there is some sort of indication from you and Wonderland Hill that you are actually interested in "solutions" and not just more discussion. Several of us have attended literally every meeting since the project was launched and are tired of listing the same concerns and getting the same meeting summaries back, and assurance that our ideas have been "heard", when in fact nothing changes. Any solutions at this point require a sacrifice, from your perspective, for your current plans - a re-negotiation of density, a study of the landmark effect on the site plan, etc., so it seems the only question left is whether or not you are actually, at this late stage, interested in making a compromise to work with our existing building and community. I have always held a high opinion of Wonderland Hill and its developments to date, but the last meeting you held was disrespectful of all of us in attendance, with old slides and old information, and nothing to report on how you have listened to our input. I realize you are all tired and frustrated after so much time and work on this project, but please realize that your decision to move forward without exploring every option to integrate your development into the existing neighborhood will effect the daily lives of all of us at Red Arrow. For the other neighbors, your plans may bring a nuisance of busier streets and fewer parking spaces, but as you know, we will be affected directly in our kitchens, living rooms, bedrooms, yards, etc. by the shadows your buildings will bring. I realize that researching other options equates to time and money, so it is in your hands to decide what to do from here. I don't think there is anything else you could need from us at this point. You know about our unique/historic architecture based on passive-solar principles, our 100% owner-occupied status, our self- management and property stewardship, our co-housing type gatherings, meals and events, our commitment to living and raising families in small units, acceptance of limited parking, our hope to integrate renewable energy (PV) and other sustainable features, etc. We have all chosen to live here for many of the same reasons you will use to sell to your new tenants. Your massive buildings and north density will probably make our building obsolete fairly quickly, and there is no way to adapt our current buildings to "fit in" to the new wave of larger Broadway buildings. To change, we would have to destroy the current buildings and start over. Even though you argue that this is going to be the way things are for the Broadway corridor, Wonderland Hill has the chance to help save this little gem of historic, sustainable architecture in an area that will otherwise continue to change dramatically and lose any resemblance to the past. And so, i'll ask again: If you are truly open to solutions, and if our input could help, please let me know, and we'll happily find time to meet with you. Thank you, Ashley Ortiz AC:Ei~DA IT~kir~ ;i , ~~~,~Cah ~/--' / i<arl G6iler - landmark for Red Arrow Townhomes From: "Tim Quinn" To: <hewatj@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Fri, May 25, 2007 10:49 AM Subject: landmark for Red Arrow Townhomes James I am a resident at 2950 Broadway unit#1, Red Arrow. We are currently discussing having our homes landmarked by the city and I wanted to share my thoughts. If you have visited the property you can understand that it is very unique indeed. The buildings are designed well and the use of space is unparalleled. Our footprint is tiny and that alone, regardless of anything else, should be taken as an example of living minimally, something we all need to do more of. The design is eye pleasing and you will be hard pressed to find structures in that range of size that are so carefully designed and constructed. The flow of the entire property takes into account the world around it and the glass walls give a view of it. The sun shines brightly into our homes warming helping to warm them in the winter and the use of brick helps to keep them cool in the summer. Without air conditioning the maximum temperature i have seen inside of my unit in the dog days of summer was 85 degrees, warm, but not unbearable. Currently as a community we are discussing our enviromental impact and we are making moves to minimize. The age and condition of these structures goes to show that they were built with longevity in mind and they should be given that respect. All that live in this small community love our homes and want them to remain as is well beyond our years. Thanks for Reading Tim Quinn 2950 Boradway unit#1 Boulder, CO 80304 CC: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov> f~C-EP+IDA fTENi # ~PAG~ ~L--a` ~ Karl Guiler - Fwd: Re: Solar impact discussion re Washington School ' From: Dante Ortiz To: <Guilerk@Bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Wed, May23, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Solar impact discussion re Washington School Karl Good day, I am attaching the last correspondence that I have had with Jonathan from Wonderland Hill Development. It more or less represents where we are with their proposed project. I have proposed to Wonderland Hill respectable design solutions to mitigate the impact of the scale of their proposed buildings and the Redarrow town homes. Two critical issues need to be further explored by Wonder{and Hill. The first is in relation to the proposed North building (10 Units) and the possible switching of its density to the proposed East building (4-6 duplex's). This would perhaps take a variance in the high density scaling down to the lower density 6 single family lots to the east, but let me remind everyone that these lots are being proposed with alley loaded garages. W ith the width of the alley, the garages, and the backyards of these single family(4-5,000 sq ft) homes, the height af the proposed North building moved to the location of the now proposed East bui{ding wou{d have far less impact on homes that will have substantial back yards, a garage and an ally compared to the impact upon the existing Redarrow Town Homes which will be 20 odd feet from a 40 ft tall building and in its shadow. The second issue is in regards to the proposed Broadway building and the implications of the Historic Preservation boards desire to maintain a view corridor for passing cars. The result of this desire has literally a huge impact on the other end of the site. The north end of the proposed Broadway bulldi~g (35-40ft) towers above the 17 foot tall elevation of the Redarrow Town homes. The Historic Preservation board needs to understand that by making a value ~udgment on a view 1ha1 will mosl of the lime be obstructed by existing mature trees that are intended to be kept and a car passengers view traveling 30-40mph in lieu of allowing Wonderland Hill Development to slide the Broadway building south to allow space for the proposed design to step down to an appropriate scale relation with the Redarrow Town homes. Karl, please make these issues known to your staff and the planning board. It is only through your position and the people that work with you in the planning office that these issues can be recommended to the developer to explore thoroughly in order to truly contextualize this project with the existing scale and fabric of the neighborhood. Make them take the time to design this project so that it properly fits and isn't I++C-~f~l7A I~EIUi #3 ~PAGF a~` ~ Guiler - Fwd: Re: Solar impact discussio~ re Washington School just a stone walling in order to keep their co housing formula. We like the density and programming of this project and there is enough room to make it work. I hope to hear good news. Regards Dante Ortiz Note: forwarded message attached. Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tool s. search.ya h oo. com /s hortcuts/#loc_weath e r ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~p~G~ l~7 Karl Guiler - WASH SCHOOL PROPOSAL From: To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: 5/13/2007 3:49 PM Subject: WASH SCHOOL PROPOSAL PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF BOULDER; ONCE AGAIN WE'RE WRITING TO OPPOSE THE WONDERLAND HILL PLAN FOR THE WASHINGTON SCHOOL AREA!! 1. CO-HOUSING DOES NOT BELONG IN A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS! 2. DENSITY IS ENTIRELY TOO MUCH!! 3. PARKING WOULD BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT THAN IT ALREADY IS, AND THE OVERFLOW WOULD BE PARKING ALL OVER CEDAR AVE., AND 13TH ST. WHICH IS VERY CROWDED NOW. 4. NOISE LEVELS FAR TOO GREAT , WITH SO MANY CONDO'S, HOMES AND COMMERCIAL, AND THE PEOPLE ACCOMPANYING THESE ENDEAVORS. 5. SOLAR AND VIEWS CUT OFF FOR MANY TO THE NORTH. PLEASE FIND AN07HER SOLUTION, ANOTHER BUILDER THAT WOULD BE MORE SENSITIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS NEEDS, THE HISTORY OF THIS AREA, THE SCHOOL, AND THE BIKEWAY ON 13TH STREET. WOULD YOU WANT THIS VOLUME, NOISE, AND CHAOS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD???? WE ALWAYS THOUGHT BOU~DER WOULD BE MORE THOUGHTFUL OF THEIR COMMUNITY AND OURS. THANK YOU!!! JEANNE C. NOLIN - WIN M. NOLIN 1324 CEDAR AVE. BOULDER, CO. 80304 C,ECdDA REh19 # SCPqGE _~Z.9 Karl Guiler - Re: Washington Elementary From: Robert Ray To: Date: 4/16/2007 4:37 PM Subject: Re: Washington Elementary Mr. Hall, Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts regarding the Washington Elementary project. Your comments wiil be included for review within the Planning Board packet; the project is currently scheduled to appear before the Board on 21 June. In the interim, please do not hesitate to contact either Karl Guiler or me with any additional comments or suggestions. Thankyou. Robert Ray, AICP Land Use Review Manager City of Boulder 1739 Broadway, Third Floor Bouider, CO 80306 303.441.4277 »> <manlotus@aol.com> 4/16/2007 4:09 PM »> Helio, I wanted to comment, as a Red Arrow resident and neighbor, on the latest and ongoing proposal from Wonderland Hills Dev. Co. I would like to re-iterate concern with the scale of the project specificaily with Bldg 1(Broadway bidg) This Bldg will have the most prominent physical relationship with any of iYs neighbors, on the whole of the site. To put things in perspective our buildings, Red Arrow, barely reach a height of 20ft-- if that, scale matters here and the proposed building will ovenvhelm us. I could care less if there are 30 existing--40ft tall buildings in a mile radius. What I and others care about is the building right next door and iYs relationship to us. I think at the least a more dramatic staggering or tiered effect to the north end of the building would be more appropriate. Similar to the south end of the proposed Broadway bldg. -- As per the west elevation drawings. To further address this issue-- this bohemoth of a bldg is something that might belong downtown, thaYs debatable as well. But we are not downtown, to further push this scale of bldg further north, is at the least undesirable. Many neighbors have expressed sentiments to this effect. We walk this Broadway corridor daily-- I don't see a solid, block long, 40 ft tall building, 13.Sft from the road making things more pleasurable. I'm hoping the City can understand our concerns, especially while the developer will continue to ask for and most likely receive changes to zoning and other restridions. Please consider that as neighbors our voices should be heard, especially in the light of the idea of Co-housing and the intervention of the City in the first place to guide this process. Thank you for your time, Darren Hali ra~~n~o~ ix~:~~n # S~%rrA~~ ~~ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. Karl Guiler - Washington elementary From: 'Tim Quinn" To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Apr 17, 2007 11:07 AM Subject: Washington elementary Hello- I just wanted to make a comment based on a letter I received regarding the development of Washington Elementary on Broadway. I am a resident of the Red Arrow units ~ust north of this property. It stated that Wonderland was asking that the building proposed for the Broadway s+de of the property be allowed to exceed the 35ft size and be allowed to be built as high as 41 feet. If this is allowed it will most definately disrupt our sun access in the winter months as well as blocking the view of the west that was part of the appeal of our property. This particular property was designed with the solar access in account and to take this away from us to give to them would be very disrespectful to us and our needs as home owners/tax payers in Boulder. Initially when approached about this it was suggested that they would step down the building, this sounds to me as if in the name of square footage and the almighty dollar that this was rethought. Please accept this as my statement of opposition to the current plan and take our lives into account. Thanks, Tim Quinn 2950 Broadway unit #1 Boulder. CO /dC:k~Ntl;9 iT~ilA#l~v~'1'AC°a~~/~ Karl Guiler - Washington Village Comments From: "Dante Ortiz" To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: 4/16/2007 9:48 PM Subject: Washington Village Comments Dear Karl Good day. We recently received the latest info regarding the redevelopment plans for Washington Village in the mail. On behalf of Red Arrow Townhomes we would like to reiterate our concerns about the proposed scale of the northern edge of the property. We clearly understand the zoning (RH-2) of this section of the property and the 25' solar fence that comes along with it. However, we feel we have a unique situation in that the importance of the passive solar exposure that Red Arrow Townhomes receive is absolutely essential to maintain for the historic architecture to remain relevant. Wonderland development has demonstrated the effects of the proposed buildings shadowing on our property. The greatest amount of shadowing happens in the winter - the time of year that is precisely when it matters most to receive the sun to truly utilize the passive solar strategies of our buildings. We ask that the City assist and respect us - ten families (all owner occupied) that have found a way to make downtown Boulder living possible in small multi-family dwellings, and have committed to the upkeep and stewardship of a unique Boulder architectural development built in 1961. We hope that Wonderland Hill will respect this existing condition in the spirit of mutual respect between neighbors - new and old - and better negotiate the scale difference of Red Arrow's 18 foot-tall buildings and the proposed 41-foot buildings on the north edge of their property. Thank you for your time, Dante and Ashley Ortiz Red Arrow Townhomes 2950 Broadway Street rqt; ~1~?L`D~' I~"~s1/9 ;t ~~'~ACa~ ~~/ Karl Guiler - Washington Village From: Mikki Rainey To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: Washington Village Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today I would like to express my concerns about the latest proposals regarding the Washington School site. I am VERY concerned about cutting parking by more than 50%! There already is NO parking on the street during the week due to the shortage of spaces and all the parking from the Medical Center, the Hospital, and the shopping center employees parking there. Where are these new cars going to park? In my driveway? Can I charge for parki~g in my driveway? And it seems that by reducing lot size for these 6 alleged million dollar homes you are setting a double standard. Private parties are often refused this right. W hy is this being affowed for a rich developer? In fact the entire project seems to be one overextended privilege after another. While the project has SOME good ideas - it just seems to me that it is simply too much for too little space. Please suggest some 're-thinking' on the part of the developers. Thank you. Mikki Rainey 1302 Cedar Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 303-447-1960 s~ ~s~- ,ac;,t=~vi~,1 tY~lr~ ;<<~.~N~~~ ~ -- Karl Guiler - Washington School From: "Joyce Newton" ~ _ - ~ To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: 3/19/2007 7:31 PM Subject: Washington School Dear Sir: They should turn it into a classy restaurant/bed & breakfast/museum like McMinnimins has done to so many old schools and buildings in Portland, OR. They took my old school, Kennedy, and it is just fun to be in now. My grandfather was the principal of Washington school in the 1930's-40's. If I had the $ I would turn it into a posh place. It would be fabulous! Joyce Gillett Newton Sc l53 :~~~~~;~ s~~;v~:f ~~~A~~ ~_ ATTACHMENT Q Washington Village Neighborhood Meeting Case Manager notes May 9, 2007 • Concerns about/ interest in how single-family lots are developed. • Concerns about size and nature of commercial use; proposed uses would still be traffic generators (e.g., architect, financial planner, think tank, hospice, body work etc.) • What about parking for community programs/events? • Concern about extent of parking reduction. "Meeting total waste of time" "Extreme frustration °"nothing seems to be heard" "too many sardines in the can. " • Process too rapid; not as much time for comment. • What about a parking study? Concerns of spillover parking. Should take inio consideration conventional studies ("Real World"), rather than co-housing as use in the future could change. • Concerns about traffic; effect on existing bike lane on 13`h Street. • Has there been a reduction in the affordable units on the site? Where's the community benefit in that? • Concerns over potential McMansions on 13`" with high FAR. There needs to be design guidelines for the single-family residences. • Perception of a closed community replacing what used to be an open park atmosphere. • Concerns about noise level generated from the high density portion. • Neighbors to the north (i.e., Red Arrow Townhouses) concerned about loss of solar access and views. Townhomes designed with many windows to let in sun. • Concern about comment about demolition to occur in fall. Jim clarified that Wonderland's possession of the site would occur at that time. • Would commercial space really want to be on this portion of Broadway? • How would this project impact home values in the area? • There should be deed restrictions limited FAR on single family lots to 0.4 FAR. • Southwest Comer: What is the value of the view of the school from someone outside the neighborhood driving by at 30-40 mph? Broadway Building should be moved further south to lessen impact on Red Arrow Townhouses. • Meeting repetitive. These are the same issues brought up by Community Review Panel. "Lf a quality project isn't built here, what will be built here?" • How should children's art on site be preserved? Perhaps it should be sold to the School District. • The applicant should respond direct(y to these concerns. • Perhaps there should be concessions in site open space to provide more parking on-site. • Move courtyard to the north of the north building to lessen impact on Red Arrow Townhouses and integrate with that community. "The City does not care about parking conditions created by the hospital and community plaza. ""Why should developer have to respond to conditions already present in the neighborhood? ° • Perhaps there should be a follow-up meeting for applicant to respond to these concerns and how they are addressed. Will coordinate with City staff. ,t;k~6~, 31a 87E~i~,r~ az_~r<aua~-./~