5A - Site Review, Use Review & Preliminary Plat LUR2007-00016 & Comprehensive Plan Land Use DesignatCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 13, 2007
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: September 7, 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 6,854
square 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 II
OBJECTIVE:
1. Hear applicant and staff presentations
2. Hold public hearing
3. Planning Board discussion
- Has the applicant revised the proposal such that the proposal addresses the seven
issues outlined by Planning Board at its July 19`~' public hearing on the project and
would meet tbe applicable Site and Use Review criteria, as well as the Parking
Reduction criteria?
4. Planning Board take action to approve, approve with conditions, or
AEenda Item # SC PaEe # 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 density portion along 13`h Street. The multi-family
units and common facilities would be located in the existing school
building and in four new buildings on the site. 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-I lots below the
7,000 square foot minimum pursuant to Section 9-2-14(c), B.R.C.
1981;
A parking reduction of 45.6%;
Modification to the setbacks for the development; and,
A height modification to permit the Broadway building at a height
of 41 feet (from the lowest point witl~in 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 6,854 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 130,109 square 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 (214 acres) in size, and
accommodate the multi-family, coinmunity facilities, and
office/commercial uses on the high density residential portion of the site.
4) COMPREHENSNE 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
density is requested as a result of the rezoning. This request requires City
Council approval.
AQenda Item # SC Paae # 2
5) VESTED RIGHTS: Request for creation of vested rights pursuant to
Secrion 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981.
Project Name: Washington Village (formerly entiUed Cedar Commons)
Location: 1215 Cedar Avenue
Size of Tract: 3 acres (130,709 square feet)
Zoning: The subject property is zoned High Density Residential, (RH-2) (roughly
1.7 acres along Broadway) and Low Density Residential (RL-1) (roughly
13 acres) along 13th Street.
Comprehensive Plan: The current Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use
designation is Public/Semi-Public.
KEY ISSUE
Has the applicant revised the proposal such that it addresses the seven issues identified by
the Planning Board at its July 19`~' hearing and more clearly meets the applicable Site and
Use Review criteria, as well as the Parking Reduction criteria?
BACKGROUND
Review Process/Project History:
A detailed history of the project review through the Boulder Valley School District MOU and
City of Boulder Request for Proposal process and Concept Plan Review and Comment process
were outlined in the previous staff inemorandum.
On July 19, 2007, the Site and Use Review and BVCP land use amendment and rezoning
applications were reviewed by the Planning Board. Based on its review of the project and
public input, the Planning Board continued the hearing to September 13, 2007. The
Planning Board requested fliat the applicant respond to the following seven identified
issues, which would be discussed at the continued hearing prior to Board decision on the
project:
Enhance sensitivity and compatibility with all adjacent residences to the north.
• Move Broadway Building away (south) from north property line or shorten the
building and/ or move the second and third stories farther back-strongly reduce
the solar impacts to the Red Arrow Apartments
• Improve the treatment of the north building to be less imposing and more
neighborly
• Move bike structure and trash enclosure to low impacUappropriate locations and
build privacy wall between site and single-family property along 13th.
2. Increase permeability into the site, either by breaking up Broadway Building or at least
creating the perception of entry to the interior courtyard space from Broadway.
3. Need to better understand the community benefit that's being proposed related to
affordable housing.
Aaenda Item # SC Page # 3
4. Submit morc information regarding development of the single-family lots and create a
better transition to the residences to the east. Options include lowering the proposed
maximum FAR, sripulating building footprints and stories (including out -buildings),
providing sketches of the design of homes in line with guidelines. Demonstrate how the
project will appropriately transition to neighborhood, which might include:
• Massing study.
• Floor area calculations.
• Preliminary sketches of the design of homes in line with guidelines and
dcmonstrating neighborhood compatibility.
5. The duplex is the beginning of the transition to the adjacent neighborhood. Move duplex
back away (north) from Cedar Avenue right-of-way.
6. Work on building architecture to address Landmarks concerns and create more
compatibility with school and neighborhood. Contrasting architecture acceptable, but
should be complementary and attractive with more traditional materials and references.
Extent of proposed parking reduction is not justified. Attempt a target of closer to 55 on-
site parking spaces for residential uses. Parking for commercial should also be
compliant. Tnformation on seating for coffee shop should be clarified or coffee shop
deleted.
The revised plans are attached to this memorandum. The extent to which the applicant
has responded to the identificd issues and whether the proposa] has been improved to
meet the Site Review criteria are analyzed by staff in the Analysis section of the memo.
Next Steps:
With a decision by Planning Board on September l3`~', the project will be subject to call-
up at the City CounciPs September 18`h meeting, which would also be the first reading of
the ordinance to rezone the property. If the Council decides to call-up the Planning Board
decision, all aspects of the project would be discussed at the October 2"d City Council
meeting. Otherwise, only the rezoning and the requested BVCP amendment would be
discussed at the October 2"d hearing.
Project Description:
Please refer to the project description in the July ] 9, 2007 staff inemorandum for specific
information pertaining to the previous submittal. The applicant has submitted revised plan sets,
new color elevations, vignettes of the Broadway and North Buildings and the single-family
homes, and additional information regarding the design and size of the single-family homes.
Changes to the project are summarized in the following table:
Aaenda Item # SC Page # 4
Chan e July 19, 2007 lan set Se tember 13, 2007 lan set
- Commercial square footage 7,148 square feet 6,854 square feet
- Proposed coffee shop 1,000 square feet 500 to 750 s uare feet
- Proposed FAR limits for single 0.65 PAR for Lot 2-6 0.60 FAR for Lot 2-6
family homes 0.70 for Lot 7 0.65 for Lot 7
- Design parameters for single See original guidelines (new Addition of building
family homes version has changes italicized) articulation section and
limitation on 2nd level floor
area to 75% of grouud level
floor area
- East Building East Buildmg (6 uni[s) & Two Fourplex buildings
Du lex (2 units) (8 units)
- Setback for new building on 7 feet 8 inches (to porch) 12.5 feet (to building bulk)
Cedar 12.5 feet ([o building bulk) [requires no modificationJ
- Off-street parking to[al 66 s aces 75 s aces
- Required off-street parking 139 spaces 138 spaces
- Percenta e arking reduction 52.5% 45.6%
- Number of off-street- residential 43 spaces 53 spaces
- North setback of Broadway 10 fee[- deck/portico feature 14 feet- deck/portico feature
Building- round floor ll feet- main building mass 21 feet- main building mass
- Nor[h setback of Broadway 17.5 feet 21 feet
Building-second floor
- North setback of Broadway 37 feet 41 feet
Building-third floor
- Length of Broadway Building 209 feet 206 feet
- Entry Arbors None proposed Technically would require
setback modifications for
locations in requued sideyards
as accessory structures
ANALYSIS
Has the applicant revised the proposal such that it addresses the seven issues identified by
the Planning Board at its July 19~h hearing and more clearly meets the applicable Site and
Use Review criteria, as well as the Parking Reduction criteria?
1. Enhance sensitivitv and comuaYibilitv witl~ all adiacent residences to the north
o Move Broadwav Buildin~ awav (south) from north nropertv line or shorten the
building and/or move the second and third stories farther back stron~ly reduce
the solar imvacts to the Red Arrow Apartments
o Improve the treatment of the north buildin~ to be less imposinQ and more
nei borl
o Move bike structure and trash enclosure to low impact/appropriate locations and
build privacy wall between site and single-family property alonQ 13th.
Movement of Broadway Building from north property line
Although the unenclosed patio on the north side of the Broadway Building has been shiftcd 4 feet
to the south, the most significant change is that the main building bulk (the north wall excluding
the unenclosed portico) has been moved 10 feet farther south than its previous location (i.e., from
ll feet to 21 feet from the north lot line). This change presents a more appropriate separation
A~enda Item # SC Pa~e # 5
between the Broadway Building and the Red Arrow Townhomes; however the change eliminates
the previous "stepped" fa~ade. This results in a two-story bulk with a more monolithic fa~ade
facing the Red Arrow Apartments. An additional second story setback on the north fa~ade of the
Broadway Building could create more relief and provide a more compatible face to the
neighbors.
It should be noted that since the July 19°i hearing staff has leamed that - according to the
applicant's survey - the fence line betwecn Washington Village and the neighboring properties to
the north does not reflect the actual boundary, but rather that the true boundary is actually 3 to 4
feet north of the existing fence. Therefore, it is necessary to be aware that the proposed building
locations and distances shown on the plans are correct, although perceived distances may be less
when visiting the site and considering the actual property line's location vis-a-vis the fence.
Solar Impacts to the Red Arrow Apartments
Despite the 10 foot shift in building mass to the south, a strong reduction in solar impacts from
the previous design has not occurred, though the change does open up the entirety of the Red
Arrow Townhomes' roof area to solar access during December (when the sun is at its lowest
angle of the year), which is the principal intent of Solar Access Area II. Being within a higl~
density residential zone, Solar Access Area II was written to avoid blocking sunlight to roof tops
(see Section 9-9-17(C)(2), B.R.C. 1981). The change also opens up a small area of the south
facing windows of Red Arrow Townhomes to additiona] sunlight, where the previous plans did
noL Although the improvements are not substantial, the goals of the solar regulations would be
met.
Improvement of Treatment to the North Building
The North Building massing has not changed, but the treatments on the north facing faqade have
been improved by altering the windows to be more reminiscent of the di~nensions and designs of
the school building windows. Further, brick elements have been added to that side to make it
less stark in appearance. In line with Staff suggestion above, it may be necessary to also recess
the second story of the North Building along with the Broadway Building, to create more visual
relief and have a less imposing building wall facing the Red Arrow Townhomes.
Movement of Bike Structure and Trash Enclosure
The bike structure has been eliminated (bike parking would be distributed throughout the site in
accordance to code), and the trash enclosure has been replaced by two separate enclosures
attached to the new fourplex buildings along the access lane. This appears to meet the intent of
the Board's request.
The owner of the single-family residence to the north (adjacent to Lot 2) has requested a masonry
wall of 7 feet in height along the entire mutual boundary with the Washington School site, which
the plans currently do not show. In support of this request, the neighbor raises the
aforementioned lot line issue, where the line appears to be north of what has been considered in
the past to be the boundary between the schoo( property and neighbors. Staff supports the
incorporation of a wall at the north end of the access lane to block headlights and noise. Staff as
well concurs with the neighbor's addiCional concem about the impact to trees in that location, and
recommends conditions that require installation of appropriate walls and fencing with mutual
acceptance by both parties, while also requiring any walls or fencing be evaluated by an arborist
to avoid any detrimental effects to the trees. Further, a tree protection plan provided at the time
A~enda Item # SC Pa~e # 6
of Technical Document review, together with an arborist to evaluate construction around mature
trees on the site in line with the requirements within the Restrictive Covenant, would be an
effective method for providing the desired protection. Prior to preparation of these documents,
the applicant should work with the neighbor on an acceptable wall location and design.
2. Increase permeability into the site, either by breaking up the Broadwav Building or at
least creatin~ the percention of entrv to the interior courtvard space from Broadway.
The issue of permeability relates to the long faqade of the Broadway Building, which has no cut-
through to the interior courtyard. Staff believes that the revised proposal does not effectively
increase permeability into the site. The building's Broadway facing fa~ade has been shortened
overall by 3 feet and an option of a corridar has been shown through the building, but no changes
to floor plans have been made to indicate ultimate feasibility of this change.
Staff finds that although the entry arbors may increase the likelihood that passersby will be aware
of a space within the site, the changes fall short of the expectation of greater permeability into the
site with the Broadway Building being the largest barrier. Staff recommends a condition that
would require a corridor through the building at the location alluded to in the plans (see Sheet
LP-1), and that that hallway be at least 20 feet wide, have a more pronounced entry along
Broadway by the bus stop, and be designed such that views of the interior site be possible
through U~e corridor. The applicant has claimed that such a comdor creates safety issues,
although staff finds that the corridor could be locked at appropriate times to mitigate this issue.
As long as the comdor was open during most daytime hours, the intent of having greater
permeability into the site could be met and a visual connection would exist between Broadway
and the inner courtyard.
The revised proposal also includes a continuous path from Broadway to the internal access lane
on the site as one way to address permeability into the site; however, residents of the Red Arrow
Townhomes are not in favor of path due to safety concerns and loss of privacy. Although staff
has supported and encouraged incorporation of the path as a pedestrian connection through the
site, to mitigate the concerns of Red Arrow Townhomes residents, the corridor discussed above
as an alternative connection between Broadway and the path within the internal courtyard. While
the access path between the Broadway and North buildings and the neighbors to the north would
be eliminated, pedestrian access through the site would still be available through the iuterior
courtyard to the drive.
3. Need to better understand the community benefit that's bein~ proposed related to
affordable housing.
The project would meet the City's inclusionary zoning requirements of providing at least 20% of
the units as permanently affordable. As discussed below, the project would provide roughly 33%
of the units as affordable units, rather than paying in-lieu fees to meet the requirements.
Although affordable housing is one of the key elements of the intended "community benefiY' on
the site, there are no specific Site Review criteria related to community benefit for the Ylanning
Board to base its decision. This issue is tied to the City CounciPs review of the various
proposals in the RFP process and the extent to which the project is consistent with the proposal
reviewed by City Council on September 19, 2006 and upon which they made the decision that
this project would be the one to go forward. Therefore, the following is informational only, and
Agenda Item # SC PaQe # 7
staff does not consider it relevant to the Board's decision on the Site and Use Review aspects of
the project.
The most notable change in `bommunity benefits" outlined in the original RFP reviewed by City
Council on September 19, 2007 were made to the middle income units. Although some middle
income units were eliminated in subsequent changes, the project still continues to provide more
than the 20% permanently affordable units required of all projects. Where many applicants
decide to pay in-lieu fecs in place of actual affordable units, this project would provide nearly
33% permanently affordable units. This is discussed in greater detail in the attached August 9,
2007 non-agenda memorandum to City Council in Attachment K.
4. Submit more information regardina develooment of ffie sinEle-familv lots and crcate a
better transition to the residences to the cast. Options include lowering the uroposed
maximum FAR, stipulatine buildinQ footprints and stories (includine out-buildingsl, and
providing sketches of the desiQn of homes in line with guidelines. Demonstrate how the
protect will anpropriatelv transition to the neighborhood, which mie,ht include:
o Massin studv.
o Floor area calculations.
o Preliminarv sketches of the desien of homes in line with guidelines and
demonstratine nei.~hborhood compatibilitv.
The applicant has submitted revised design guidelines that include a 0.6 FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
limit on Lots 2 through 6, and a 0.65 FAR limit for the smaller Lot 7(reduced from 0.65 FAR
and 0.70 FAR respectively from the previous proposal). The guidelines also include a floor area
cap of 2,900 square fect on each two-story residence and an allowance to build up to 500 square
feet on the detached garage and up to 350 square feet for any studio space above the garage, so
long as the principal site FAR is not exceeded. The proposai also includes a limitation on the
second story, where floor area could not exceed 75% of the ground floor enclosed space. The
applicant has also added a section on building articulation and an increased setback of 35 feet for
Lots 4 through 7 where 25 feet is the minimum required. Vignettes attached to the application
show what the 13`h Street streetscape might look like, and an attached PowerPoint presentation
shows the design aesthetic that would be applied to the lots. The single-family lots would
continue to be loaded from the access lane behind the homes, rather than from 13`~' Street (i.e.,
there would be no curb cuts on 13`h Street).
While these techniques would be effective in limiting the massing of the new residences along
13`h Street, the applicant has not submitted information demonstrating how the new residences
would transition to existing residences to the east as requested by the Planning Board. As stated
in the previous staff inemorandum, the Old North Boulder neighborhood contains a diverse range
of square footages and styles of single family dwellings. There is a concentration of one-story
ranch styles that have square footages of just over 1,000 square feet, but also larger homcs
ranging all the way up to over 4,000 square feet those of which are more recent remodels that
have maximized the 0.8 FAR.
Based on Planning Board's concern about transition to residences to the east, staff again
evaluated the residences across the street and those on the same side of the street on the same
block of 13`h Street. These residences range in floor area from 1,062 square feet to 2,805 square
feet based on County Assessor records. Based on this data, over 50% are houses over 2,000
Agenda Item # SC Pa~e # 8
square feet. Of those over 2,000 square feet, the average floor area is 2,456 square feet. Staff
finds that in order to achieve compatibility with existing development and have a more suitable
transition, it may be more appropriate to limit the principal dwelling size on the lots to 2,500
square feet, rather than the 2,900 square feet proposed. It is true that the lots across the street and
along the street may see larger square footage expansions in the future, but based on their
generally larger lot sizes, massing may not be as much of an issue since square footage could be
built behind the dwellings and/or farther from the streetscape. Placing a cap of 2,500 square feet
on the principal dwelling would ensure a compatible amount of floor area as viewed from the
street that would be more consistent with the current streetscape. The applicant would still have
the opportunity to place more square footage in the accessory buildings in the rear (creating a
buffer from the higher density to the west) and also to add square footage in basements, so long
as the requested FAR were not exceeded.
To further limit streetscape impact and retain a larger amount of open space in front of the
buildings - preserving at least a semblance of the character of open space along 13°i that has
existed with the open school property - an additional consideration would be to require 35 foot
setbacks for all of the single-family lots. Staff has also considered the impacts on the closest
adjacent single-family residence to the north (i.e., 2945 13`~' Street), especially in light of the lot
line issue discussed above. Staff finds to create greater compatibility between 2945 13°i Street
and the proposed Lot 2, a setback of 10 feet on the north side of the proposed property would be
appropriate.
5. The dunlex is the beQinnina of the transition to the adjacent neig,hborhood. Move duplex
back awa~north) from the Cedar Avenue riQht-of-wav.
The duplex building of concern was previously located within the required 12.5 foot side yard
setback (the actual measurement was 7 feet 8 inches to the proposed porch and 12S feet to the
building bulk); this required a setback modification. Although the building bulk technically met
the required side yard setback, the building's distance from the lot line was considered
potential(y incompatible with the pattern of development in the area, where buildings across the
street and those to the east of 13`h Street appear to be 20 to 25 feet from the lot line (in most other
cases, the lot line is considered a front lot line and therefore, requires a 25 foot setback).
Therefore, the Planning Board requested that the building be moved away from the right-of-way
to create a better transition to the adjacent neighborhood, although no distance was specified.
In response, the applicant has removed the front porch from the building and set a redesigned
fourplex at the minimum 12.5 foot setback, thereby eliminating the need for a setback
modification. Staff finds that although the setback modification request has been eliminated, the
intent to transition to the neighborhood has not been met. Further, the replacement of a two-story
duplex with a three-story fourplex with greater height and massing in that location has created a
condition more incompatible that that created by the previous porch encroachment. Although the
extent to which the building should be pushed back was not determined at the meeting, Staff
finds that the redesigned building with a greater scale would wanant a greater distance than that
currently proposed; a minimum distance of 22 feet from the lot line to align with the fa~ade of
the library building, for example, could be suggested as an appropriate setback.
Additional concerns related to the design of the fourplex building fronting on Cedar Avenue
include the fact that the building does not appear to engage the street with any entryways, lacks
A~enda Item # SC Paee # 9
pedestrian interest with window fenestration, and that it appears more like a building side than a
front. Although the fronting fa~ade is arguably the building's side, changes to its design (in
addition to the location change discussed above) would be necessary to create a more pedestrian
friendly faqade. The addition of windows, elimination of blank wall spaces, and stairs
connecting to the street would greatly improve the appearance of the building, and would add to
the connectivity of the project to the greater neighborhood. Any such changes could be made at
the Technical Document stage.
6. Work on buildinQ architecture to address Landmarks concerns and create more
compatibilitv with school and nei borhood. ContrastinQ architecture is acceptable, but
should be comnlementarv and attractive with more traditional materials and references.
The general design of the interior buildings (i.e., North and East buildings) has not changed
dramatically. However, more brick elements, the likeness of the Broadway building, and stone
treatments reminiscent of the school building, have been incorporated. Further, the two buildings
would have hip roof elements that echo the roof style of the library building, and windows styles
throughout the development have been changed to better resemble the style of those on the
historic school. These elements along with new brick basing on all buildings work successfully
in adding more cohesion among the proposed buildings and the school building. Overall, staff
finds that new color and materials demonstrated in the color sets address previous Planning
Board's and Staf£ The only exceptions would be the suggested changes to the south east
building's fa~ade along Cedar as discussed above, and the potential for a change in fenestration
or building height to the east building's west elevations, to make the buildings appear less top-
heavy.
7. Extent of proposed parking reduction is not iustified. Attempt a target of closer to 55 on-
site oarking s~aces for residential uses. Parkine for commercial uses should also be
comuliant. Information on seatine for coffee shop should be clarified or coffee shop
deleted.
Nine residential parking spaces have been added to the site, which brings the total of on-site
spaces to 75 from 66 and reduces the requested parking reduction to 45.6% from the previous
52.5°l0. Fifty-three (53) of the spaces would be for residential use. Staff finds that this would
decrease impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and meet the criteria for a parking reduction;
with more than 50 residential parking spaces on the property, such a condition in most high
density residentia] districts would comply with the residential parking requirements, negating the
need far a parking reduction. As discussed in the previous staff inemorandum, other RH district
parking requirements, which are per bedroom and not overall square footage, would be more
applicable to the parking needed for this project, since the subject RH-2 standards anticipate high
parking demands from neighborhoods typically inhabited by students near the University.
In regard to the coffee shop, the applicant has modified the request for a 1,000 square foot coffee
shop to one between 500 and 750 feet. Staff finds that a 750 square foot coffee shop would be
appropriate, so long as seating did not exceed nine interior seats - application of the non-
residential square footage requirement (i.e., 1 parking space per every 300 square feet) would
nearly eyual those requirements on a per seat basis (i.e., 1 parking space per 3 seats). With these
modifications, staff finds the parking reduction meets the criteria for approval.
Agenda Item # SC Pa~e # 10
YtIBI.IC CO~~IVIL;NT AND PROCESS
Public noticc has been se~lt. to neigllbors witfiiil 600 feet of tlle property as a courtesy reini~l~ler of
the September 13, 2007 heariii~;, but also as requircd pursuailt to Scction 9-4-3, ~3.IZ.C. 1981, for
the subsequcnt rcview of the QVC'P lanci use map change and rezonin~;.
Most of tlle comments received at time of pi-eparatio~i of the il~emorai7duin were from t~11e most
impacted neiglibors of the property: the Red Arrow Townhomes tenants and the nei~;hbor at 2945
13`~' Street. Thesc neighburs conti~iue to find lhe a~~plication insensitive to their residences ar~d
havc requested either additional, rn~re subslantial changes be madc; to the site design or denial of
thc project. Comments in support of the projccf have also beeu rcceived. All commerits received
since t11e .luly 19°i Plannin~ Board hcaring ar~; included i~1 Attacllmci~t L.
STAC'I~ RECOMMENDA7'ION
Staff recommends that thc Pla~lning E3oard conditi~nally approvc Site Review, Use Review and
Prelimillary Plat #LUR2007-000 l 6 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
ChangelRezoning #LUR2007-00017 for the. Washington Villabe projeet located at 1215 Cedar
Avenue, incorporatiiig this and the July 1~)`~' staff inemc~randums and the attached Site Review,
Use Review, Rezoning a~1d B.V.C.P. criter~ia checklist as fiilding~ c~l~fact and subject to the
conditions of approval listed bclow. Text highlighted (as show~l here) are additio-is to staff's
previous recommendation and are inteilded tc~ address the sevcn items identified by Planning
Board at the July 19`~' ~ublic hearin~. Additionally, rcco~llinended condition5 2(g), 2(h), an~l 2(i)
have been added, as they were inadvertently omitted from the July 19'~' staff inemorandum. lt
slaould also be notcd that othcr limitations found within the conditions below that are not
highlighted are solely based on the applicant's proposed limitations in their September 13`~' plans
a~1d written statcments.
The Applicant shall t~e responsiblc for ensuring that the devclopment shall bc in
compliance wiNi all approved plans d~tcd Scptcinber ] 3, 2007 and on file ii~~ the City of
I~oulder Planning T~c~~artment, except as iilay be modified by this approval.
2. Prior to a building pennit application, the Applicant shall submit Tech~~ical
Document Review applications for the following itemti, sub,jcct to the approval of
the City of Boulder Planning and Devclapment Services Division in accordance
with City of Bouldcr Des~;~z ay~tcl C'onstj~ucti~~f~ Standards:
a) A detailed landseape and tree protection plan, including size, quantity, arid
type of plailts existin~ anci proposecl; type ancl yuality of non-living landscaping
materials; any site ~~rading proposed; and any in-igatio~l system proposed, to insure
compliance with this approval and the City's ]andscaping requirements. The plans
must include a certified arborist's assessmeilt of mature tree health and tlie
arborist's recommendations for tree pr~~tection to ensure compliance witll thc
Restrictive Covenant and Ueed Restriction and tlle Site Review a~~proval with a
focus on trccs that liave diameters of 15 inches or greater measurcd 4 fect above
grade. "l,hc arborist shall evaluate the affcct of any construction, including but not
limited to founcjations, grading, iinpervious surfaces, an~l the erection of walls
A~enda Item # _5C Pa~c # ll
within the vicinity of such trees, and shall prepare recommendations on protection
for such trees. All recommendations by the project arborist shall appear on the
landscape and tree protection 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) Final Storm Water Plans and Report for review and approval by the City.
fl 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 tbe developer.
g) Final transportation plans in accordance witb City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards for all transportation improvements for review and
approval by the City. The applicant shall dedicate to the City, at no cost, the
following public access easements for improvements shown the site plan dated
September 13, 2007, and generally described as follows:
i.) 20 foot easement for emergency and shared access;
ii.) 1 foot beyond the edge of the transit shelter pad on Broadway, and;
iii.) 1 foot beyond the sidewalk limits along Broadway and 13"' Street.
h) Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to the Public Works
Department for review and approval that ensures that the Applicant shall provide
Eco-passes to the residents of the development for three years afrer the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy for cach dwelling unit.
i) A financial guarantee, in the form acceptable to the Director of Public Works, in
an amount equal to the cost of providing Eco-passes to the residents of the
development for three years afrer the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
each dwelling unit as proposed in the Applicant's Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan.
j) A preliminary plat, subject to the approval of the City of Boulder Planning and
Development Services Division.
Agenda Item # SC PaQe # 12
k) Final Plat pursuant to section 9-12-8 of the Bouldcr Rcvised Code, including the
public access easeinents for. sidewulks along Broadway and l~°i, the
shared/emergency access drive, and the bus shelter.
3. Prior to application for a building permit on the porti~n of the site that is zoned RH-2, the
Ap~~licant shall subrnit the following itetns for tile rcview and recomiile~idation, of tlle
Planiling Dircctor:
a) Final architectural plans, includii~g materials and colors, to iilsure compliance
with tl~e intcnt of this approval and compatibility with the historic school and
sui-~-ounding area.
b) '1'he tlnal arcllitectural plans shall iilcludc revisions that:
1. Recess the second stories of the 13mad~~,~ay Buildiug and the North
Building along t~he n~rth property line to have a nlinimum distance of
feet to the noi~tli property line.
2. Provide at lcast GO square fect of private open s~ace to each of the
pern~anently affordability units in the Broadway Buildi~lg.
:~rtions of tllc property and ihe ad~acent property at L~I~
The location and design of the walls and fencing shall
y agreeci upon by the 2945 I 3`~' Street property owner
than 20 feet in ~vidth that connects the noi•tfi entry
to the proposed bus stop to the interior courtyard.
hall be desigtled to providc v~isibility of tlle interior coi
itry to t}~ie corridor shall be Iurther cmphasized along tf
•oposcd south cast buildin~ along Ced~r Avenue shall be
I back from the streetscape to a nunimum distancc of 22 feet 7
to ali~n with the cxisting libraiy buildin~;. Revisions to that
shall bc rnade to rr~al<c the Cedar facing fa~ade ~nore pedestrian
y witli more ~Window f~nesi~ratioii ai~d pedesti-ian connections to
4. Prior to application for a buildiiig pertnit on tlle ~~ortion of the 5ite that is ~~art of the
individual landmark site, the Applicant shall secure a landinark altcrati~n certilicate
required by Ch~pter 9-1 1, Historic Prescrvation," B.R.C. 19~1.
Prior to application for a building pcrmit ~n thc poi~tion of the site that is zoned R L-1, the
Applicant shall subi~lit Teclinical Docunle~~t Keview a}a~~lication, suhject to the approval
A;;cnda Item # SC P~~~c # 13
of the Planning Director final architcctural plans that demor~strate compliance wit~h
approved clesi~n ~uideliile~ prepared by the applicant; that includes thc approvcd
sctback5; and lici~ht limits and shall include the following limitations:
a) Tl1c nlaxin~iu~n floor arca c~tio (I~AR) for thc single-family lioines shall be 0.6:1
pcr lot for Lots 2 thraugh C and 0.65:1 for Lot 7, or the undcrlying RI. l FAR
limit at~ time of buildin~ pernlit, if less tha^ 0.6:1;
b) The principal dwelling on each lot shal] ~IOt excecd a floor ~~rca of 2,500 square
feet, the garage shall not cxceed S00 squarc fect, and any studio space abovc thc
gara~e may not exceed 3S0 squarc fect;
c) Thc seconcl level of the principal structure shall not exceed 75% of the ground
lcvcl floc~r arca of said structure;
6. Tl1c Applicant s11all cilsurc that thc approved conuiiercial uses are operated ii1
coinpliancc wit11 applicarlts written statement, pursuaiit to the following resti-ictions:
a) Profcssional and Technical Otfices are approved in conunercial space along
Broadtivay not to excecd 6,8_54 syuare feet,
b) A coffce sliop of no greater than 750 Squai-e feet and with no more than 9 interior
seats is approved within the southwest area of thc s~~ace noted in ~~) above, and;
c) Twenty-two (22) parking spaces shall be designated withi~l the Broadway
Building for the commercial uses during daytiine hours and cominunity facilities
durinb cvcning hours.
"I'he npplic~nt shall not expand or niodify the app-•oved usc (ii~cluding the co-hotzsin~
l~rogram Lor the sitc, the commercial space, and community facilities), except pursuant to
Subsection 9-?-I5, B.R.C. 1981.
Approved By:
_ j~ ~
,~Zuth McHeyser, Acti~~g irector
~ Plannin~ l~cpartment
A~cnda ltcm # SC 1'a<~e # 14
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Vicinity Map.
Attachment B: Minutes from July 19, 2007 Planning Board
meeting.
Attachment C: ApplicanYs response to Planning Board and
materials related to Wonderland's Case Verde
Commons project in Colorado Springs.
Attachment D: Revised single family design guidelines and
vignettes.
Attachment E: Applicant's transmittal and supplemental
information regarding single-family homes.
Attachment F: BVCP land use change criteria checklist.
Attachment G: Rezoning criteria checklist.
Attachment H: Draft Ordinance No. regarding rezoning.
Attachment I: Site Review criteria checklist.
Attachment J: Use Review criteria checklist.
Attachment K: August 9, 2007 WIP to Ciry Council and associated
attachments.
Attachment L: Public comments from neighborhood residents
received since July 19, 2007.
Attachment M: Support letters submitted by applicant.
Attachment N: Applicant's Revised Plans.
Attachment O: Applicant's Color Packets
Agenda Item # SC Pa2e # 15
A"1~7'ACI11~1ENT A
City of Boulder Vicinity Map
';'_ ``y.
~- -~ ~ - _ - - _., ~ y,~ _
; , ; , _
- --, -- ~ ~ ~ ;
_- ~ - -~- ,~ - --=~ : ~ ~ _
~ - ~ ~ ~
~ , - , ~" i -- -- _ ~ ~ -
' ~~- I
I . ' _._ -
~ ~ ~ ~
:~. ;
, ; ---
-- I
, _ ~-- i _ _ _
- --__.
_~ - ----~- ,
,..~ ~
~ ~ . ,_ _ __ ,_ _
l~;~. Bc-2 _ ~ ; ~ _~ ~ ---i - L
_ - - ~ Elder Av-, _
_ ~~ ~ ~ (~ l~! '
Subject Area
1215 Cedar Ave
9 }
_~ ~ i,.. ~s ~„ ~ -, _ ~ '"'~ '_
t- . ~ ~ x ` ~, ~i ~T~
i_ ~I •- o j, o~ i ~, __......- - i ~
~ ~ `" ~ ~ - ~ ` ^, ~ ~ `" ~ ~-
; ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~~"E `~~. ~ ~ _ ~
~ ' I
~~ ~; Cedar Av ~ ~
~ _~_ - --~ ~ ' >> I ~~ -1 I I-1 !~ '~
~ --- - ~--~~
-- _I ~ ; ! ~
~- ~- , _ ~-~-
--- ~- - ~- -- - R N1-
-_ .. , . ,z,;~,r,.~~,.~~, . . _ - "
Balsam Av - subjecr
P BT- 2 R H-2 -~
~ ~ , „ ' ~.~. , f;i~ .
i
Location: 1215 CedarAve
Project Name: Washingfon Vrllage
I Review Type: Sife & Use Reviews
Preliminary Plaf & Rezoning
Review Number: LUR2007-00016-17
; Applicant: Wonderland Hill Developrnent Co
~
NORTH
1 inch equals 300 feet
/
(~'ih~ nJ~ '~~~•~~~
Rut~lder ~y
Them(amuuonaepctea ontn~s map is pic.~~,a~,::
a59raphral reD~eSentatinn Only inr Gny ~JI 3~ ,,:~.~~-,
prwqes no warreniy e.pressed or ima~7 as i.~
IM xaracY and/a camplEteneSS af Ihe informat4n
wn~airea ncreon
~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~ '.~.~.L..~
ATTACHMENT B
Motion
On a motion by P. Shull, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board recommended
(6-0, E. Jones absent) that City Council approve the 2008-2013 CIP as submitted, the
CEAP plan as submitted and the projects suggested for design review process as
submitted. The board requested that the following discretionary items be forwarded to
City Council:
• The board asked staff to consider, and potentially include, the issue of
undergrounding the east-west power lines along Goose Creek in the Transit
Village Area Plan.
• The board encouraged staff to coordinate the timing of transportation capital
improvement planning with upcoming area planning efforts.
• The board concurred with the staff recommendation on the Carter Lake Pipeline.
• The board expressed their concern for maintenance of existing vegetation
(particularly trees) in the city's greenways whcn flood improvements are being
constructed.
• The board encouraged council to explore what can be done to ensure that parks
are contemporaneous with development (i.e., avoid what has happened in recent
developments sucR as Holiday and Dakota Ridge where residents had to wait a
long time before the parks were developed). This ties to/ implements the city's
community sustainability goals.
. The board asked for more information on Casey Middle School to determine if
the use of EET for the school should be tied to something related to preserving the
historic character-defining aspects of the existing building.
Recess
The board recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:05 p.m.
~ C. 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 square feet
of commerciaUof~ce 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).
Case Manager: Karl Guiler
Applicant: Wonderland Hill Development Co.
Owner: Boulder Valley School District
A. Sopher recused for this item.
Applicant Presentation
~~~~I~ge~ /3 ~ /
Jim Leach and John Barberry presented their proposal to the board and addressed
neighborhood concems and changes.
Steve Vosper, of Architecture Inc., presented design aspects of the project.
Staff Presentation
K. Guiler presented and answered questions about the following key issues:
1. Whether the Planning Board can support thc proposed BVCP land use designation
change and rezoning.
2. Whether the requested setback and minimum Sot size modifications in RH-2 and RH-
1 zones and the proposed height of 41 feet for the Broadway Building are appropriate.
3. Whether the proposed parking reduction of 52.5% is consistent with the required
criteria.
4. Whether the proposed project is consistent with the Site and Use Review criteria.
Public Hearing
George E. Gless, 2940 13«~ Street, Boulder
John Gless, 2940 13°i Street, Boulder; pooled time with the following:
Don B. Miller, 1305 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
Cindy Miller, 1305 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
John Rainey, 1302 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
Peter Castro, MD, 2910 17`~' Street, Boulder
Bryce Taylor, 2950 Washington Street, Boulder
Mary Davidson, 2955 13`h Street, Boulder
Cathie Williamson, 1315 Elder Avenue, Boulder
Christine Sweet, 1407 Cedar Avenuc, Boulder
Larry Baggett, 1407 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
Alice Jean Gless, 2940 13`h Street, Boulder
Amy Quinn, 2950 Broadway #1, Boulder
~ John Woodruff, 2948 15`h Street, Boulder
~ '~~"! Shannon Hardin, 1545 Dellwood Avenue, Boulder
+ Edith Blakeslee, Boulder
Bev Ragsdale, 2926 15`~' Street, Boulder
Mary Young, 1420 Alpine Avenue, Boulder
Kent Young, 1420 Alpine Avenue, Soulder
Joanne Wagoner, 1345 Cedaz Avenue, Boulder
Libby Brown, 2951 14`~' Street, Boulder
Tim Perkins, 3018 13`h Street, Boulder
Cate Armstrong, 3018 13`h Street, Boulder
Holly Kyed, 2945 13`h Street, Boulder
Nore Winter, 475 Poplar Avenue, Boulder
Paul Saporito, 2765 7~h Street, Boulder
Neshama Abraham Paiss, 1460 Quincc Avenue, Boulder
Stewart Farnell, 4540 McArthur Drive, Boulder
Pieter Taus, 2960 13°i Street, Boulder
Catherine Schweiger, 628 Maxwell Avenue, Boulder
David Williamson, 1315 Elder Avenue, Boulder
Mikki Rainey, 1302 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
Chris Halteman, 1331 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
Amx~lEem~ ~i~" ~Y~E# ~~~"
Tina Mueh, 1495 Zamia Avenue #5, Boulder
Denny Robertson, 1107 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
Stan Kyed, 2945 13`h Street, Boulder
Michael Hibner, 2950 Washington Street, Boulder; pooled time with Fran Brown
Fran Brown, 2950 Washington Street, Boulder
Faan Tone Lin, 1585 Dellwood Avenue, Boulder
Marlene Diamond, P.O. 4994, Boulder
Fred Rubin, 1329 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
Teddy Weverka, 1585 Dellwood Avenue, Boulder
Rachel Halteman, 1331 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
Tim Quinn, 2950 Broadway #l, Boulder, submitted photos to the board
Ashley Ortiz, 2950 Broadway #3, Boulder
Dante Ortiz, 2950 Broadway #3, Boulder
Laura Kupperman, 1450 Balsam Avenue, Boulder
Robert Stewart, 1450 Balsam Avenue, Boulder
Cathy Fluegel, 1368 Cedar.Avenue, Boulder
Win Nolin, 1324 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
Richard Cooper, 2955 13`h Street, Boulder; pooled time with Mary Davidson
Mary Davidson, 2955 13`~' Street, Boulder
James Marienthal, 1419 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
Paul Heller, 1321 Cedar Avenue, Boulder
Jerry Shapins, 1702 Mariposa Avenue, Boulder
Aaryn Kay, 2950 Broadway #2, Boulder
Elizabeth Jacobs, 2950 Broadway #8, Boulder
Bette L. Aadler, 104 Model T Road, Boulder
Don Bryan, 1526 Lodge Court, Boulder
David Carson, 3085 6`~' Street, Boulder
Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey Avenue, Boulder
Elizabeth Payton, 2605 5`" Street, Boulder
John Bizzarro, 545 Concord Avenue, Boulder
Steven Lewis, P.O. Box 1519, Boulder
Recess
The board recessed at 11:32 p.m. and reconvened at 1 1:40 p.m.
Board Discussion
R. Sosa said the neighborhood concems are signiftcant, especially the issue of
compatibility. He wanted the project to be fulfilled with all concems fairly taken into
consideration.
A. Shoemaker expressed concerns about parking, community benefit, affordable housing
and quality of design/materials. He added that the whole process needs further
discussion.
W. Johnson wanted to make sure that community voices are heard and agreed that
further discussion is needed on this project.
~~~ S~ ~~ ~" 3
B. Holicky expressed his appreciation to the community members and questioned how to
move forward with this project.
P. Shull said this might be the "wrong" project He said there is a need to determine how
to move forward with this project and suggested that the applicant create a project that is
better suited and more acceptabie to the community. He did not support the proposed the
FAR's.
The board agreed that they could not make a decision on this project tonight.
Jim Leach said at this point in the project, there are limitations on what changes can be
made. The developers can not completely rework the designs at this stage of development
due to financial constraints. He said they may be able to address some of the board's
concerns including: satisfying some of the parking changes, changing the design to be
more compatible and moving the trash enclosures and bicycle areas. He said not much
can be done about the affordable housing issuc. The location of the Broadway building is
limited due to parking lot grade and handicap accessibility.
Staff will work with the developer and return to the board with recommendations on
September ] 3. The following issues were discussed:
Parkin~
• increase the number of parking spaces, 50 - 55 spaces on the site seems reasonable
• consideration of underground parking
• parking reductions can not be permitted with the current numbers
Communitv benefiUaffordable housinQ
• the current proposal may not provide enough usable benefit to the community
• affordable housing should be included as a benefit
• meeting space is not enough of a benefit; consider adding a space with a unique
purpose (different from a recreation center, meeting space, etc.)
• create pocket parks
• move buildings
• create more open space
Compatibility of desim and flow of space/ pedestrian permeabilitv
• the duplexes (north, east buildings) are not architecturally compatible
• the design of the Broadway bui(ding is more acceptable
• there should be some access(view into the Broadway building complex from
Broadway
FAR
• the FAR in the low density zone may need to be dropped to .5
• if the FAR goes over a certain size, the whole design must be approved by Planning
Board
Trash enclosures/bicvcle areas
~,~~ s~ ~# ~ -y
• needs a screen wall
• should be moved to a different location
Impact of north building on Red Arrow Town Homes
• impacts the quality of life for the residents
• the fa~ade of the north building is too high and impacts solar access
Oualitv of building desi~
• interior courtyard facades
Duplex setback on Cedar Avenue
• needs to be greater
Open space (southwest corner)
13~h SYreet side houses
• blocks current neighborhood from integrating with new building
Landmarks re-evaluation
• relocate Broadway building south because of view corridor
Use of external resources Bell Tower~
The followine ooints of discussion /sueeestions were identified bv the board for the next
public hearinQ:
1. Enhance sensitivity and compatibility with all adjacent residences to the north.
• Move Broadway Building away (south) from north property line or
shorten the building and/ or move the second and third stories farther
back-strongly reduce the solar impacts to the Red Arrow Apartments
. Improve the treatment of the north building to be less imposing and more
neighborly
• Move bike structure and trash enclosure to low impacUappropriate
locations and build privacy wall between site and single-family property
along 13th.
2. Increase permeability into the site, either by breaking up Broadway Building or at
least creating the perception of entry to the interior courtyard space from
Broadway.
3. Need to better understand the community benefit that's being proposed related to
affordable housing.
4. Submit more information regarding development of the single-family lots and
create a better transition to the residences to the east. Options include lowering
the proposed maximum FAR, stipulating building footprints and stories
(including out -buildings), providing sketches of the design of homes in line with
guidelines. Demonstrate how the project will appropriately transition to
neighborhood, which might include:
~~p ~A' (~gp# C~~ ~
• Massing study.
• Floor area calculations.
Preliminary sketches of the design of homes in line with guidelines and
demonstrating neighborhood compatibility.
5. The duplex is the beginning of the transition to the adjacent neighborhood. Move
duplex back away (north) from Cedar Avenue right-of-way.
6. Work on building architecture to address Landmarks concerns and create more
compatibility with school and neighborhood. Contrasting architecture acceptable,
but should be complementary and attractive with more traditional materials and
references.
Extent of proposed parking reduction is not justified. Attempt a target of closer
to 55 on-site parking spaces for residential uses. Parking for commercial should
also be compliant. Information on seating for coffee shop should be clarified or
coffee shop deleted.
Motion
On a motion by P. Shull, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board continued (5-0
E. Jones absent, A. Sopher recused) Site Review, Use Review and Preliminary Plat
#LUR2007-00016 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Change/Reaoning
#LUR2007-00017 for the Washington Village project located at 1215 Cedar Avenue, to
the September 13, 2007 Planning Board meeting.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
Staff gave the board an update on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Staff gave the board an update on the July 19th Hogan Pancost neighborhood meeting.
Planning Board requested to see the plans for Hogan Pancost in advance, if possible.
DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at I: 27 a.m.
~da Il~n & ~~ F~e ~ ~' G~^
ATTACHMENT C
1~~~
_~
YVonderland
WONOERIAND HILL OEVELOPMENT CO
Augus[ 24, 2007
To: Karl Guiler, Case Manager, City of Boulder
From: Jim Leach, Jonathan Barbieri and Laurel Fanning, for Wonderland Hill Development
Company
RE: Response to Planning Board direction to applicant regarding Washington Village
July 19, 2007 Site and Use Review Continuance LUR2007-00016 and LUR2007-00017
Karl,
Thank you for your patience and tenacity in helping us work through the complex issues we all face on
the Washington V illage project. Please find with this memo our overview of the project to date, as well
as our responses and proposed solutions to the seven direc[ives given by planning board on July 19, 2007.
I. BackQround:
Given the intensity of views conceming this proposed development, we thought it would be helpful to
step back and briefly provide an overview of the process and development to date.
The land use for this site was determined through an elaborate process established between the City of
Bouider and the Boulder Valley School District. At that initial stage, neither of those rivo parties wished
to create a public park. The School Board was fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to the residents of
Boulder by selling an asset. They did not create any development parameters around the sale, such as
historic preservation, but did include specific financial parameters to help them maximize their retum.
The City, in their interest to both preserve the school as an historic building and to have a development
which could provide benefit to the larger Boulder community, did create parameters by including these in
an RFQ and an RFP. The RFP process was long and demanding. [t included ongoing review by a
Community Review Panel which me[ seven times, (and which had neighborhood representation),
Landmarks, Ihe Planning Board and City Council. At all of these hearings, there was time for public
comment and a fair amount was given. The City Council approved the Wonderland Hill proposai in
September, 2006.
Throughout this process and after, Wonderland Hill held numerous meetings with neighbors. What has
evolved is frustration by all and a clear sense from the neighbors Ihat they are not being heard. We feel
that we have heard them and we have made a number of adjustments to the design of the project based on
their feedback, along with that of Landmarks and the Pianning Board. What is more accurate is that the
neighbors are not interested in the land use process crea[ed for this site, nor are they interested in the high
density zonc inherent to this site. They wish much less densiry, much greater open space and essentially
for the site to retain much of the park character they have enjoyed while it has been a school.
~~~ s~ ~~ C / 1
Washington Village - Applicant Response to Planning Board direc6ves of 7-19-07
Wonderland Hili and the neighbors are looking at different worlds with different expectations. We know
what the neighbors want, however, we cannot have a financially viable project, wherein we create a
cohousing community, include a large amount of public space, and still completely fulfill all ofthe
neighbors' wishes.
We have responded to their concems by:
1. Reducing Ihe impact on [he Red Arrow units
• reducing the roof line of the North Building
• moving back the second floor of the Broadway building
Since the last Planning Board hearing:
• pushing the entire Broadway building further south 4'
• enhancing the greenspace on the northwest and north side of the site.
2. Maintaining a very generous amount of common open space for a site such as this, which is way
beyond the requirements (see tabfe at the end of this memo)
3. Planning to save almost all trees on the site
4. Stepping back the setbacks on the houses that will be located on 13th street to protect existing
trees, creating more green space along the street than wfiat wou{d normally be required
5. Seeking ways to have the six lots along 13`h street stay in character with the neighborhood with
additional revisions to proposed FARs, and further development of design guidelines
6. Moving the parking underground and providing ali necessary parking on site.
7. Placing parameters around the rype of commercial businesses that can occur there
8. Including the name "Washington" in the cohousing community name (a number of people
suggested this including a member of [he Community Review Panel).
9. Moving the Rash location and bike s[orage
10. Enhancing the entry points to the si'te to make them more inviting to the surrounding neighbors
1 1. Addressing all of the directives requested at the last Planning Board hearing (see below)
II.Our Responses aud Praposed Solutions to the 7 Directives:
1. Enhance sensitivity and compatibility with all adjacent residences to the north.
a. Move Broadway Building away (south) from north property line or shorten the building
and/or move the second and third stories farther back- strongly reduce the solar impacts to the
Red Arrow Apartments.
Our response:
1~'7~ile the above (a.) is a general summary statement by staff that is based on discussion from
the Plannine Boazd meeting, we reYer to the more precise statement made by board member
Shull, who said to move the building south, and that he woufd be happy with 4' (in listening
to the tape, this is the only specific statement actually made on this topic).
~Ve have indeed been able to move the Broadway building further south 4'. We explored
moving it tiuther, but encountered limitations working with elevators and stairs that connect
to the basement and its drive path and found =1~ is the maximum distance that we could move
the buildine without compromisin~ light soine to the First Floor affordable units. That is
~~ hat would occur if the stair and elevator had to be relocated to the south side of the
under~round easUwest drive aisle. By reduci~Q the area of the Broadway Building by t80sf (4's
single srory building width) at the south znd, we have accomplished this wi[hout affecting the existine
Age~da Ite~ #~/~ ptige g C'~
Washington Village - Applicant Response to Planning Board directives of 7-19-07
Landmark Boundary.
Solar impacts:
We have continually worked on the solar impact on Red Arrow of both the Broadway and
North buildings since the 6rs[ concept review, and we met again with the Red Arrow residents on 7-
31-07 to discuss the issue further.
The RH-2 zone has an allowable solar fence of 25 feet at the property line. In this situation, the Red
Arrow buildings are unusually close to the property line. If we were to do what is allowed "by rigltt"
in the zone, i[ would completely shade [he roof rops of the Red Arrow buildings during much of [he
win[er, thus preciuding the use of rooY top solar collectors on the Red Arrow buildings. We
recognized this impact and have designed and focated our buildings to a lower solar fence that not
only allows full year-round sun on the roofs of the Red Arrow bui(dings, but with the current change
in the Broadway building, this will allow year-round solar access to all 2"d floor windows in the Red
Arrow complex.
As you will see on [he attached drawings of both the Broadway and North buildings, we have worked
on stepping back these buildings to allow as much solar esposure as reasonably possible for the Red
Arrow residents, thus reducing our impact anywhere from a minimum of T-4" to a maximum 14'-6"
solar fence on the Broadway building and 8'-6" to l4'-6" on the north building: This is almost
meeting the requirements of what is altowed for a solar fence in a typical single family
residential zone (12 feet). This will also provide Red Arrow solar exposure to some first floor
windows (those facing north buildine) during a ~ood portion ofthe year. Overall, wi[h•the constraints
we have on the site and the project, we feel we have provided [he best solution we can.
Please note [ha[ because of the window designs and locations on Red Arrow buildings a lower solar
fence than what we have now provided gives little, if any, additional solar access to the glazing on
Red Arrow. Overhangs and window locations on the Red Arrow buildings are such that the solar
access is blocked by the buildings themselves to the point where we would have to move our
Washing[on V illage buildings an additional 16.~ feet or more and lower the solar fence to an
unreasonable height of b fee[ to get any signiftcant additional solar into the Red Arrow buildings.
b. Improve the treatment of the north building to be less imposing and more neighborly.
Our response:
The porches on the North buildine ~vill be attrac[ively articulated, usine wooden trellises and plants
and will be detailed in a manner that is similar ro the entry porticos along the Broadway stoops, to
create as pleasant a view as possible for the neigfibors to the nonh.
In addition, we have better defined and articulated an entry [o invite those coming in from the
northwest corner of the site into the courtyard via an attractive landscaped wa(kway [hat starts at the
north edge of the Broadway building and then turns south ro enter the courtyard between the
Broadway and North buildin~. We are also willing to consider (assuming the support ofthe Red
Arrow neighbors) ex[ending this walkway afong the north property to go between the Red Arrow
buildings and our North building and connect to the drive!ailey way [hat is at the east edge of the
cohousing site. This would provide attrac[ive northwes[ to southeast pedestrian access through [he
site from Broadway to Cedar. We znvision the drive/alle} way to be ~~ell landscaped with living
decks, studios over oara~es and carports, making it an attractive pedestrian way.
~I~m~~~/f p~~ C-3
Washington Village - Applicant Response to Planning Board directives of 7-19-07
c. Move bike structure and [rash enclosure to low impacUappropriate locations and build
privacy wali between site and single-family property along 13th.
Our response:
You will find that we have completely removed the trash/bike enclosure from the north end of the
driveway, to be replaced solely with a fence or other wall type structure to shield headlights from cars
using the alley.
The trash is now integra[ed into each of the 4-plexes tha[ now have replaced the earlier 6-plex and
duplex. [t will be both covered and enclosed.
The bike storage has now been dispersed throughout the site. Some are now located in the garage,
some on the north side of the Broadway building, some between the two East Buiidings and some
next to the bus stop in front of the Broadway building. We have options for some additional spaces if
needed.
2. Increase permeability into the site, either by breaking up Broadway Building or at least creating
the perception of entry to the interior courtyard space from Broadway.
Our response:
Since the planning board hearing, we have further developed [he numerous enhy points to [he cour[yard
to show how [hey will invite people into the site. We have developed vignette sketches to illustrate this
tha[ will be included in the Planning Board packets. These include a ~arden gate/portico entry at the
northern side of the Broadway Building, a correspondin~ gateway leadin~ between and linking the
Broadway Building and the North Buildine, and a similar gateway/portico between the Library Buildin~
and sou[hernmost four-plex, entered from Cedar Avenue. All of these gateways are linked by a
continuous path tha[ meanders through the central Commons Garden. 7~he description of the waikway and
entryway at the northwes[ edge of the site is described in the response to the North building redesign
above.
We also examined the possibility of creating a passageway through the first floor of the Broadway
building, but this only seemed to create further issues around security (becoming a shelter for people a[
night, etc.) and only increased [he economic burden by reducing the amount of commerciai space
available.
3. Need to better understand the community benefit thaYs being proposed related to affordable
housing.
Our response:
While this does not appear to be a land use/planning board issue, ~ve have fon~arded to Planning Board
members the City Manager's WIP of Aueust 7[h which gives an escellent summary of the community
benefiu and how it relates to the RFP requirements. We will leave it ro City staffto further esplain how
our proposal meeu the intent of the MOC1 benveen the school district and the City. We ask that staff
clarify this, to the ex.ent appropriate, directly with the Board. We wiil, of course, be available to
supplement any discussion that may need to occur be}ond staffs input.
~4~~Ini ~' R~e# ('' ~/
Washingtou Village - Applicant Response to Planning Board directives of 7-19-07
4. Submit more information regarding development of the single-family lots and create a better
transition to the residences to the east. Options include lowering the proposed maximum FAR,
stipulating building footprints and stories (including out-buildings), providing sketches of the
design of homes in line with guidelines. Demonstrate how t6e project will appropriately transirion
to the neighborhood, which might include:
Massing study - please see the massing studies (all to be included in the Pfanning Board packets)
created for the single-family lots.
Preliminary sketches of the design of homes in line with guidelines and demonstrating
neighbor6ood compatibility - please see massing studies and vignette showing the block as a
whole, as well as the Powerpoint slides showing photos of compatible homes in the neighborhood
as examples of acceptable design (all to be incWded in [he Planning Board packet). [n addition,
please see the attached newly revised Design Guidelines, as they highiight the importance of
quality of design for new homes to fit into the neighborhood.
Floor area calculations
Lots 2-6:
We propose Lots 2-6 to have a maximum .6 FAR. This would be achieved through
variety in the allocation of square footage between the single-family residence and its
detached garage with optional studio above, under the foilowing maximum limitations:
Total building envelope (approximate and rounded): 3600 sq. ft. maximum.
Within that total envelope, the area could be distributed amongst residence, gazage and
studio, but not to exceed
• Two story single-family residence: Up to 2900 sq. ft. maximum.
• Detached garage: Up to 500 sq. ft. maximum.
• Studio above garage: Up to 3~0 sq. ft. maximum.
As long as the total of the three does not exceed the maximum FAR.
These limitations provide for a natural variety that gives flexibility to the
owner/developer. For example, a 2750 sq. fr. residence could have an 850 sq. fr.
garage/studio, while a 2900 sq. fr. residence would be limited to a 700 sq. fr.
garage/studio, etc.
Lot 7:
Due to the unique configuration of the corner Lot 7, with its proscribed outlot, we
propose a maximum .6~ FAR which will be required ro achieve a buildable lot with
similar parameters as the others. This lot lends itself to the additional option of an
attached oarage, resulting in a marimum 3600 sq. ft. two story residence with gazage
included.
ti~ntla Itern Y S~" P~e # C~ S
Washington Village - Applicant Response to Planning Board directives of 7-19-07
At this writing, the following actual lot calculations apply:
Lot Lot Area (SF~ Max. FAR Allowable total envelooe SF
2 6,017.78 .6 3,610
3 5,954.52 .6 3,573
4 5,955.13 .6 3,573
5 5,95~.73 .6 3,573
6 5,956.33 .6 3,~74
7 5,574.66 .65 3,623
At this time, it is the intent of Wonderland Hill to design and build the homes on the lots on 13
Street and not to sell them to individual builders to develop spec homes.
5. The duplex is the beginning of the transitioo to the adjacent neighborhood. Move duptex back
away (north) from Cedar Avenue right-of-way. ~
Our respanse:
This is no longer an issue due to the fact that we have now replaced the duplex and the east building (6-
plex) with two 4-plexes that meet the required 12 foot setback on Cedar. In addition we have a set back
of 16 fee[ for any portion of Ihe building above one story.
6. Work on building architecture to address Landmarks concerus and create more compatibility
with school and neighborhood. Contrasting architecture acceptable, but should be complementary
and attractive with more traditional materials and references.
Our respanse:
As was mentioned in previous submittals and at planning board, the Broadway building has already
under~one development of the architectural detailing to show its compatibility with the school building.
The remaining concerns were more with the interior buildings. Please see the building elevations and (11
x 17) color and marerials studies provided (to be included in the Planning Board packets) tha[ will
illustrate how all buildings on the site no~v respond to [his issue.
In general, the North building and East building (now two four-plexes) have incorporated more of the
feelin~ of the Broadway buiiding into [heir design. Specifically, we have added brick bases that are
similar to both the Broadway building and the historic school structure; and, like the Broad~vay building,
we have added the look and feel of the (to be) reconstructed school entry portico to all of the building
entry points. These also tie-in with the garden ~ateways, which are lighter, more trellis-like versions of
the same portico elements.
~~I~ ~~ ~~~
Washington Village - Applicant Response to Planning Board directives of 7-19-07
7. Extent of proposed parking reduction is not justified. Attempt a target of closer to 55 on-site
parking spaces for residential uses. Parking for commercial should also be compliant Informafion
on seating for coffee shop should be clarified or coffee shop deleted.
Our response:
By making a very significant and complicated change to the site building layout at this late stage, we feel
we have come up with a sound solution for parking while retaining the communiry-focused design. The
previous site plan presented at the July 19, 2007 hearing showed 43 spaces for residential and 23 for
commercial in the RH-2 zone.
We have since replaced the east building (6-plex) and the duplex with two 4-plexes that each provide for
"tuck-under" parking in each building, making the end unit parking into garages and the center units into
carport-style. Previously, for the 6-plex and duplex combined, we had provided 7 spaces. By providing
this parking along the alley in the 4-plexes, we will instead be able to provide 16 spaces, a gain of 9
spaces, or a total of 52 spaces overall for the multi-family residential, which is in the range of what has
been asked for by Planning Boazd. In addition, the reduction of commerciaUoffice space (associated with
the shifting of the Broadway Building to the south) puu the count on the "high side" of 52.
The size of the coffee shop/gathering place at the south end of the Broadway building has been reduced to
500-750-sq. ft., depending on the amount of non-customer space that will be needed. At best, this will
likely be a small coffee bar to buy a beverage on the go with some outdoor tables. It will definitely be
pedestrian focused for residents and neighbors using the bus and walking along Broadway.
Additional Information regarding Open Space Calculations:
These calculations illustratejust how much open space we are providing on the site:
Washington Village Open Space - Multifamily Site
Per 9-13-07 Plans
% of % of
Total Site Area
Minimum Open Space
Required
Total Common OS in Plan
Total Private OS - Decks
& Patios
Total OS
OS in Landmark Boundary
OS on North Side (Red
Arrow)
OS in Center CouR Yard
CJnderground Parking Area
Sq. Ft. Total Minimum
88,633 100%
17,727 20% 100%
42.539 48% 240%
9,613 11% 54°/a
j2,1~7 59% 294%
16,386 19% 95%
5,079 6% 29%
19,830 ZZ% 112%
20,100 2~%
~Cia ltea~ ~ ~~' i~e# C' ~
Washington Village - Applicant Response to Planaing Board directives of'7-19-07
Summary:
We feel that we have heazd what the staff; planning board and neighbors have had to say about these
issues, and we have responded appropriately to their concems. No new project in an infill neighborhood
could ever meet ail the desires and needs of afl the stakeholders, but we feel we have made every effort to
mitigate the negative impacts as best we or any other developer could with the constraints put upon us.
Please also see the attached comments from Steve Tuck, Senior Planner for the Ciry of Colorado Springs,
and an article from the Colorado Springs Gazette describing the evolution of our Casa Verde Commons
cohousing community there. It, too, was an infill neighborhood, and we encountered much initial
neighborhood opposition, but it has proven to be a very successful project for the neighborhood.
We hope that we can now start to focus on the many positive impacts that this project will have. We look
forward to hearin~ your comments as well as having a productive interaction with the Planning Board at
the September 13 hearing. If there is anything else you need from us, please do not hesitate to call or
write.
~;~+dafiesnri ~~" P~e~~
Comments From Steve Tuck, neighbor of Casa Verde Commons and
City Planner for City of Colorado Springs:
To: City of Boulder
Planning Board, City Council and City Staff
I have had the unique opportunity to experience Wonderland Hill's Casa Verde
Cohousing project both as the review planner for the City of Colorado Springs and as an
adjacent neighbor. My home is directly across the street from the mixed use
(commercial/residential) portion of the project. The project is within a developed
neighborhood consisting primarily of single-family residences. The cohousing site
consisted of 4.72 acres and was previously developed with commercial greenhouses. The
cohousing project included 34 dwelling units in duplex and 4-plex structures, 4 single-
family lots and a 6,000 square-foot, 2-story, mixed use building with 2 dwelling units and
approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial (2,000 square feet is used as a coffee
shop). The single-family lots and the mixed use building were not developed as part of
cohousing.
Many of the neighbors were initially skeptical of the project and voiced opposition at the
public meetings. As the City staff planner I viewed the project as an opportunity for a
unique and compatible redevelopment within a traditional style neighborhood. The
cohousing units have been completed approximately 3 years and the mi:ced use building
for about 1 year. Overall the project has exceeded my expectations. Traffic fears have not
been realized, the coffee shop has become a gathering place and focal point within the
neighborhood, and the new residents and development have helped to reenergize an older
neighborhood.
It appears the project proposed by Wonderland Hill in Boulder is quite similar in size and
scale to Casa Verde Commons. While neighborhood change did result with the project,
the change has been beneficial. The initial skepticism has been replaced with acceptance
and the neighbors have embraced the project as a welcome addition to the Patty Jewett
nei~hborhood.
If you have questions I would be glad to discuss the project and its impacts in more
detail.
Sincerely,
Ste~e Tuck
Senior Planner
City of Colorado Springs Planning Department
Aaenda ftem M ~~" ~e #~.
Article from Colorado Springs Gazette:
Neighbors savor new businesses, workshop after fight over project
By BILL VOGRIN THE GAZETTE
March 28, 2007 - I: lOAM
When Amy and Mazk Kalmus opened their new Dog Tooth Coffee shop a few weeks ago
in the Patty Jewett neighborhood, they had no idea of the long history of controversy
surrounding their storefront.
They knew they wanted to live in Colorado Springs where Amy grew up and run a small,
neighborhood business. A coffee shop was a natural extension of the coffeeroasting
business they had started in Austin, Texas, and still operate online.
"Our goal was to do something and be part of a community," Amy said. "[ grew up in
this neighborhood. When we decided to leave Austin a year ago, we came here to look
around.
"We called the city and heazd about this property. We ended up buying a house down the
street and starting our coffee shop. We really didn't know about all the controversy."
Many of their customers remember, even those who six yeazs ago fought the idea of a
retail/apartment building that now stands at the corner of Corona and Columbia streets
alons Shooks Run Trail.
Funny thing. It seems most have changed their minds and aze embracing Dog Tooth, the
new Milan Hair Design salon and the Arts Club workshop that occupy the new building,
which is owned by Phil and Julie Foster, who live in an apartment above the shops.
"We're real happy with the results," said Brian Hubel, who lives two doors south of Dog
Tooth on Corona in a house he and his wife, Kathy, have expanded and remodeled.
`My wife really likes the coffee shop," Hubel said. `'We have no complaints at alL°
That wasn't the case in 2000, when the building was proposed as part of Casa Verde
Commons - a cohousing neighborhood development on d acres north of downtown. The
site was the longtime home of the Pikes Peak Greenhouse.
Many neighbors opposed the idea of Casa Verde with its 1~ large, t~vo-story homes - 13
duplexes and two quads - on the property with a community building. Some thought the
Casa Verde design created a feelin~ the newcomers literally had their backs to the
existin~ neighborhood. ~
Others didn't like concessions from the city such as permitting east-bordering Royer
Street to be more narrow than typically allowed and put new houses too close to the
street, blocking the oldtimers' mountain views.
And everyone, it seemed, opposed the proposal to include commercial space on the
comer of Corona and Columbia with apartments above.
In October 2000, the city Planning Commission received dozens of letters of protest from
people like the Hubels.
"Absolurely not," the Hubels wTOte in response to a city survey. "We are very concerned.
We do not want commercial space on the propem•."
Their feelines were echoed by residents up and down the century-old, tree-lined streets
near Pattv Jewett Golf Course.
Hubel said he feared the new building would mirror an old ~as station directly across
i~t~n~aite~fl s/~ _s'~#~~
Article from Colorado Springs Gazette, ConYd:
Corona where a collection of old cars and boats mars the neighborhood.
"We had no idea what was going in," Hubel said of the cohousing project. "We already
have a commercial property across the street that is extremely rundown. We were worried
about something like that happening again."
Diana Hall also opposed the project. Not anymore. She likes the coffee shop and is
arixious for its menu to expand to include gelato and lunch.
"It could have been a lot worse," Hall said. "Actually, the cohousing has been good. It's
not a wild neighborhood down there. It's mostly families. They aze real nice people.
"And the businesses are lowimpact on the neighborhood."
Pazking can be a problem, she said. Still, she was glad when Dog Tooth added Sunday
hours.
Tums out it's not bad having a coffee shop right next to the populaz Shooks Run Trail.
Especially since Dog Tooth encourages people to stop by with their pets - and keeps a
container of dog ueats on the counter.
"I take my dog there," Hall said. "I love it. That's what our neighborhood is about.
People out walking with their dogs. It encourages more people to stop."
That's exactly what is happening. Neighborhood kids on their way to school have
discovered thejoys of hot chocolate and scones. Business people use it as a friendly place
to meet clients. Others show up with laptops to take advantage of its quiet comers, its
patio and free WiFi Internet connection.
A typical customer is Britt Anderson, who stopped by Tuesday with her little black dog,
Kelly, in tow.
"I'm really pleased to have a coffee shop within walking distance," she said.
Though she's still not a huge fan of Gasa Verde - big, ugly buildings, as she calls them
- Anderson and Kelly stop by Dog Tooth a couple days a week.
"I love the coffee shop," she said.
~~a~s~#~~~ C-1/
ATTACHMENT D
~0~
DRAFT
Washington Village
Proposed Design Guidelines
And
Design Review and Approval Process
for the
Single Family Homes along 13`h Street
Revised: 8-24-07 Revision areas shown in italics
The intent of the Design Review and Approval Process is to promote and ensure a high
level of design quality and compatibility with 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 oider (over SOyears old)
one and two story homes, some 1960s era production brick ranch type homes, some new
two 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
• BuildingArticulntion
• Architec[ural Character
• Front Entry
• Roof Form
• Building Height
• Windows
• Building Materials
• Accessorv Structures
• Landscaping
Enforcement of Design Guidelines:
Desi~n quality will be maintained throueh a review and approval process administered by
a Design Revie~v Committee. This committee will be established and operate through the
Master Home Owners Association (HOA) for the Washineton Villaee development. For
at~~t~~~m ~ SG~ ~ge~ > ' ~
DRAFT Design Guidelines for Single Family Lots at Washington Village 8-24-07
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.
Generai 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 Bu[k:
Although design qualiry 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.
. Design elements that will 5e promoted to affect bulk and massing include: detached
garages that incorporate carriage/studio space above, generous porches and
sunspaces.
Guide[ines:
a. FAR jor the single family lots wil! be determined using the following:
Lots Z-6 to have a marimum .6 FAR. This would be achieved tl:rough variety
in 1/:e allocation of square footage between the single family residence and its
detached garage with optiona! studio above, under tfte following maximum
(imitations:
Total building enve[ope (approximate and rounded as an e.rample): 3600 sq. jt.
mr~rimum.
Witkin that tota! envelope, tlre area could be distributed amongst residence,
garaae and studio, but not to exceed
• Twa story single famify residence: Up to 2900 sq. ft. maximum.
• Detached garage: Up to 500 sq. ft, maximum.
• Sludio above garage: Up to 350 sq. jt. maximum.
As lon~ as tlre tota! of tlie tlrree r/oes not exceed tlie maximum FAR.
T/tese limitations provide jor a natura/ variety tleat gives fl~ribility to the
oruner/developer. Far example, a 1750 sq. jt. residence could lrave an 850 sq. jt.
~arage/studio, while a 2900 sq. ft. residence would be limited to a 700 sq. ft.
gnra~e/studio, etc.
Lot 7: Due to the unique co~:figuration of t/te corner Lot 7, wit/r its proscribed
outlot, this !ot ro meet a marimum .65 F,4R wlrich wil! be required to achieve a
buildab[e !ot witl: similar parameters as t/:e ot/:ers. This !ot lends itself to tlre
additinna! option of an anached ~ara~e, resu[ting in a marimum 3600 sq. ft.
two story ~esidence wit/r garage included.
~~a Hem A ~~ ~ ~~,
DRAFT Design Guidelines for Single Family Lots at Washiugton Village 8-2A-07
At this writing, the following actual lot calculations apply:
Lot Lat Area (SF) Ma.z FAR Allowable tota[ enve[ope SF
2 6,017.78 .6 3,610
3 5,954.52 .6 3,573
4 5,955.13 .6 3,573
5 5,955.73 .6 3,573
6 5,956.33 .6 3,574
7 5,574.66 .65 3,613
b. Distribution of mass between the first and second Jloors oj a[! structures wi[! be
determined by [he jollowing proportion. For the two story main residence or the
garage with studio above, there wi[l be a maximum a[lowable 75% ratio between the
frst Jloor square footage (not including covered porches) and the sma[ler second Jloor
(not inc[uding any uncovered ba[conies).
2. Yard Setbacks
It is generally preferred that a new building fit within the range of established setbacks
that occur. However, for this site, upon which covenants aze piaced 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 family lots:
,
FRONTYARD SETBACK FOR I& 2 STORY BUILD[NG MASSES (for Lots 2& 3j 25.0'
FRONTYARD SETBACK FOR 1& 2 STORY BUILDING MASSES (for Lots 4, 5, 6& 7) 35.0'
INTERIOR SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL & ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (for Lot 2)
MiNiMUM SOUTH SIDEYARD SETBACK I~.O' less north sideyard setback
MINIMUM NORTH SIDEYARD SETBACK ~.0'
CUMULATIVE SIDEYARD SETBACKS 1~.0'
iNTERIOR SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL & ACCESSORY BU[LDINGS (for Lots 3, 4, 5& 6)
MiN1MUM SOUTH SIDEYARD SETBACK I~.0' less north sideyard setback
MINIMUM NORTH SIDEYARD SETBACK 5.0'
CUMULATIVE SIDEYARD SETBACKS 15.0'
INTERIOR SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL & ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (for Lot 7)
MINIMUM SOUTH SIDEYARD SETBACK O.S (plus 12.0' Outlot)
MINIMUM NORTH SIDEYARD SETBACK ~.0'
MINIMUM S[DEYARD SETBACK FROM CEDAR AVENUE 12.5'
PRIVATE ALLEY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES & ACCESSORY BLDGS
REARYARD SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL BUILD[NGS 35.0'
REARYARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY BCILDINGS 4.0'
MAXiMUM BUILDI~IG HEIGHT FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDPJGS :5.0'
b1AXIMUYI BUILDING HEIGHT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDMGS 20.0'
kg~~a kem # S~ ~e ~ ~~3
Di2AF'I' Design Guidelines for Single Family Lots at Washington Village 8-24-07
MINIMUM D[STANCE BETWEEN PRINC[PAL & ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 6.0'
(with allowable covered link per City Guidelines)
ALL SINGLE FAM[LY RESIDENCE PARKING N(LJST BE ACCESSED FROM THE ALLEY
Guideline:
a. W6en constructing a new building, locate it based upon the setbacks and
conditions established above.
3. BuildingArticu[ation:
An articulation is the connection of an open porch to the building, a dormer jacing the
street, a well-defined entry element, a horizontal offset of at least 2 feet in the principal
building wall for a minimum 4 feet in width, or a change in the height offront elevation
rooJlines by at [east one story.
Guidelines:
a. The primary bui[ding e[evation fowards the street needs at least one articulation or
change in p[ane. The primary bui[ding e[evation should not have more than three
articulations, un[ess approved by the design review committee.
b. The side elevation oJtke !ot facing tiie street is subject to the articulation
requirements for the primary fa~ade of that bui[ding.
c. A minimum of one articulation is required along each side building elevation.
Acceptable articu[ations include a 1 foot offset jor a minimum of 4 feet in widtlr, a
change in height of one story, a side or rear porch with a minimum leneth af 6feet, or
a detached garage.
4. Architectural Character
A variety of forms, materials and details reflect the diversity of the neighborhood around
Washington Elementazy 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.
~. Front Entry
Ivlost buildin~s in the neighborhood are oriented to the street. The front wall plane of the
building includes a Yront entry that is visible from the street. The majority of front entries
are composed of a Yront door that is sheltered by a porch or stoop. A primary entry that is
hgende tf~ # s~ i~ #/~' ~'
DRAFT Design Guideliaes for Single Family Lots at Washington Village 8-24-07
clearly visible from the street helps to establish a sense of scale and also 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 properry line is
required.
. Covered front porches aze encouraged and may extend into the front yazd setback.
6. Roof Form
Variation in roof form helps to give a sense of scale to a building. The intent is to
encourage roofforms that re~lect new design approaches, but which are compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood
Guidelines:
a. Principa! roofs sha[I be gable or hip, but other roof types are acceptable (/~or
erample ijaccommodating solar pane[s) if approved by the design review committee.
b. Shed roofs are permitted only as secondary roofs when attached to a vertica! wall.
c. The alternating placement of 1-1/l story a~:d 2-story bui[ding masses on adjacent
lots is strongly encouraged.
d. Each building sltould strive to present one primary roof form. Secondary roofs
include porclt roojs, dormers, bays, cross gab[es and l:ips.
e. The arrangement of different roof jorms, such as primary front gab[e alternating
with primary side gable or primary hip roof, is hig/:ly encouraged.
f. Secondary roojslopes can 6e as s/rallow as 3:12.
7. 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
buildin~s, while accommodating some inerease in actual building heights above those
seen traditionally in older homes in the neiehborhood. This can generally be achieved by
keeping the hei~ht of the buildine wail relatively low. In some azeas, including a floor in
a slopine roof form is a[echnique that reduces building height while still providing
Yunctional space.
~~
r~nenAaltea# i'~j2#~.~„me.e
DRAF"I' Design Guidelines for Single Family Lots at Washington Village 8-24-07
Guidetine:
a. Consider incorporating roof forms that keep the building in scale with the
neighborhood.
b. Building heights shall not esceed those listed in the schedule above.
8. Windows
Windows give scale to buildings and provide visuai interest 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
the neighborhood.
. Consider placing windows to provide passive solar exposure.
. 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 5'-6" to allow
privacy for the neighbor to the north.
9. Building Materials
Building materials vary throughout [he nei~hborhood. Use traditional or new building
materials that reflect the buildin~ chazacter found in the neighborhood.
Guideline:
a. Use buildiag materials that contribute ro the sense of scale on the block.
• Materials that aze made of components that convey a sense of scale are prefened.
Examples are lap siding (oT wood or synthetic materials), brick and stone.
b. Use building materials to reduce the perceived sca-e 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.
c. It is encouraged that the variety oJ wall surface building materials be limited to ane
or two major c/ioices and perhaps one minor nccent by approvaL
~~n~a~em~ ~A- w~~ ~ ~
DRAFT Design Guidelines for Single Family Lots at Washington Village 8-24-07
10. Accessory Structures
Traditionally, accessory structures such as sheds and garages, were subordinate in scale
and chazacter 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 pazking and storage is encouraged, because doing so will help to reduce the
perception of the overall mass of building on the site.
Guideline:
a. Locate an accessory structure to the rear of the lot.
• Locate an accessory structure at the rear of the lot and off of the rear alley access per
set back requirements listed above.
. Consider placing some of the allowable floor area in a carriage/studio space above a
detached gazage.
11. Landscape
A~faintaining a sense of green space is an objective. In general, a minimum of 60-70% of
the area not given to drives, shoa~ld be plant material, allowing for some attractive
masonry (stone or concrete) walkways and patios. The plant material may include
grasses, ground covers, shrubs, trees and other vegetatron.
Guideline:
a. The use of draught-tolerant plantings in front setback is encouraged.
b. Drainage paths should be maintained per the site engineering and should be
landscaped appropriately.
A~ratxlalte~~ ~l~ ~~_? "~
ATTACHMENT E
.~ ~ /
1~~~
~\
YVonderland
WON~ERIANOHILL~EVELOPMENTCO
TRANSMITTAL
August 31, 2U07
TO: Karl Guiler, City of Boulder
FM: Laurel Fanning, Applicant, Wonderland Hill Dev. Co.
RE: Washington Village sets for Planning Board, City Council et al
Enclosed are the following:
(34 copies) Corrected Architectural sets including sheets: Cover, A0.0, C1.0, C2.0,
LP-1, 0.1, O.la, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 1.1, A23, A33, A4.2, A5.2, dated 9-13-07
(34 copies) ll x 17 color sets, including sheets: Cover Broadway Bldg. Perspective,
lA Landscape Site Plan, 1B Permeability Plan, 2-4 Vignettes/Single
Family Lots Massing Study, 5 Basement Level Plan, 6 First Level Plan, 7
Second Level Pian, 8 Third Level Plan, 9 West and South Elevations, 10
East and North Elevations, 11-12 Courtyard Elevations
(34 copies) Washington Village Design Guidelines for Single Family Homes, dated 8-
30-07
(34 copies) Washington Village - Design Guidelines for Single Family Homes
(Powerpoint slides) 18 copies in color, 16 in black and white
(20 copies) Letters Supporting the Project Proposal
Karl,
Here's the planning board/city council and other staffpackets you requested. Let me
know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Laurel Fanning
(303)(303)408-0840
laurel@whdacom
Ag~ntlaitem# ~~ Pa~eB ~~/
Washington Village
Design Guidelines for Single Family Homes
August 30, 2007
In response to the concerns regarding the scale, massing and character of the
new single family homes proposed for the lots along 13`h Street, we have
studied attractive examples of newer homes built on small lots in the
neighborhoods near Washington School. Examples of appropriately scaled
homes are attached along with other information on neighborhood home and
lot sizes from this study.
In general, we have found that attractive new homes that are larger by
several hundred sq. ft. than the maximum 2900 sq. ft. proposed for the
Washington Village lots and that fit with the character of their established
North Boulder neighborhoods can be found on lots that are less than ~000
sq. ft . -
We anticipate that the single family homes along 13`h Street will range in
size from 2000 to 2900 sq. ft. plus a garage and with the option of a studio
over the garage. See the table below for maximum proposed home sizes and
overall FARs for the Washington Village lots.
Lot Lot Area
SF Max FAR Max House
SF Garage-
Studio Max Total
5F
2 6018 .60 2900 710 3610
3 5955 .60 2900 673 3573
4 5955 .60 2900 673 3573
5 5956 .60 2900 674 3574
6 5956 .60 2900 674 3574
7 ~575 .65 2900 723 3623
t~nandnltem~ ~~ ~'~~ C ~ Z
Home and Lot sizes Near Washington Village
The following table shows the current home and lot sizes in the immediate neighborhood nearest to
the Washington Village lots on 13 Street. As can be seen from the cunent zoning restrictions, homes
that are much larjer than those proposed for Washington Village can and likely will be built in the
future on sites near by.
_ _- --- - ` MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM
CURRENT FAR BY POSSIBLE
SITE AREA SQ FLOOR AREA CURRENT FLOOR AREA SQ
ADDRESS ZONE FT SQ FT CURRENT FAR ZONING FT
STREET
> ,. ;~ _ RL-1 _ ___ 6500 ___ 1,350 _ 0.21 0.8 6,500
~ ~u' . ~ _ _ RL-1 _ _ 6300 2,353 _ 0.37 0.8 5,040
y _ RL-1 6600_ _ 1,508__ __ _ _0.23 0.8 5,280
~ ~~~" ' _
RL-1 7800 2.000 0.26 0.8 6.240
_
S RL-1 _ 22900 2.461 0.11 0.8 18.320
~ ` ' --- - - -- - -- - -_
p x RL-1
_ _ _ 10500
--- _- 1.323
-- - 0.13
- 0.8
- - 8.400
- -
, ~, ~
0. ;
_ RL-1
- - 11500
-- _ 1.560_
- __ _ 0.14 0.8 9.200
-
(1 ,.~ ~ s RL-1 11600 2.805 0.24 0.8 9.280
2940 ,''x~ ° RL-1 43700
-- - - - - 2,300 0.05
- -- - 0.8
- 34,960
-
2920 RL-1 7700 1,062 _ 0.14 0.8 6,160
2841 . RM-2 11200 4,740 0.42 15 16.763
,, .
2831 r,'+~
~ ~ - -
RM-2 - -
11300 --- -
1.624 -
0.14
1.6
19.125
- ~.
2$40 RM-2 8600 2.828 0.33 1.2 10.650
2830 RM-2 6.800 _
4 423 0.55 1.1 7.950
;
2818 ;,` ' -
_ RM-2 -- - - -
_ 6700
4.438
0.66
1.1
7.800
2810 i' _
RM-2 8200 2,366 0.29 1.2 9.675
~ELDER .
129Q . k~ ~ RL-1 6700 1,242 019 0.8 5.360
1300 ' T
r
~ ' RL-1 11.600 2.526 022 0.8 9.280
r :
#321 RL-1 11.600 1.931 0.17 0.8 9280
1324 _
_
RL-1 22.800 1.352 0.06 0.8 18.240
~,~ f
- - - ----- _-- _
`~.
...... ..se.ffi~AY~i~~~: 3.- --_ . . ___ . '-_ -_ _-_- ---. _ ' -_. . _ . .. . . .' _ __ _ . ' " . _ _ . . _
'CEDAR
- - -
-- -
- - --
- - -
- - _
-~_. ~ ~r - ,
13Q5 "~u~.~ t
:
" RL-1
_ _ - - 8000
--- - __2409 0.30 _ 0.8
- 6.400
~ .~ :
t,315 ~*~e
° ~
~' f RL-1
- - 7100
- - - - 1.610
--- - --- 0.23
- - 0.8 5.680
.
~; k ~
1302 „" ~ j` ~.:'
' _ --
-
RL-1
-
. ..__ -_ 1400~
_ . __ _ _. - ' 1.306 _
- .. . 0.09 0.8 1 L 200
~
~r..
. ~ l.~Y :... R
fi268 ~r,.~~~ ~
. . .
RM-2
6400
1.450
0.23
`
1
6.975
'~ "`
1319 <..~°
y ~.-.._„ . RL-1
_-_.-_ _ ' 10900
__ ._ 2.660
- - -- -- 0.24 0.8 8.720
.. dt ~:r 4+.,,.
' BALSAM
- ___ _ _ _... ___ _ '.
- _ -___
---- - - -
~ ~.r.
1265 ~ ~ <
~ . ~t
~~
~~
, RM-2 8700 1.932 0.22 12 10.425
~
~
..`. R
. _..v
.3
AVERAGES
11.373
2,214
0 24
0.93 ',
10 496
~~-n~!a Item ~# ..._ ~.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~~
~
~
~
~
;~
~
:~
~
~~
~
u~
ines ror 5ingie
Design Guidelines
- Reasonable size restrictions -
.60 -.65 FAR - 2900 sf house + Garage
- Mitigate building mass through
articulation and one story elements at
fronts
- Architectural Character - compatible with
the neighborhood
Single Family Homes -
Design Quality Review
Typical North-Central Boulder Homes on Small Lots
~~~~ ~
~~.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ 2943 5th Street
,,~ House - 3330 sf
,
4_ Garage - 625 sf
r:
~
`~ Tota I - 3955 sf
~~` Lot - 6800 sf FAR =.58
,
~~ ~~
~
:
~. 3131 8t" Street
,-•ij , ;
~~s CeJ r
~~ ~,;~~~4~~ ~~~ House - 3189 sf
~ ;;~~ ~ `~*
~ ~.~~~ ' ~~" Garage - 420 sf
~ ,,-.
q: ~ ~` a ~~ ~r4 . .:~ Total - 3509 sf
~;~.~-~~: i' ..i, ;~-~
~ `~`.~:~~i:-y~.~ ,~ Lot - 6300 sf FAR =.57
+~l~~-_ ~.._.
:~,,, : .
~,~::~
~~ -
;~~ ~ .,~ .
~~p~~~~~~~5 ~
ii.~~,:.5^'+.y':.`~~ . ~Y~.,
.::gJ..~Y,f°>~r ~_.~.5~
Typical North-Central Bouider Homes on Small Lots
,.
3083 8th Street
House - 3645 sf
Garage - 528 sf
Tota I - 4173 sf
Lot - 6300 sf FAR =
66
3188 10th Street
House - 3383 sf
Garage 621 sf
Tota I - 4004 sf
Lot - 6200 sf FAR .65
• ~G. e + f~ ,r ',
yt~"f',~"*~~ e
I~r ~ `;.'~r i y.1ri ` s~ k~,~n ~
y ~i~~~~~ +
~- , .. ',~~~ ~t~ { b3~~Y r ~ 4 y~~L$ '4 F'I' J~ ~Fa;S~ ~ .
a~ ~ ~.
M ' t r~ df~' ~ r.'~ v "~"`" ~+~ ~~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ `" ~ ~~ .
.,,.~ .t~~ ~ ~ ~~ J ~ : +~ ~, ~ ~~ ~~"'~, k~ , ` ' ~ ~~ orYr~,.
1~e' ;ip ::xi.~~'G'~/~"'iy~~S~~~ h~.~ '~~ S r~~.s 1~ A~ r
-Y `~. a :.r..w~ _ . +~ ..::r a ~ . ~E is~ 3*,~ ~i~,L tr 4~~~~~ .,-
ATTACHMENT F
BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE
a) The proposed change is consistent with the policies
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) The 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 would not affect the Area
II/Area III boundaries in the comprehensive plan.
~gemtsl~m a_ 5 ~ ~sge~ r' ~
The project is within Area I and is an infill project that does not affect the
perimeter areas of the City.
~
~ger~e I~ ~ _ S~1"__ ~e # r " ~
ATTACHMENT G
REZONING
(1) The applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed
rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder 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 Valley Comprehensive Plan and its land use policies for the
Broadway corridor.
A~a~:__~___~' ..~e~~
ATTACHMENT H
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.32
ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1215
CEDAR AVENUE FROM RESIDENTIAL- LOW 1(RL-
1) TO THE RESIDENTIAL - HIGH 2(RH-2) ZONING
CLASSIFICATION AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 9-5,
"MODULAR ZONE SYSTEM," B.R.C. 1981, AND
SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO FINDS
AND RECITES:
A. The Planning Board of the City of Boulder held public hearings on July
19, 2007 and September 13, 2007, in wnsideration of the Washington Village project,
which included a request to rezone a portion of a three acre parcel that is approximately
0.32 acre from Residential- Low 1(RL-1) to Residential- High 2(RH-2) (the "rezoning
azea"), that is a parcel of land generally located at 1215 Cedar Avenue and more
particularly described as Lots 2 and 3, part of 1 and 4, Joseph Wolffs Subdivision, City
and County of Boulder, State of Colorado (the "Property") as shown on Exhibit A,
attached to this ordinance.
B. Concurrent with the rezoning request, the Planning Boazd approved a
change to the Boulder Valley Land Use map from the public/semi-public classification to
low density residential and high density residentia] for the Property.
C. The Planning Board found that the rezoning of the portion of the Property
from RL-1 to RH-2 is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan; is necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan map; and meets the criteria for rezoning as provided in
Chapter 9-2, "Review Processes," Boulder Revised Code, 1981.
D. The Planning Board recommended that the City Council amend the zoning
district map to allow for the movement of the RH-2 and RL-1 zone boundary
approximately 48 feet eastward, as shown on Exhibit A, attached to this ordinance.
C~DOCUME-1\BonnJl\IACALS-1\TempVCPgrywise\0-Washingron Village Rezomng Orclypf dx I
Ag~dal~nlt ~' F1 page~ ~
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO,THAT:
Section 1. Chapter 9-5, "Modular Zone System," Boulder Revised Code, 1981,
and the zoning district map forming a part thereof are amended to include the PropeRy
within the Residential- High (RH-2) and Residential- Low 1(RL-1) zoning districts with
the revised zone boundary as shown on Exhibit A, attached to this ordinance and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. The City Council finds that the rezoning of the portion of the Property
from RL-1 to RH-2 is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, is necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Bouider
Valley Comprehensive Plan, and meets the criteria for rezoning as provided in Chapter 9-
2, "Review Processes," B.R.C. 1981.
Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern The rezoning of
the Property bears a substantial relation to, and will enhance the general welfare of the
owners and visitors of the Property and of the residents of the City of Boulder.
Section 4. The City Council finds and declares that it has jurisdiction and legal
authority to rezone the Property.
Section 5. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published
by tiUe only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the
city clerk for public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
BY TITLE ONLY this 18th day of September, 2007.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
C:\DOCUME-1\Bonn11V.OCALS-1\TempV(Pg~pwise\0-Washington Village Rezoning Ord-jpLdoc
~nenda item #_ ~l~" P~e ~ /~ - ~
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 2nd day of October, 2007.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
C \DOCUME-1\BonnJ1~C.OCALS-1\TempVCPgrywise\0-Washington Village Rezoning Ord-jpf.doc
nganda Item # ~A" f'~ ~ ~' 3
i~
~
I 2950 BROAOWhT
UNiT 1
~ ZONE~ RN-2, RESIOENTIAL-HIGH Z
I PART OF LOT i
i
Y ' u
589°33'O1"E 40] 1]'
I 44] 0' (0.)
I
~I
ART OF LOT i
Q 3 i f.
_s
"'"""'"___"""____
3 o a
_"""__"__"_"'"_'"'"""'___"""'"____.."'___"_'_"
_-__....."'_
I
Q ~ '
0 0
i
AND PART OF 1 AND 4
IOTS 2
3
JOSEPH
" ,
,
,
WOLFFS Sl18DNISION, LOCATED IN NW 1/4
I OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP i NORTH
,
RANGE ]0 WEST OF THE 6TH P M, CITV OF
°
o ~ BOUL~ER, COUNTV OF BOUL~EF, STATE
,
o OFCOLORADO
~~~~ I oo~~ °o
LOTAflEA130,]09=3.OOACRES
z
__
Q I OT 2 i
i
~
m i
~ ~
i
~ i
~ ~
I~~y i
Iv \ i ~
I ~
~ ~ ~
589°36'36"E 44] 25' (AMJ ~
~
~ ~ 44] 0'(R) ~
~ _ -_ I:~a__ - __
~ i ~
~ ~ ___s~_______________ CEOARAYENUEj
(60' R.O.WJ~
2945 13TH STftEET
ZONEO ftLl, RESI~ENTIALLOW 1
A~OITqNqL ZONMC PH-2, RESIDEMINL-HIGH 2
1
~ PART OG LOT 4
~E%ISTING ZONING LINE
I
1
1
I
I iPflOPoSEOZONINGLWE
I
I
i
~
i
ART OF LOT 4
OT
0
0
0
r !
r o
~ o
E%ISTING 20NING LME II I
E%STING ft&2 20NE E%IStIN6 PM-2 ZONE
ATTACHMENTI
SITE 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, infill 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 Ptan 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 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,
The density permitted in the BVCP for the western portion of the site is 14
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 Density 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.
~(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.
(21 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
~~snda~m~ Sf~ ~ge~ I - 1
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: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas,
and playgrounds:
~l (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 roughly 50°/a. The central activity lawn 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 principal entry to the Broadway Building 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, including, 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 Special 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 13"' Street. The applicant is proposing to increase
the tree lawn in that area and increase the single-family dwelling setbacks
to 35 feet to protect these trees.
~
Flt~)fld8 h8A1 # ~ ~ ~~ a
~(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.
~(v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it
will 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.
~(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.
~(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 (Developments 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 will meet the needs of the anticipated
residents, occupants, tenants, 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 plan for the
area.
As noted above, the project is an infill project that is mostly residential.
,~~3t~0118m# ~~~~ '~'' ~a
Although double the required open space is provided, it is mostly for
passive use and principally for the use of the residents.
~ (C) Landscaping
~(i) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant 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 large 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.
~(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
wou{d exceed the standards of fhe landscaping regulations.
~(iv) The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-way
are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural
features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site ptan.
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:
~(i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets
and the project is provided;
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
l
,~;;vnOaltam#. ~ ~~~
90 degree turns, all of which discourage high speed travel
~(ii) Potential 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`h Street.
~1 (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-
occupant 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
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,
rl~ild91l0F11# ~~" ~~ ~ °-^"~
separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust
The appticant 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 well 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
vehicu~ar 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.
~(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.
~1 (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
~r~;adal~m# Sf~' ~~ L' ~P
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.
~(F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed
Surrounding Area
~(i) The building height, mass, scaie, orientation, and configuration are
compatibie 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 buildings.
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.
~1 (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.
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.
~(iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views
from adjacent properties;
a~an~~l~~~~.~~ ~" ~'
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 hulk 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. {n 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 the 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 i~ 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
as an external 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,
„-.,~a~~_~_~~ ~-~
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 single-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 13`h 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 vehicles
to a neighboring property. The construction of the on-site buildings would
otherwise follow standard building code practices for minimizing noise
between units.
~(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.
~(x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and
~;~~~a~ema S~ ~~ ~ "~~~
avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natura~ systems;
See below.
~(xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to
the natural 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 facilitate appropriate drainage, but is not
excessive, nor would it create any impact to natural systems or create any
potential geological threat.
~1 (G) Solar Siting and Co~struction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum
potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews
shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for
the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siti~g criteria:
~1 (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
in a way which maximizes the so~ar potential of each principal building.
Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other
nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north lot
line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading.
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
utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and
solar siting requirements of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981.
.:3P~13ft0R1~?`, _.€~~~ "~~~~
The Broadway Building and other buildings on the site have flat roofs,
which will be optimal for the installation of solar systems.
~1 (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 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:
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 applicable 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.
(c) The open space per Iot 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 below 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 functional useable open space can be met
,;,a~lalle~#~_a._~~ 1 ~ _I
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 applicant is justified
by any one or combination of the following 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 pianning
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;
(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 dwel~ing 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 cultural
amenities, intimate spaces that foster social interaction, street
furniture, landscaping, and hard surface treatments for the open
~
:,;~~ndal~m#____.°-~'~y~~ -~'/~
space: maximum reduction 25 percent.
N/A (J) Additional Criteria for F/oor Area Ratio lncrease 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
unit equal to at least ten percent 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 0.25:1.
(c) Site and building design provide a street front facade and an alley
facade at a pedestrian scale, including, without limitation, features such
as awnings and windows, well-defined building entrances, and other
building details: an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1.
(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 altowed FAR of historic buildings
designated as landmarks 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.
(fl For a buiiding which provides one full level of parking below grade, an
increase in FAR not to exceed 0.5:1 may be granted.
~(K) Addifional Criteria for Parking Reductions: The off-street parking
requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Scheduie of Form and
Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be modified as follows:
;?p~al~ll~~n~ S~ ~~#-? ',~1.3
.~ (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 (ifty percent.
A parking reduction of 45.6°/a 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 of
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 residences.
Essentially, the zone requires 1 parking space for the first 500
square 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 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 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 50 parking spaces would
be required, as compared to the 120 spaces required in RH-2 for just
34 units. With greater applicability the bedroom threshold for
parking, the project would conform to the requirements. Therefore
there is evidence that the project would accommodate the required
parking needed.
I"=,~ttJ~Y~~1~ ~/'~ _f't?~# '. ~" -~~
(b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses will be adequately
accommodated through on-street parking or off-street parking;
Twenty-two (22) parking spaces will be provided for the 6,854 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 retaii uses is proposed, and
the parking needs of all uses wiil be accommodated through shared
parking;
Twenty-two (22) spaces are proposed for the commercial
component of the property. Typically, 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 evening 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 22 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.
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 will 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;
i°~i'^If~m#~ ~' E~#1 ~~~
_(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.
~]~ ~
!!~"1t311~fl1~i '. ' ! ~,rls~~ .~ '~~
ATTACHMENTJ
USE REVIEW
~ (1) Consistency with Zoninq 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.
~ (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 compatib~e 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 policies 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;
h;~ad~ I~p~ 1t ~ ~'~e ~ JP._..~ ~-~ .
~ 3) Comqatibilitv: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will
be reasonabiy compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby
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.
~ (4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under Sectlon 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 shall be a
presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning
districts to non-residential 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
~:, ~°~f~m~ ~ ~-~~ ~,~~-
serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in
the community including, without limitation, a use for a day care center, park, reiigious
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
to non-residential would occur.
~~~~,:~a~~na ~~ r~~ `~.__.'~~-,
ATTACHMENT K
` WEEKLY INFORMATION PACKET
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Frank Bruno, City Manager
Kevin Burke, Deputy City Manager
Stephanie Grainger, Deputy City Manager
Jerty Gordon, Acting City Attorney
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Cazl Castillo, Policy Advisor
Ruth McHyser, Acting Planning D'uector
Robert Ray, Duector of Project Review and Neighborhood Assistance
Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner
Karl Guiler, Planner
DATE: August 9, 2007
SUBJECT: Information Item: Washington Elementary School Site Update
EXECUTIVE STJMMARY:
At its July 19"~` meeting, the Plamung Board continued its hearing until September 13'~ on a site
plan for Washington Village, a development proposal for the Washington Elementary School site
submitted by Wonderland Hill Development Company. At its regulaz business meeting on July
24°i, Council requested further iriformation from the city manager about the proposal. In
particulaz, Council quesrioned the extent to which Wonderland's current proposal is still
consistent with the expectations that Council outlined when it referred Wonderland to the
Boulder Valley School District ("BVSD") as the purchaser of the site. While it is not
appropriate to discuss the merits of this land use review case outside of the established Planning
Boazd quasi judicial process that is underway, this memo is submitted in response to Council's
limited questions that relate to the city's refenal of Wonderland to BVSD as the purchaser of the
site.
CONDTTIONS OF APPROVAL AND CONSISTENCY OF CURRENT PROPOSAL:
On September 19, 2006, Council unanimously adopted the recommendarion made by six
of the seven members of the Washington Eleinentary School Site Community Review
Panel to refer Wonderland Hill Development Company to BVSD as the purchaser of the
school site conditioned upon: (1) execution of a restrictive covenant, in the' general form
shown in Attachment A, assuring that cedain elements of Wonderland's proposal, as
summarized below, would be developed and retained into the immediate future, and; (2)
due consideration of the recommendations expressed by the Review Panel, as captured in
the notes from its July 19`h meeting (Attachment B) under "Panel Discussion and
Development of Recommendation."
The elements of the proposal described in Attachment A include:
• Affordable housing (47% of total units)
• Accessibility for seniors and disabled (60% of total units)
• Preservation ofmature trees adjacent to 13~' Street
Aganda Hem # 5~ ~je 9 ~ ' ~ _
• Interior community space open to general public (7,500 sq. ft.)
. View shed/Park/No-build area (12,000 sq. ft.)
• Landmazk application submittal to preserve historic values of the site
The proposal that Wonderland submitted to the city's Planning Boazd on July 19`~' was consistent
with all of the above elements with the exception of a change in the number of affordable
housing units. The reason for that change, and its consistency with the covenant language is
described below.
The proposal submitted to the city's Planning Board on July 19`b was also consistent with some
of the recommendations and considerations expressed by the Review Panel as described in
Attachment B, such as retention of the name "Washington." The proposal was not, however,
consistent with other recommendations and considerations that were made by the panel.
However, given the complexities involved with development of the site, Wonderland was
obligated to give "due considerafion" to these recommendafions, and was never bound to adhere
to them.
• Changes in the Number of Middle Income Affordable Housing Units Proposed
As Council was informed of in an e-mail from the City Manager in April of this yeaz,
Wonderland received approval from city staff, consistent with the covenant language included in
Attachment A, to change the number of middle income, permanently affordable housing units at
the school site. ~ The covenant language allows for the conversion of some or ali of the proposed
middle income units to mazket rate units if there aze mazket challenges. Mazket challenges were
anticipated given the complex nature of the project and likelihood that the prices for the middle
income units necessary to support the project might not be affordable enough to provide
sustainable, long term affordability. As anticipated, city staff received a request from
Wonderland to allow a decrease in the number of permanently afFordable middle income housing
units developed at the Washington Elementary School site.
Originally, Wonderland's co-housing proposal included 81ow and 11 middle income
permanently affordable units along ~ith 21 mazket rate units. As the details of the project
continued to be developed, staff expressed concem over the pricing of the proposed middle
income units and asked Wonderland to consider providing fewer middle income permanently
affordable units in order to have middle income units that would work, long term, in the
affordabie housing program. Unfortunately BVSD's terms of sale for the site required that a
substantial premium be paid on each additional mazket rate unit above 21. Wonderland
subsequently proposed to convert 6 of the middle income units to mazket rate and requested that
BVSD accept 50 percent of the stated premium on the converted middle income permanently
affordable units and allow the balance of the premium to be used to lower the prices on the
remaining middle income units. The BVSD Boazd agreed to accept 75 percent of the required
premium, allowing 25 percent to be applied to the remaining middle income units.
~ Since BVSD has not yet closed on the sale with Wonderland, the deed restriction language that the city proposed is
^ot yet in effect. Nevertheless, the proposed covenant language does capture the city's expectations for the
proper[y's redevelopment.
lAnflMlA IPBfit $ 7 Y7 ~~ r~ ~_ ~
In addirion to the 5 permanendy affordable middle income housing units still being proposed, the
project continues to provide 20 percent of the low income permanently affordable units on-site.
Typically, a project of this size might provide 10 percent on-site units with the balance as cash-
in-lieu or no on-site affordable units. No projects, other than certain annexations, provide middle
income permanently affordable units.
Housing and Human Services staff reviewed this proposal and agreed with Wonderland that
there were market challenges for the currently priced middle income units. Furthermore, given
that savings from a conversion to market-rate of some of the units would decrease the sale price
of the remaining middle income units, thus making them more marketable and sustainable as
permanently affordable units, staff also agrees that the proposed reduction was reasonable,
consistent with the covenant options available to Wonderland, and with the community's need
for sustainable affordable housing. Accordingly, staff conveyed the city's support for the
proposal to both the school district and Wonderland.
NEXT STEPS:
Following the Planning Board hearing scheduled for September 13th, this item will be listed on
City Couneil's agenda for potential eall up at Couneil's September 18~' business meeting. If
Council chooses to cail up the item it would be heazd at the October 2 City Council meeting.
Attachments
Attachment A: Reshictive Covenant and Deed Restriction
Attachment B: Meeting Notes of Review Panel, July 19, 2006
H~ntla Nem # 5~, ~ye ~ ~ ~ 3
Attachment A
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND
DEED RESTRICTION
This Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction ("CovenanY') 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 DistricY'), 6500 East Arapahoe, P.O. Box 9011, Boulder, Colorado
80301, and is for the benefit of and enforceable by the City of Boulder ("City").
RECITALS
A. The School District is the owner of the real properiy described on Eachibit 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, improvemenfs 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 Mazch 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 Mazch 20, 2006 by way of
the Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU AmendmenY').
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 proposais submitted by Purchaser and that any changes
to the use of the land that is not consistent with such proposal shall be subj ect to the prior
approval by the City Council ("CovenanY').
E. The MOU Amendment anticipated that the Covenant would be created, in
consultarion 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 compietes 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 enrity 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 to be enforced by the City.
t~~~a ilsnl ~~. S~~ .~ ~e ~ ~~,~
COVENANT
NOW THEREFORE, the School District as the owner of the Property, for itself, its
successors, assigns and all subsequent grantees and transferees, declazes, creates and imposes the
following land use covenants, restrictions and lnnitafions 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 subj ect to the terms and
conditions of this Covenant. This Covenant shall run with the land and the Property, shall be
binding upon the Pioperty 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 instnunent of conveyance of the Property, or any portion
thereof, sha11 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. '
Restrictions.
a. Affordable HousinQ The owner of the Property agrees to create the greater of
20% of the total units or 8 units that aze 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 pernuts on the Property. The following conditions shall
apply to the Subject Property:
Low income Permanently AfFordable. Twenty percent or 8 of the
dwelling units on the Residential Pazcel shall have deed restrictions or
covenants, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, as to the maacimum
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, "Inclusionazy 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 HUD 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 enabie the sale of the Middle Income Units, some or all
of the Middle Income Units may be converted to units permanently
affordable to lower incomes or mazket rate units. Any additional mazket
rate units created as a result of this pazagraph will be subject to the
enritlement premium described in the MOU Amendment.
F~c~~falEem#._~Z~-~~ l~-~/.
iii. Covenants Required. Prior to the issuance of any residential building
pemuts for the pazcel, the Applicant shall execute, in a form acceptable to
the City Attomey and the City Manager, covenants and deed resh-ictions
that guarantee the perpetual affordability of each of the permanently
affordable units which shall include without limitation the initial
maacimum allowable sale price, the rate by which subsequent sale prices
may increase, the income and asset limitarions of the purchasers of each
permanently affordable unit, and fair marketing and selection procedures.
b. Barrier Free Desien. The owner of the Property agrees to construct or otherwise
provide a minimum of twenty four (24) Type B accessible dwelling units
designed and conshucted for accessibility in accordance with ICC/ANSI A1171-
1998 "Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities.". Such units shall be
accessible on the floor level that includes common azeas 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 azea beriveen the east property line abutting the 13`h 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 pernvssion 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. Community Use Space. The Owner of the Property agrees to provide at least
7,500 sq.ft. of floor azea in the historic Washington 5chool Building and/or the
Librazy Annex which will be available for community uses for the general public.
Such uses may include, but aze not lunited 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 activiries; and cultural events such as talks or presentations . Such
uses aze limited to those uses specifically pernutted 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, Pazk, 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 Extiibit B shall be lunited 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 azea.
ii. The azea may only be used for access and parks purposes.
~~~iallan~~~"+~~ ~~-~n
iii. No obstnxctions other than railings that may be required by the local
building code, improvements related to accessibility and barrier free
design, landscaping and associated benches, tables, planters, and
improvements associated with landscaping, shall be placed in this azea 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 landmazks.
2. AQreement. Prior to submitting any building pemrit applications to the City to add any
floor azea, to demolish any building on the Property, or prior to or concunent with an
application for site review, the Owner shall submit an application for the grant of local
individual landmazk status (the "Individual Landmazk Application") for at least that
portion of the Property that is shown on Exhibit C. The boundary shown in Eachibit C for
the individual landmazk boundazy is illustrative. Prior to submitting the Individual
Landmazk Application, the Owner will submit the final boundary for the individual
landmazk application for the final review and approval by the City manager. The
boundazy shall include all of the following azea: An area at least three feet azound 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, Pazk, No-Build Area described in Pazagraph 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 restricrions contained therein shall be in full force and
effect for a period of twenty (20) yeazs from the date of the recordarion with the Boulder
County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
4. Binding Effect. This Covenant shall run with the land and shall be binding upon any
transferee, grantee, or any Owner of the Property or any portion thereof. Any transfer of
tifle to the Property, or any portion thereof, by deed or other instnunent 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 clauning under the City or its successors and
assigns.
6. Enforcement. This Covenant may be enforced by the City, its successors or assigns, and
enforcement may be made by any lawful means, including a suit for injuncdve relief and
damages to reimburse the City or its successors and assigns for enforcement costs,
including reasonable attomey's fees. Venue for any suit to enforce compliance with this
Covenant shall be proper in the Dishict Court for the County of Boulder, State of
Colorado. As part of any enforcement acrion on the part of the City, its successors or
assigns, the Owner shall be responsible for the payment of all court costs and reasonable
rlg:,NC1~ ~Y?m 3t ~~ ~ ~ l~ ~,~,.,~
attomey's fees incurred by the City, its successors or assigns, in connecrion with any
action to enforce this Covenant.
7. Miscellaneous Provisions.
a. Severabilitv. Whenever possible, each provision of this Covenant and any other
related document shall be interpreted 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. Governina Law. This Covenant and each and every related document aze to be
govemed 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.
a 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 Headines. Pazagraph or section headings within this Covenant are
inserted solely for convenience of reference, and aze not intended to, and shall not
govern, limit or aid in the construction of any terxns 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
inshlunent executed by the School Dishict recorded in the real estate records for
Boulder County.
£ Modifications. Any modifications of this Covenant shall be effective only when
made by writings signed by the City and recorded with ffie 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 Properiy, or any portion
thereof, and shall be obligated hereunder for the full and complete performance
and observance of all covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein
during such period.
~;ewSdafY~mfis ~~ F~#~ ~~'~
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2
By:
Helayne Jones
President, Boazd of Education
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss:
COUNTY OFBOULDER )
The foregoing instrument was aclmowledged before me tlils day of , 2006, by Helayne
Jones, President of the Boazd of Educarion for Boulder Valley School District RE-2, formerly School Dish-ict
Number 3, a public school district and political subdivision of the State of Colorado.
W itness my hand and of&cial seal
My commission expires:
Notary Public
,'~~.:1~a iPBml~ 7 ~ _ i-'~~ ~ IL '
EXf~IT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A parpo~ of Lat i in Jus~ph ~Volffs Subdivisiorr of Uoe Nanh Hali c~Fthe ~torthvrest Quariaroi Sc~tiora 30,.
'3"aMt~shig '7 P~orth, Hsnge 7e West af f5e 8'~ P.3~t, Couniy oE Bould~r, 5t~ of CoEorado descr~bed as
~o3laws ta ~k beg'innsng at the SQUiEw~est cornAraf said Lat'G, tleee~ce Marlherly along the ~tJest.[irr~ oi
said ~.at S~ c€isYance of 95feet, tf~ence ~ssterly a~d parallsl #o fhe Norih line of ssid Lsrk 9 fa tlte East liree
of said Lv# 7: thence SeaUi~zdy,atang ff~ ~ust' kine af sstrt Lo! t a s9islance of 85 faek ~ ihe Southeasf
corr~r of said Lat rt, fhenoe W esEe~iy 2FOnc~ the Sou[h lirae of saed Lvt 1 fv 3fie pEace af beginninq.
~io-is 2 and S, Joseph Wv9EPs'Subdivision, Cauniry af 5outder, ~Sfa.ie of Lb3orado; anc~ •.
AFf that porton of Lat 4 of:loszph Wo[ff's Su4divisioci aithe ~toRh Hal! oi the I~o~iPnPesk Qua~~r of~
SecEion 30, Tpwnship'1 Narh, Raaig~ 70 VJest oi3he S~' F.PA., Counfy of @oulder, SCate of C~to[ado,
descYib~d es #olEc+vas, ko-v~if: beg3nnirtg at tEie 6ouCnwest comer oF said i.at 4, ihe~ce [dortlielPyafong the
West Itne o('sa(d Lat 4~ disksnc~.of 55 iee~ ifience F_asterlyand [rae~[le1 tn ~ise Narkh tine of said ~.oi 4ta
#he Eest Eine ~E~sald E~ot 4; #ha~tcs Southerly alohg iHe EasE Elne oi said Lo3 4 a distanee oi 95ie~i to the
$out€seasi camer of said La14; lhe~ee UfesteAy alemg the S6~ith Il~e a# said l.of A t~the pEace of
Gegi¢ning. , - .
f:~~~i~ltemfi~ S~ F~N 1~~____~~ __,10
EXFIIBIT B
BOUNDARY FOR THE
VIEW SHED, YARK, NO-BUILD AREA
WASHINGTON SCHOOL - 1215 CEDAR AVE
r~(~ (/ /~ ~:' a,~ C.~ 1 1 .
F~11,~~:Il\~'r.~ Iln~ ~t ~/ i ~~ f7' ~ T -..
~~ Conceptuai Viewahed Gonidor PARCEL ID: 7463302060U2 ~a~•~ `-~'U+~f`~+~0.'+'~~~
LOT AREA: 1J0665sq fl ~r~ 1 inch equals 45 feet ~;~;;;~~•.~•~
ExxzszT c
ILLUSTRATIVE
MIMMUM BOUNDARY FOR THE
TNDNIDUAL LANDMARK APYLICATION
4VASHlNGTON SCHOQL - 1295 CEDAR AUF
,-~F~,~,~~;~ 1t~r~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~--:r;~ ~, 41~= :I~L
.,... ~;..~c-, ~M oeN ~«~ :.:n:
'~'uConceptuallandmarkBourWary-flatSca~aWe. PARCeL1O:'11613 0 20 8 002 c~ oarv.•.su:wa.;
l0T AREA: 170645 sq k /'[~ 1~+'~~ equzis 45 feet ~ ~~c~noMC-•n..
Attachment B
1VIEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMUNITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERiAN CH[JRCH-ANNEX
Attendees
Cedaz Commons Project Team: Jon Bazbieri, Shambhala; Adrian Sopher, Architecture
Incorporated; Andy Allison, Wonderland Hill Development Company, and; Nore Winter,
Winter and Company.
Communitv Review Panel Members Present: Dan Corson; John Decker; Chris
Halteman; Stan Kyed; Paul Saporito; Helen Vernier, and; Cathie Williamson.
Ci Staff: Cazl Castillo, Policy Advisor; Jim Martin, City Attomey's Office; Susan
Richstone, Planning Department; 7ames Hewat, Planning Deparhnent; Doug Newcomb,
Open Space and Mountain Pazks; Cindy Pieropan, Department of Housing and Human
Services; Brad Power, City Manager's Office, and; Mike Gurolla, Pazks and Recreation.
BVSD StafF. Don Orr, Duector of Planning Engineering and Construction
Consultants: Molly Tayer, Facilitator; Ray Wilson, Financial Consultant.
Summary
Introductions
Molly Tayer opened the meeting with a round of introductions and a review of the
original chazge of the group that was provided in the first meering. Molly also asked the
group to consider their broader-interests as "community" in their assessment and input to
Wonderland's proposal.
Cazl Castillo provided a brief overview of the process to date and offered his thanks to
the Review Panel, the Cedar Commons project team, city stafF, consultants, and BVSD
representatives for having participated in a lengthy and complicated process. Cazl stated
that there were some interests heard from the community that might not be reflected in
the proposal under consideration partly because of the need for respondents to develop a
proposal that would justify paying a mazket-rate price for the site. Altemative city
processes that may have yielded different results were considered but not pursued,
including the option of the city financially subsidizing a proposal from its general funds
or assuming the lead in developing a proposal in associarion with one or more
developers.
Cazl reminded the panel members that they were chosen because of their association with
one or more distinct community interests but that ttiey were invited to develop a
recommendarion for Council based on their individual perspectives of the proposal as
assessed against City Councii's stated goals for the site.
.~~,~tr~ltem~ ~f'~' R~# +~' f 3
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMUIVITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH-ANNEX
Cedar Commons Presentation
The Cedar Commons project team was allotted time to provide a slide show overview of
their proposal and answer quesrions from the Review Panel.
Jon Bazbieri, Adrian Sopher, and Nore Winter described key aspects of the proposal. Jon
provided the group some background on both Jim Leach and Wonderland Development
and their track record in developing co-housing. Information on slides detailed the tenets
of co-housing and began portraying the co-housing proposed for this site. 7on then
introduced the concept "site plan."
Adrian Sopher spoke to the context of the site in the City of Boulder's comp plan and
other development activities slated for adjacent blocks.
Nore Winter wallced the audience through some of the key considerations in the historic
features of the school buildings and the site. Nore then touched upon the timing and
projected planning for the tustoric preservarion designation. Nore introduced the concept
that the historic designafion might be abetted by donaring the historic easement to a
charitable organization. Questions were raised regazding how much of the site should be
included in the historic designation.
Citv Staff and Consultant Evaluation of Proposal
An evaluarian of the project review was provided by city staff from their areas of
expertise.
Ray Wilson/Independent Business Plan Consultant - The business plan does represent
a reasonable basis for successful development of the site. However, the plan is put at risk
if BVSD does not agree to the requested extension to close 18 months after Councii
selection. Also, the developer will need to presale enough units up front to make this a
"go" Feels that Wonderland Hills track record suggests this is doable. Team credentials
tested well in the community.
James HewaUCity Historic Preservation Planner - City of Boulder interested in the
timing of the landmazk designation as this will drive other factors of the deal. James
likes the plan to restore tt~e tower to the original school building. Would like to look at
the proposal and address how much of the land around the site to be included in the
landmazk designation. New structures should be subservient to older. The building
along Broadway feeis like it may overwhelm the west side of the property. Need to look
at the access to the view from South-west.
Cindy Pieropan/City Housing Planner - Proposal meets the city's requirement for 20
percent (8 units on-site) of the total proposed units to be permanently affordable to low
1~f..~rt~ t~t 1~ i~ ~4~~ Is ~~ ~/
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMiJNITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CIIURCH-ANNEX
income households. Additionally, it includes 27 percent (11 units) of the total proposed
units as permanently affordable to middle income households.
Susan Richstone/Senior City Planner - Adrian covered most of the contextual and
zoning information in his presentation. Because of the project size, developer will need
to go through site review. Planning Boazd concerns regarding mass and scale, and views
from Broadway, will be considered at Site review. Questions regazding the commercial
component and affordable housing - both aze appropriate for the site.
Panel meinbers had questions about why the Planning staff and Planning Boazd would go
ahead and move the lot line and change the configuration of density-setbacks so easily.
Neighbors attending the Planning Board felt that the board did not take into consideration
their concerns and responded in a dismissive manner.
Panei Discussion and Development of Recommendation
`Upon completion of the staff and consultant reports, the Review Panel was asked to shi$
geazs into discussion between panel members regarding their proposed recommendarions.
Panel members spent the final thirty minutes asking final questions and delivering their
recommendation to the assembled.
Their comments follow.
John Decker:
Recommend that the proposal go forwazd. This project represents the best use of the site
within the context of what is happening around it along Broadway and yields a good
community benefit considered against the reality of the purchase conditions estabiished
by BVSD. It is important that the building is being preserved and that the developer will
seek landmazk status after ~losing. Addifional community benefit would have been
preferable but would have required more commitment to the community than BVSD is
willing to give.
The city should play some role in facilitating fixrther action with BVSD - particularly the
ciosing conditions as set in the MOU. The concern is that the current closing deadline
may be difficult for the developer to meet and may compromise the project's viability.
WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEAT:
The city should help address community concerns with this proposal as the process goes
forward.
1) Name of the project is a stated concern for many in the community, some
retention of the name "Washington" is recommended.
~
f~~aitem#__~1~-~# iL ~1 S
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMiJNITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH-ANNEX
2) Residents, particularly on the north edge of the property, aze concemed with
the height and proximity of structures. Possibly create more buffer space on the north-
such as the set-back gesture on the east edge, 13`h street frontage. -OR-
ADD- like Paul's comments regarding the "qualitative treatrnents" of the buffer
space/edges - consider what faces people.
3) Some more formal provision of the community spaces, both interior and
exterior, should be made by the developer at this phase to help obtain more buy-in from
the community.
Paul Saporito:
Agree with John Decker. Support going forwazd with proposal with caveat that the
community concems addressed, answered, in some way resolved.
It should be particularly noted that I heard a number of neighbors concemed about
density. However, I agree with Adrian's presentation that if Boulder is to control
congestion, limiring density in town only promotes sprawl. The most effecrive
accommodation is to infill along transit corridors.
The neighborhood is already a modest, middle income place. It seems that, wYule the
developer's efforts to provide moderate income units is admirable, the amenity of a
community square has been minimized. I understand that, because of a surcharge of
between $150K and $250K per market unit over 20 + was stipulated in the contract with
the School District, the economics drives the footprint. This has been a financially fragile
project from the outset, and the balance sheet has been skillfully reconciled with low-
mazgin affordable units because they are exempt from the surcharge. The contract with
the district, for bettez or worse, cannot be modified. However, fewer units with a higher
margin, i.e. more mazket units and less affordable would allow a greater amount of public
space.
If this proposal unravels, the historic asset of the school would be in jeopazdy. While we
were reassured that the District would not exercise their sovereignty and demolish the
historic structure, the property would be worth more without a"run down" building in
need of rehab. It was very telling to note that School District appraisal info did not take
into consideration a value for the historic building.
I agee with Cathie on the point that trus property works best as a school, and since the
proposed housing would not be incompatible with educational uses, it is extremely
unfortunate that the MOU with the Dishict prevents it from being used as such. Out of a
transparent attempt to limit competition, we aze prevented from having a focus school or
charter school that is right on a bus line.
5`/~' €~u.. ~ l~ - j (c
r~~e~Rd~litBAtri `~ -------°~,
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMiJNITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, NLY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH-ANNEX
Stan Kyed:
Agree with John, but I(do not like the project .... do not like) what it is going to do to my
neighborhood. Echo - comments regazding addressing the concerns of the
neighborhood.. . concerns of the community - not always the same thing... have not been
addressed. Parking is a problem - will be a problem. Buffee on north side of project -
will people be putting their trash next to my house? Need a buffer between the co-
housing and the neighborhood - different activifies. Neighborhood concerns aze not
considered in this plan. Concemed with Planning Board comments: "you have to fight to
pazk in your neighborhood we have to fight to park in ours... deal with it." And "You
want a pazk - raise the funds and build your own pazk..." The community associates the
Planning Board comments and attitude with the city- they do not sepazate out staff from
what we hear from the planning boazd and it sounds to us like city is on the developer's
side. Maybe that was not the intent of the comments but that is the message being
received by the neighborhood. Maybe we need a chazette to help sort out-plan
particulars.
Helen Rhea Vernier:
I really like this project. Meets the requirement of community benefit. Can see the rest
of the neighbors going in and using these spaces. Would recommend this to City
Council. It is a great site but it feels like it is not being used to its fullest and that is good.
Feels to me like it is being well used. I went to this school. The building itself is a place
of "community." With these proposed community uses it seems appropriate.
Chris Halteman:
I don't like the project. I don't want to recommend the city t go forwazd. The neighbors
have issues with density. We had proposals with less than 30 units. If those proposals
were able to make it with less than 30 units why can't Wonderland? More people, more
cars, at Vic's, more at Urgent Caze etc., we do not want the neighborhood full of more
people. The community benefits seem really superficial. They aze all benefits for people
who live in the new community, not those who aze here now. We aze losing everyfliing
that is a benefit to us, like the open space, and the community that was a unique blend of
Latino and English speaking people.
In our eazly discussions we discussed reaching out to link to I,atino/Latina community.
We wanted some benefits for the Latino community in this project. There was almost
consensus agreement from this group for that. Those Latino members of this committee
are no longer here... why? Is it because there is nothing here for them?
I do not want to assume that if the city does not support and promote this project that we
will get sometYring worse the next time. Maybe if this doesn't work we get something
that is better for all.
r~~m~ana~a~l~:.--~~ IC "1 ~,~
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMUNITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBY'TERIAN CHURCH-ANNEX
I heazd a rumor that the school district will not budge on the closing date described in the
MQU. I would be upset if the city pressured them to accommodate this project by
encouraging the district to change the terms. I do not want to recoznmend they do that.
Dan Corson:
Do think that~the name is important. Need to consider the historic connection. Future
generations will not know what building with the tower was
It is interesring that when we took the "straw poll" awhile back in this process this project
was only the £avorite of Paul's.
In terms of community benefit, desperately need middle class housing in this town.
Boulder is losing its middle class. Am disappointed that it is all co-housing. We need
traditional, moderate priced housing as well; but that is an aside.
Urge applicant to firm up their community space use plan before it goes to City Council.
The nonprofits in this town need space for their use. They are leaving Boulder in droves.
Develop some plan to show how community will access this and be ready to show how
this is a community benefit to City Council.
I understand the need for the multi-family building along Broadway but if there w2s some
way to knock off the southern-most units and place them elsewhere in the project to
expose more of the historic structure elevariott - west view of building - preserve the,
view, the preservation community would prefer this. Regarding the open space plaza, I
believe this should be included in landmark site to assure there are no pressures later to
build there. This is only traditional view of the historic building remaining.
Need to firm up the plan for fa~ade easement intent as soon as possible. Council may
want to lmow more detail about the land marking plans. Do not want to jeopardize the
ta~c benefit, but could the developer answer quesrions regarding the faqade easement and
the land mazking plan on the public record during the City Council meeting without
jeopazdizing the ta~c deduction?
I concur with all of John's eloquent comments and add that if the site is not developed at
this tune there is potential for long period of vacancy with poor upkeep. The building is
already suffering from lack of upkeep. The building will continue to deteriorate and it
will become a more expensive proposition to renovate. We in the city watched St.
Gertrude's erumble- there was a fire. Took 16 yeazs for that project to come together, yet
to give nod to what Chris said, the project that came together 16 yeazs later was better
than what had been previously proposed.
a~~a~~ ~~ ~# 1~.~1g~
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMIJNITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH-ANNEX
Cathie Williamson:
Given the parameters for this RFP, Wonderland Hill Development Company has
proposed a beautiful project, within the framework and constraints provided. Of the
community benefits requested by City Council:
• Building preservation has been addressed, and the proposal to restore the tower is
wonderful. The historic value of the site, which includes the grounds, has not.
• Senior housing, affordable component, some possible arts use, ADA
requirements-all there.
It is difficult to say if the city has really impacted / had some say in the
development of the project since the city is not a partner, and we cannot guess
what might have happened without the intervention.
The economic viability of the project seems to be sound.
I appreciated Mr. Sopher's discussion of the city's plans for development and overview
of the BVCP map. I do appreciate the needs for higher density along transportation
corridors, and other planning efforts represented by the map. I do. also agee that many of
these benefits aze at the expense of the exisring neighborhood community beginning with
the loss of a central hub and our integration with the Hispanic community.
What is missing -
The BVSD view has come to encompass a much wider and competing set of interests
than those of the City of Boulder - we aze not their top priority. The issue here began
with the school districYs decision to close Washington School and to sell the property.
Boulder's City Council provided leadership by stepping in to have a role in the
redevelopment process. While I understand the economic reali6es and the Council's
obligation to set budget priorities for the city, the loss of Washington School to our
community raises for me the following questions of community benefit that have not
been addressed.
The issue of public schools within the City of Boulder. What I would like to see
is a conversation about schools, community and city: where we would like to see
them located; the role we would like them to play in sub-communities; how they
impact the larger community, and; the chazacter and quality of life in the city.
There aze few remainiug schools in central Boulder - aze we going to do anything
proactive to preserve any of them? Or, are we happy to see them moved outside?
In the past, the city has expressed a value for the youth in our city and providing
youth opportunities. This was an opportunity to address many still unmet needs
in several azeas for young people.
I have a concern about whether the enrire community is being represented in this
conversarion. Certainly no project can meet all needs. However, tkus panel was
formed in an effort to include representatives of many interests that have fallen to
the wayside. Missing panel members (feel effort is wasted?) is an issue for me.
a~~;~na~il~~n~_SI~ ~~~ 1G' lg
ATTACHMENT K
` WEEKLY INFORMATION PACKET
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Frank Bruno, City Manager
Kevin Burke, Deputy Ciry Manager
Stephanie Grainger, Deputy City Manager
Jerry Gordon, Acting City Attorney
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Catl Casrillo, Policy Advisor
Ruth McHyser, Acting Planning Duector
Robert Ray, Director of Project Review and Neighborhood Assistance
Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner
Karl Guiler, Planner
DATE: August 9, 2007
SUBJECT: Informarion Item: Washington Elementary School Site Update
EXECUTIVE SLTMMARY:
At its July 19`h meeting, the Plazuung Board continued its hearing until September 13~' on a site
plan for Washington Village, a development proposal for the Washington Elementary School site
submitted by Wonderland Hiil Development Company. At its regular business meeting on July
24~', Council requested further iriformation from the city manager about the proposal. In
particulaz, Council questioned the extent to which Wonderland's cunent proposal is still
consistent with the expectations that Council outlined when it referred Wonderland to the
Boulder Valley School District ("BVSD") as the purchaser of the site. While it is not
appropriate to discuss the merits of this land use review case outside of the established Planning
Boazd quasi judicial process that is underway, this memo is submitted in response to Council's
limited questions that relate to the city's refenal of Wonderland to BVSD as the purchaser of the
site.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND CONSISTENCY OF CURRENT PROPOSAL:
On September 19, 2006, Council unanimously adopted the recommendation made by six
of the seven members of the Washington Eleinentary School Site Community Review
Panel to refer Wonderland Hill Development Company to BVSD as the purchaser of the
school site conditioned upon: (1) execution of a restrictive covenatit, in the general form
shown in Attachment A, assuring that certain elements of Wonderland's proposal, as
summarized below, would be developed and retained into the immediate fuhue, and; (2)
due consideration of the recommendations expressed by the Review Panel, as captured in
the notes from its July 19`h meeting (Attachment B) under "Panel Discussion and
Development of Recommendation."
The elements of the proposal described in Attachment A include:
• Affordable housing (47% of total units)
• Accessibility for seniors and disabled (60% of total units)
• Preservation of mature trees adjacent to 13~' Street
A~anda Itero # 5~ I~e ~ k~ I
• Interior community space open to general public (7,500 sq. ft.)
. View shedlParkJNo-build azea (12,000 sq. ft.)
• Landmark application submittal to preserve historic values of the site
The proposal that Wonderland submitted to the city's Planning Boazd on July 19`t' was consistent
with all of the above elements with the exception of a change in the number of affordable
housing units. The reason for that change, and its consistency with the covenant language is
described below.
The proposal submitted to the city's Plamiing Board on July 19~b was also consistent with some
of the recommendations and considerations expressed by the Review Panel as described in
Attachment B, such as retention of the name "Washington." The proposal was not, however,
consistent with other recommendations and considerations that were made by the panel.
However, given the complexities involved with development of the site, Wonderland was
obligated to give "due consideration" to these recommendarions, and was never bound to adhere
to them.
• Changes in the Number of Middle Income Affordable Housing Units Proposed
As Council was informed of in an e-mail from the City Manager in April of this yeaz,
Wonderland received approval from city staff, consistent with the covenant language included in
Attachment A, to change the number of middle income, permanently afFordable housing units at
the school site.' The covenant language allows for the conversion of some or all of the proposed
middle income units to mazket rate units if there are mazket challenges. Mazket challenges were
anticipated given the complex nature of the project and likelihood that the prices for the middle
income units necessary to support the project might not be affordable enough to provide
sustainable, long term affordability. As anticipated, city staff received a request from
Wonderland to allow a decrease in the number of petmanently affordable middle income housing
units developed at the Washington Elementary School site.
Originally, Wonderland's co-housing proposal included 8 low and 11 middle income
permanently affordable units along ~ith 21 mazket rate units. As the details of the project
continued to be developed, staff expressed concern over the pricing of the proposed middle
income units and asked VJonderland to consider providing fewer middle income permanently
affordable units in order to have middle income units that would work, long term, in the
affordable housing program. Unfortunately BVSD's terms of sale for the site required that a
substanrial premium be paid on each additional mazket rate unit above 21. Wonderland
subsequently proposed to convert 6 of the middle income units to market rate and requested that
BVSD accept 50 percent of the stated premium on the converted middle income permanently
affordabie units and allow the balance of the premium to be used to lower the prices on the
remaining middle income units. The BVSD Boazd agreed to accept 75 percent of the required
premium, allowing 25 percent to be applied to the remaining middle income units.
~ Since BVSD has not yet closed on ihe sale with Wonderland, the deed reshiction language that the city proposed is
^ot yet in effect. NevertUeless, the proposed covenant language does capture the city's expectations for the
property's redevelopment.
~1c~nrla Nem d ~ F~ # ~ ' ~
In addition to the 5 permanenfly affordable middle income housing units still being proposed, the
project con6nues to provide 20 percent of the low income permanently affordable units on-site.
Typically, a project of this size might provide 10 percent on-site units with the balance as cash-
in-lieu or no on-site affordable units. No projects, other than certain annexations, provide middle
income permanently affordable units.
Housing and Human Services staff reviewed this proposal and agreed with Wonderland that
there were market challenges for the currently priced middle income units. Furthermore, given
that savings from a conversion to mazket-rate of some of the units would decrease the sale price
of the remaining middle income units, thus making them more mazketable and sustainable as
permanently affordable units, staff also agrees that the proposed reduction was reasonable,
consistent with the covenant options available to Wonderland, and with the community's need
for sustainable afFordable housing. Accordingly, staff conveyed the city's support for the
proposal to both the school district and Wonderland.
NEXT STEPS:
Following the Plamiing Boazd hearing scheduled for September 13th, this item will be listed on
City Council's agenda for potential call up at Council's September 18~' business meering. If
Council chooses to call up the item it would be heazd at the October 2 City Council meeting.
Attachments
Attachment A: Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction
Attachment B: Meeting Notes of Review Panel, July 19, 2006
~t~m1a Item ~ 5_ '~. _. ~~ ~ ~.~3
Attachment A
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND
DEED RESTRICTTON
This Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction ("CovenanY') 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 DistricY'), 6500 East Arapahoe, P.O. Box 9011, Boulder, Colorado
80301, and is for the benefit of and enforceable by the City of Bouider ("Cit}~').
RECITALS
A. The School District is the owner of the real properiy described on Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which is commonly known as Washington
Elementary School, located at 1215 Cedaz, Boulder, Colorado. For purposes of this Covenant,
the real properiy described on Exhibit A and all appurtenances, improvements and fixtures
associated therewith shall hereinafter collectively be referred to as the "Properiy."
B. The Property is to be sold by the School District pursuant to the terms of the
Memorandum of Understanding dated Mazch 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 Mazch 20, 2006 by way of
the Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU AmendmenY').
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 chariges
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
consultation 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 norice 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,
gantee, 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 enrity 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 to be enforced by the City.
Fa~,t~dd I~m # S~ .~~ #.~~,
COVENANT
NOW THEREFORE, the School District as the owner of the Property, for itself, its
successors, assigns and all subsequent grantees and transferees, declazes, creates and imposes the
following land use covenants, restrictions and lunitarions 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. ~
Restrictions.
a. Affordable HousinQ The owner of the Property agrees to create the greater of
20% of the total units or 8 units that aze 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 appiication for
any residential building permits on the Property. The following conditions shall
apply to the Subject Property:
Low income Permanentlv Affordable. Twenty percent or 8 of the
dwelling units on the Residential Pazcel shall have deed restrictions or
covenants, in a form acceptabie to the City Manager, as to the maximum
price. The dwelling units shall be permanenUy affordable to low and
moderate income households consistent with the provisions of Chapter 9-
13, B.R.C. 1981, "Inclusionazy Zoning."
ii. Middle Income Permanently Affordable. Twenty-seven percent or 11 of
the deed restricted dwelling units shall be permanently affordable to
middle income households which are defined as those households eaming
less than 120% of the Area Median Income as defined by HiJD 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 all
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 ttris p.azagraph will be subject to the
enritlement premium described in the MOU Amendment.
r~n~rMaltem#~~F'~# n'~ ~
iii. Covenants Required. Prior to the issuance of any residential building
permits for the pazcel, the Applicant shall execute, in a form acceptable to
the City Attomey and the City Manager, covenants and deed restrictions
that guazantee 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 limitarions of the purchasers of each
permanently affordable unit, and fair marketing and selection procedures.
b. Barrier Free Desipn. The owner of the Property agrees to construct or otherwise
provide a minimum of twenty four (24) Type B accessible dwelling units
designed and conshucted for accessibility in accordance with ICC/ANSI A117.1-
1998 "Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities.". Such units shall be
accessible on the floor level that includes common azeas 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 exisring 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 aze
located in the azea between the east property line abutting the 13t~ Sfreet right-of-
way and the eastern 50 feet of the Property. Removal of trees must receive prior
approval of the City. The City will grant such pernussion 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 azea in the historic Washington School Building and/or the
Librazy 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 pennitted 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, Pazk, No-Build Area - The Owner of the Property agrees that an azea
approximately 12,000 sq.ft. in size located at the south west corner of the Property
as shown on Eachibit B sha11 be limited as follows:
i. 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 azea.
ii. The azea may only be used for access and parks purposes.
a~rida I~m # . S~" ~ ~ ~L = ~°m
iii. No obstructions other than railings that may be required by the local
building code, unprovements related to accessibility and barrier free
design, landscaping 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 landmazks.
2. A~reement. Prior to submitting any building pemut applications to the City to add any
floor azea, to demolish any building on the Property, or prior to or concurrent with an
applicarion for site review, the Owner shall submit an application for the grant of local
individual landmark status (the "Individual Landmazk Application") for at least that
portion of the Property that is shown on Exhibit C. The boundary shown in E~chibit C for
the individual landmark boundary is illustrative. Prior to submitting the Individual
Landmazk Applicarion, the Owner will submit the final boundary for the individual
landmark application for the final review and approval by the City manager. The
boundary shall include ail of the following azea: An area at least three feet azound the
entire historic portion Washington School Building, the azea 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 Pazagraph 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 restric6ons contained therein shall be in fuil force and
effect for a period of twenty (20) yeazs from the date of the recordation with the Boulder
County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
4. Binding Effect. This Covenant sha11 run with the land and shall be binding upon any
transferee, grantee, or any Owner of the Property or any portion thereof. Any transfer of
tifle 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 aze for the Benefit of the Citv. This Covenant and the resh-ictions contained
therein shali be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the City and its respective
successors and assigns, and any parties clauning under the City or its successors and
assigns.
6. Enforcement. This Covenant may be enforced by the City, its successors or assigns, and
enforcement may be made by any lawful means, including a suit for injunctive relief and
damages to reimburse the City or its successors and assigns for enforcement costs,
including reasonable attomey's fees. Venue for any suit to enforce compliance with trris
Covenant shall be proper in the District Court for the County of Boulder, State of
Colorado. As part of any enforcement acfion on the part of the City, its successors or
assigns, the Owner shall be responsible for the payment of all court costs and reasonable
fl~~~i~1{~M~ ~~ ~~ F-. ~
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 interpreted 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 invalida6ng the remaining
provisions of such document.
b. Governing Law. This Covenant and each and every related document are to be
govemed 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 wvenants ;
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 Headin~s. Pazagraph or section headings within this Covenant are
inserted solely for convenience of reference, and aze not intended to, and shall 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
inshument executed by the School Dishict recorded in the real estate records for
Boulder County.
f. Modificarions. Any modifications of trus Covenant shall be effecrive 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 shail
mean the person or persons who shall acquire an ownership interest in the
Property, or any portion thereof, subject to trus Covenant; it is understood that
such person oz persons shall be deemed an Owner hereunder only during the
period of his, her or their ownership interest in the Properry, or any portion
thereof, and shall be obligated hereunder for the full and complete performance
and observance of all covenants, condirions and restrictions contained herein
during such period.
,,,e~~~d~ I~m K ~~ f'~s. ~ ~~ " ~
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2
By:
Helayne Jones
President, Boazd of Education
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss:
COUNTY OFBOULDER )
The foregoing instrument was aclmowledged before me this day of , 2006, by Helayne
Jones, President of the Boazd of Educarion for Boulder Valley School District RE-2, formerly School Distact
Number 3, a public school district and polifical subdivision of the State of Colorado.
Wimess my hand and official seal
My commission expires:
Notary Public
F
;~!;::~laltem?~ ~~ _h:~# IL'
E~3IBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A~rtion af Lot i in Joseph LVoliPs 6~abdfvisiort of ~ Nar.th Hdli of #he Nortftwest Quattsroi Section 30,.
Tawnship'1 E~orth, Aange 70 t+~ssE of Ltie 8'" R.M, ~unt~ dE 9ou3dur, Siste of CoEorado d~cnbed as
;ollorts to n~F: beginn~ag at the Sa~~rreest aoan~rof said Lot °&, fiteence NorfheNy along the YJes16n9 oF
said Lot f s cFistance of ~5feat; tiRence ~ss3crly arsd par111s1 io the t~orYh I'~ne of ssid Lot 1 to Yite East line
of said Lo# t; tE~enee 5au6h~r~y,atang ft~ ~sf Eine of seld Loi i a disYanes of 85 feat!o iha Southeast
oorrar of said Lat 4; thencs Westeriy aFong the South lirae of said Lot ~ tv tlae pEace af begi~ning.
~Lais 2 and 8, Joseph LVo96f s'Subdivision, Counity of $ou(der. ~Sf3ta of ~orado; anrf ~,
Af~ that por~on of Lflt 4 of J4saph Wo[ff's Suhdivisiori oithe NoRh Half of the Northwest Qua~or of .
Se^lion 30, TQwnship j[~oi~~,, Ren~e 71~ Vdest a~ihe 8°i P.PA., CounEy ot 6vulder, State of Calpradq,
desCCi80d as #olEQVaS, ~-vr'~; beg3nnirtg a# fh~ $oufhwesE comer ~ said Lat 4, iheF~e Nartkiel[ya[ona the
V~lest fne o['said Lat 4~~ distsne~.of 95 iee~ ihetice F.'&sterly and rya[aFlel ~n the Norlh tine af said La~ 4to
#he East fine oE~said tait 4; #tsnpe Sou~he€ly alorx,7lhe EasE Ene o[ sait4 F~at 4 a disfaaee oi 95 feei•?a t[te
$outheasi camer of said La14; ihe~lee Wesk~riy along 315e Sot3tk5 llne of sa~d Lof A ia the pEace of
t~eginning. , - .
„e~rri,~ Item ~i S~ F' h I L'10
EXHXBIT B
BOUNDARY FOR THE
VIEW SHED, YARK, NO-BUILD AREA
~it,::; ~'l ~Z~~1't ~ ~ ~= :.~ ~r ~~ T~~.
WASNINGTnN SCHOdL - 1215 CEDAR AVE
EXHIBIT C
ILLUSTRA"I'I VE
MINIMUM BOiJNDARY FOTZ THE
INDIVIDUAL LANDMAILK APYLICATTON
W4SH€NI:TnN Cf'41t1rn _ ~~~s rcnno nirr
i1f,::1~'.1;#ICC~"i~,~`~~~ f„`-~#'. ~~ ~ ~ ~~
~+.. Conceptual Landma~k Boundury - Not Scalabl~ PARCEL f0: -146J30208002 pw'',,,°,~~~ e~,"'v,,,°;c;,~:;y,~,;,~"''s
LOT AREA: 1706A5 sq tt ~j~ 1 u1C11 0qUZ15 45 teet D,., , e.•.w
Attachment B
MEETING NOTES
WASAINGTON SCHOOL COMMUNITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHIJRCH-ANNEX
Attendees
Cedaz Commons Proiect Team: Jon Bazbieri, Shambhala; Adrian Sopher, Architecture
Incorporated; Andy Allison, Wonderland Hill Development Company, and; Nore Winter,
Winter and Company.
Communitv Review Panel Members Present: Dan Corson; John Decker; Chris
Halteman; Stan Kyed; Paul Saporito; Helen Vernier, and; Cathie Williamson.
Ci Staff: Cazl Castillo, Policy Advisor; Jnn Martin, City Attorney's Office; Susan
Richstone, Planning Department; James Hewat, Planning Department; Doug Newcomb,
Open Space and Mountain Pazks; Cindy Pieropan, Department of Housing and Human
Services; Brad Power, City Manager's Office, and; Mike Gurolla, Pazks and Recrearion.
BVSD StafF. Don Orr, Director of Planning Engineering and Conslruction
Consultants: Molly Tayer, Facilitator; Ray Wilson, Financial Consultant.
Summary
Introductions
Molly Tayer opened the meeting with a round of introductions and a review of the
original chazge of the group that was provided in the first meering. Molly also asked the
group to consider their broader-interests as"community" in their assessment and input to
Wonderland's proposal.
Carl Casfillo provided a brief overview of the process to date and offered his thanks to
the Review Panel, the Cedar Commons project team, city stafF, consultants, and BVSD
representatives for having participated in a lengthy and complicated process. Cazl stated
that there were some interests heard from the community that might not be reflected in
the proposal under consideration partly because of the need for respondents to develop a
proposal that would justify paying a market-rate price for the site. Altemative city
processes that may have yielded different results were considered but not pursued,
including the option of the city financially subsidizing a proposal from its general funds
or assuming the lead in developing a proposal in association with one or more
developers.
Cazl reminded the panel members that they were chosen because of their association with
one or more distinct community interests but that they were invited to develop a
recommendation for Council based on their individual perspectives of the proposal as
assessed against City Council's stated goals for the site.
,~r~,~~l~e~,# ~l'~- ~~~# ~'f3
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMUIVITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH-ANNEX
Cedar Commons Presentation
The Cedaz Commons project team was allotted time to provide a slide show overview of
their proposal and answer questions from the Review Panel.
Jon Bazbieri, Adrian Sopher, and Nore Winter described key aspects of the proposal. Jon
provided the group some background on both Jim Leach and Wonderland Development
and their track record in developing co-housing. Information on slides detailed the tenets
of co-housing and began portraying the co-housing proposed for this site. Jon then
introduced the concept "site plan."
Adrian Sopher spoke to the context of the site in the City of Boulder's comp plan and
other development activities slated for adjacent blocks.
Nore Winter walked the audience through some of the key considerations in the historic
features of the school buildings and the site. Nore then touched upon the timing and
projected planning for the historic preservation designation. Nore introduced the concepl
that the historic designation might be abetted by donaring the historic easement to a
charitable organization. Questions were raised regarding how much of the site should be
included in the historic designation.
Citv Staff and Consultant Evaluation of Proposal
An evaluation of the project review was provided by city staff from their azeas of
expertise.
Ray Wilson/Independent Business Plan Consutltant - The business plan does represent
a reasonable basis for successful development of the site. However, the plan is put at risk
if BVSD does not agree to the requested extension to close 18 months after Council
selection. Also, the developer will need to presale enough units up &ont to make ttris a
"go." Feels that Wonderland Hills track record suggests this is doable. Team credenrials
tested well in the community.
James HewaUCity Historic Preservation Planner - City of Boulder interested in the
timing of the landmazk designation as this will drive other factors of the deal. James
likes the plan to restore the tower to the original school building. Would like to look at
the proposal and address how much of the land around the site to be included in the
landmark designation. New structures should be subservient to older. The building
along Broadway feels like it may overwhelm the west side of the property. Need to look
at the access to the view from South-west.
Cindy Pieropan/City Housing Planner - Proposal meets the city's requirement for 20
percent (8 units on-site) of the total proposed units to be permanenfly affordable to low
~,qx.~~~m3i /~ €:,~~ I~'%
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMiJrTITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH-ANNEX
income households. Additionally, it includes 27 percent (11 units) of the total proposed
units as permanently affordable to middle income households.
Susan Richstone/Senior City Planner - Adrian covered most of the contextual and
zoning information in his presentation. Because of the project size, developer will need
to go through site review. Pianning Board concems regarding mass and scale, and views
from Broadway, will be considered at Site review. Questions regazding the commercial
component and affordable housing - both are appropriate for the site.
Panel members had questions about why the Planning staff and Planning Board would go
ahead and move the lot line and change the configurarion of density-setbacks so easily.
Neighbors attending the Planning Board felt that the boazd did not take into consideration
their concems and responded in a dismissive manner.
Panel Discussion and Development of Recommendation
`Upon completion of the staff and consultant reports, the Review Panel was asked to shift
geazs into discussion between panel members regarding their proposed recommendations.
Panel members spent the final tlurty minutes asking fmal quesrions and delivering their
recommendation to the assembled.
Their comments follow.
John Decker:
Recommend that the proposal go forwazd. This project represents the best use of the site
within the context of what is happening around it along Broadway and yields a good
community benefit considered against the reality of the purchase conditions established
by BVSD. It is important that the building is being preserved and that the developer will
seek landmark status after closing. Additionai community benefit would have been
preferable but would have required more comxnihnent to the community than BVSD is
willing to give.
The city should play some role in facilitating further action with BVSD - particularly the
closing conditions as set in the MOU. The concern is that the current closing deadline
may be difficult for the developer to meet and may compromise the project's viability.
WTTH THE FOLLOWING CAVEAT:
The city should help address community concerns with this proposal as the process goes
forward.
1) Name of the project is a stated concem for many in the community, some
retention of the name "Washington" is recommended.
iL ~ I 5
n~a fle~ # __Z`~~_ ~ ~------~-
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMUNITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH-ANNEX
2) Residents, particularly on the north edge of the property, aze concerned with
the height and proximity of structures. Possibly create more buffer space on the north-
such as the set-back gesture on the east edge, 13`h street frontage. -OR-
ADD- like Paul's comments regarding the "qualitative treatments" of the buffer
space/edges - consider what faces people.
3) Some more formal provision of the community spaces, both interior and
exterior, should be made by the developer at this phase to help obtain more buy-in from
the community.
Paul Saporito:
Agree with John Decker. Support going forwazd with proposal with caveat that the
community concems addressed, answered, in some way resolved.
It should be particularly noted that I heard a number of neighbors concemed about
density. However, I agree with Adrian's presentarion that if Boulder is to control
congestion, limiring density in town oniy promotes sprawl. The most effective
accommodation is to infill along transit corridors.
The neighborhood is akeady a modest, middle income place. It seems that, while the
developer's efforts to provide moderate income units is admirable, the amenity of a
community squaze has been minimized. I understand that, because of a surcharge of
between $150K and $250K per market unit over 20 + was stipulated in the contract with
the School District, the economics drives the footprint. This has been a financially fragile
project from the outset, and the balance sheet has been skillfully reconciled with low-
margin affordable units because they aze exempt from the surchazge. The contract with
the district, for bettez or worse, cannot be modified. However, fewer units with a higher
margin, i.e. more mazket units and less affordable would allow a greater amount of public
space.
If this proposal unravels, the historic asset of the school would be in jeopardy. While we
were reassured that the District would not exercise their sovereignty and demolish the
historic stnxchxre, the property would be worth more without a"run down" building in
need of rehab. It was very telling to note that School Dish-ict appraisal info did not take
into consideration a value for the historic building.
I agree with Cathie on the point that this property works best as a school, and since the
proposed housing would not be incompatible with educational uses, it is extremely
unfortunate that the MOU with the District prevents it from being used as such. Out of a
transpazent attempt to limit competition, we aze prevented from having a focus school or
charter school that is right on a bus line.
~~ ~L.. ~ ~~
;~~3~td~ 118~t ~ ~
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMiJNITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CIIURCH-ANNEX
Stan Kyed:
Agree with John, but I(do not like the project .... do not like) what it is going to do to my
neighborhood. Echo - comments regazding addressing the concerns of the
neighborhood. .. concerns of the comxnunity - not always the same thing. .. have not been
addressed. Pazking is a problem - will be a problem. Buffer on north side of project -
will people be putting their trash next to my house? Need a buffer between the co-
housing and the neighborhood - different activities. Neighborhood concerns are not
considered in this plan. Concerned with Planning Board comments: "you have to figl~t to
pazk in your neighborhood we have to fight to pazk in ours... deal with it." And "You
want a pazk - raise the funds and build your own park..." The community associates the
Planning Board comments and attitude with the city- they do not separate out staff from
what we hear from the planning board and it sounds to us like city is on the developer's
side. Maybe that was not the intent of the comments but that is the message being
received by the neighborhood. Maybe we need a chazette to help sort out-plan
particulars.
Helen Rhea Vemier:
I really like this project. Meets the requirement of community benefit. Can see the rest
of the neighbors going in and using these spaces. Would recommend this to City
Council. It is a great site but it feels like it is not being used to its fullest and that is good.
Feels to me like it is being well used. I went to this school. The building itself is a place
of"community." With these proposed community uses it seems appropriate.
Chris Halteman:
I don't like the project. I don't want to recommend the city t go forward. The neighbors
have issues with density. We had proposals with less than 30 units. If those proposals
were able to make it with less than 30 units why can't Wonderland? More people, more
cazs, at Vic's, more at Urgent Caze etc., we do not want the neighborhood fixll ofrnore
people. The community benefits seem really superficial. They aze all benefits for people
who live in the new community, not those who are here now. We aze losing everything
that is a benefit to us, like the open space, and the community that was a unique blend of
Latino and English speaking people.
In our eazly discussions we discussed reaching out to link to Latino/Latina community.
We wanted some benefits for the Latino community in this project. There was aimost
consensus agreement from this group for that. Those Latino members of this committee
are no longer here... why? Is it because there is nothing here for them?
I do not want to assume that if the city does not support and promote this project that we
will get something worse the next time. Maybe if tlus doesn't work we get something
that is better for all.
/;.~nt1aH0A1#~~~ ~~ ~ ~
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMUNITY REVIEW PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH-ANNEX
I heazd a rumor that the school district will not budge on the closing date described in the
MOU. I would be upset if the city pressured them to accommodate this proj ect by
encouraging the district to change the terms. I do not want to zecommend they do that.
Dan Corson:
Do think that~the name is important. Need to consider the historic connection. Future
generations will not know what building with the tower was
It is interesring that when we took the "straw poll" awhile back in this process this project
was only the favorite of Paul's.
In terms of community benefit, desperately need middle class housing in this town.
Boulder is losing its middle class. Am disappointed that it is all co-housing. We need
tradirional, moderate priced housing as well; but that is an aside.
Urge applicant to firm up their community space use plan before it goes to City Council.
The nonprofits in this town need space for their use. They aze leaving Boulder in droves.
Develop some plan to show how community will access this and be ready to show how
this is a community benefit to City Council.
I understand the need for the multi-family building along Broadway but if there was some
way to knock offthe southern-most units and place them elsewhere in the project to
expose more of the historic structure elevation - west view of building - preserve the,
view, the preservation community would prefer this. Regardmg the open space plaza, I
believe this should be included in landmark site to assure there are no pressures later to
build there. This is only traditional view of the historic building remaining.
Need to firm up the plan for fa~ade easement intent as soon as possible. Council may
want to lmow more detail about the land marking plans. Do not want to jeopazdize the
taac benefit, but could the developer answer quesrions regazding the fapade easement and
the land mazking plan on the public record during the City Council meeting without
jeopazdizing the ta~c deducrion?
I concur with all of John's eloquent comments and add that if the site is not developed at
this time there is potential for long period of vacancy with poor upkeep. The building is
akeady suffering from lack of upkeep. The building will continue to deteriorate and it
will become a more expensive proposition to renovate. We in the city watched St.
Gertrude's crumble- there was a fire. Took 16 years for that project to come together, yet
to give nod to what Cluis said, the project that came together 16 yeazs later was better
than what had been previously proposed.
~~~;~~3a I~~t d ~~ ~~ l~~( ~.
MEETING NOTES
WASHINGTON SCHOOL COMMiJNITY REV~W PANEL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19TH
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHi_IRCH-ANNEX
Cathie Williamson:
Given the parameters for this RFP, Wonderland Hill Development Company has
proposed a beautiful project, within the framework and constraints provided. Of the
community benefits requested by City Council:
• Building preservation has been addressed, and the proposal to restore the tower is
wonderful. The historic value of the site, which includes the grounds, has not.
• Senior housing, affordable component, some possible arts use, ADA
requirements-all there.
It is difficult to say if the city has really impacted / had some say in the
development of the project since the city is not a partner, and we cannot guess
what might have happened without the intervention.
The economic viability of the project seems to be sound.
I appreciated Mr. Sopher's discussion of the city's plans for development and overview
of the BVCP map. I do appreciate the needs for higher density along transportarion
corridors, and other planning efforts represented by the map. I do, also agree that many of
these benefits aze at the expense of the exisring neighborhood community beginning with
the loss of a central hub and our integrafion with the Hispanic community.
What is missing -
The BVSD view has come to encompass a much wider and competing set of interests
than those of the City of Boulder - we aze not their top priority. The issue here began
with the school districYs decision to close Washington School and to sell the property.
Boulder's City Council provided leadership by stepping in to have a tole in the
redevelopment process. While I understand the economic realiries and the Council's
obligation to set budget priorities for the city, the loss of Washington School to our
community raises for me the following quesrions of community benefit that have not
been addressed.
The issue of public schools within the City of Boulder. What I would like to see
is a conversation about schools, community and city: where we would like to see
them located; the role we would like them to play in sub-communities; how they
impact the larger community, and; the character and quality of life in the city.
There aze few remaining schools in central Boulder - aze we going to do anything
proactive to preserve any of them? Or, are we happy to see them moved outside?
In the past, the city has expressed a value for the youth in our city and providing
youth opportunities. This was an opportunity to address many still unmet needs
in several azeas for young people.
I have a concem about whether the entire community is being represented in this
conversation. Certainly no project can meet all needs. However, this panel was
formed in an effort to include representatives of many interests that have fallen to
the wayside. Missing panel members (feel effort is wasted?) is an issue for me.
~,~~altsm~_S~I ,~~ IG~19 a
ATTACHMENT L
Karl Guiler - Washington Neighbor Appreciates Board's Attentiveness
From: John Gless < ______...__
To: "Juliet Bonnell" <bonnellj@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 7/20/2007 7:35 PM
Subject: Washington Neighbor Appreciates Board's Attentiveness
CC: Karl Guiler <Guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov>, Ruth McHeyser
<mcheyserr @ bou]dercolorado.gov>,
Dear Planning Board Members,
I wish to [hank you for your obvious attentiveness to the concerns expressed in opposition to the
Washington Commons proposal last night. I also wish to thank you for what I read to be a unanimous
willingness to accommodate those concerns. This is literally the first time anyone has stated such
willingness in a way any of us out here would consider to be legitimate. I feei that removing the fog of
inevitability propping up this project for so long opens up a patch of blue sky through which committed
parties can chart a deserving future for this site.
However, I am far from alone in being skeptical about whether the continuance to Sept. 13 will
accomplish anything other than what I now see as Wonderland's inevitable withdrawal. While I respect
and understand the Board's decision to give them "one more chance" I would caution you about
expecting very much of substance to change. After each Board member gave their initial round of
opinions last night and you began to confer with Mr. Leach, it seemed he was trying to cast the same
spell on you that is now so familiar to many of us. His expression of wonderment about why didn't all
the "red shirts" show up at December's Concept Plan hearing - because he would have surely given up
back then; has a decidedly disingenuous ring.
Please go back and review the December 7, 2006 rrunutes (Attachment H, p.80 of the staff inemo for last
night's meeting). I count at least 11 of us "red shirts" out of 17 public participants. The other six were
cohousing advocates (4), a landmarks advocate, and a guy wanting the city to adopt stricter
sustainability standards for all new development. You could also review the four page memo I sent the
Board prior to this meeting (December 4), which outlined a subset of the same issues contained in the
more comprehensive memo I submitted eariier this week. Finally, review the comments of Board
members present at the time, particularly those of vice-chair Shull, who is the only member present at
both hearings. At that time the Board gave the applicant clear direction on key issues such as Red
Arrow, Parking, Single Family FAR, SW corner preservation, and Site Permeability - all which (and
more) were included last night in your finai list of things for the applicant to reconsider.
As a reminder, during the over 7 months between Concept Review and last night, here is the progress
that was made on those issues:
Red Arrow: Extremely minor shadow reduction, zero or perhaps negligible improvement in north
setback mass.
Parking: No change in # of RH-2 spaces provided (66). Only studies attempting to reassure us that no
matter how bad our current situation, they promised not to make it worse. Also, the evolution of
commercial and community space programming as well as the conversion of 6 more residential units to
market rate appears to only increase parking demand. One point I've been trying to make for a long time
~~s~~i~mr ~~~# L._
fileJ/C:\Documents%n20and%n20Settinn~\vuilkl\T.ncal%,20Settinnc\Temn\C;W 5000(1
is that, based on my experience with friends in cohousing, these communities host frequent gatherings
with large numbers of visitors. Jon Barbieri for the first time confirmed this (in the context of his
community space presentation) when he talked about cohousing groups typically hosting community
dining events at least once or twice a week. This is something that, for obvious reasons, they never, ever
mention in the context of parking.
Single Family FAR: Negative progress. The only change is that after the Board's pessimtsm about the
proposed FA swap between zones in December, applicant has now reluctantly admitted that the physical
limitations of the narrow non-conforming lots allow a maximum of .65 FAR, which is what they have
requested. The only other gesture is to draft some Design Guidelines and propose a design review
committee (with only 1 neighbor among the 5 members) for these homes. If you review the Design
Guidelines, they completely lack any specificity, and only amount to an attempt at convincing neighbors
that architectural "smoke and mirrors" will eliminate any adverse visual impact caused by a solid row of
4,000 s.f. homes on the west side of the street blocking foothills views. I like Bill Holicky's suggestion
to sketch out some actual designs, but I suspect the applicant lacks confidence in its abiliry to be
persuasive on this. The progress on front setbacks was negatrve because the 225 ft. cumulative setback
on this six lots proposed at concept is now reduced to 190 ft. (I was too unrehearsed and therefore
inefficient to get that far in my presentation, but that discussion is in my recent memo).
SW "Viewshed" Corner: No change from concept.
Site Permeability: No change from concept.
Affordable Housing Benefit: Cut by more than half.
As for public outreach after Concept Review, that only happened after the applicanYs April submittal, in
at least three meetings with various neighbor groups in May. Lot's of feedback was provided, but since
there were no substantive changes afterwards, it appears the applicant was simply "fishing" for ways to
present their unmodified plans to you in the most favorable light. Their parking study (attachment L, p.
119 of the staff hearing memo) and Design Guidelines (attachment O) for example, were prepazed
immediately after the large May 9 neighborhood meeting where they got an earful on both these topics
and more - just like they have all along.
It is this continued abuse of the public outreach process, as well as brushing off this Board's clear
direction at Concept Review, that caused the number of "red shirts" to expand eight-fold between then
and now, and there is no one responsible for that other than Mr. Leach and his employees. If any of the
many neighbors still present at 12:30 a.m. had been asked to respond to Mr. Leach, this is what you
would have heard. I don't know whether that would have influenced your decision, but it certainly
would have shed some much needed light on the matter of process, and perhaps the Board's confidence
in going forward. Assuming this application is ultimately withdrawn or denied, nobody owes
Wonderland an apology for stubbomly pressing on in an unresponsive manner. That Mr. Sopher is the
project architect, and also a member of this Board, makes Wonderland's claims of unfair treatment even
more outlandish. Did they expect that to give them an advantage? It seems like planning staff may have
failed to enforce or appreciate the Board's direction at Concept Review, and also public input. But I
can't blame them too much for that since, by necessity, staff has had a close working relationship with
Wonderland, and sheer proximity makes them even more vulnerable to the same familiar spelis.
Personally, I beheve Jim Leach and Jon Barbieri are good, competent fellows who know what they want
and how to get it. Mr. Leach, especially, has a long and emminent list of admirers in Boulder. That
doesn't mean either of them is immune to error. Sometimes the people most accustomed to success are
also the least able to admit mistakes. Not admitting error is one thing. Causing, and then acting
oblivious to a profound level of distrust within a community where one wants to integrate? ...that is quite
another. Not that it makes any difference, but I hope the Board and public at large can also appreciate
how this distrust is only exacerbated when it's generated in support of a movement that insists it can help
people transcend their silly cares. In the beginning, the proposal's cohousing aspect was basically a
F~getSda Hs~n # ~__ ~ ~~
minor curiousity. But the further we go mto the process, the more apparent is the gulf (and hypocrisy)
between the benign intent of the "intentional community" and the burdensome architecture they want to
occupy. Dante Ortiz, of Red Arrow, has been instrumental in allowing me to see how the strong inward
focus of the cohousing design is not possible to achieve on this site without insult to surrounding
properties. I can't overstate my gratitude and appreciation to all Red Arrow residents for their thoughtful
activism and also for providing an alternative model for a cohesive community that turns the other
model inside-out and truly exhibits sustainable values.
If anyone deserves an apology here, it is the people living in this neighborhood, who have been forced to
agonize over their ne~ghborhood's fate while suffering through the prolonged and useless distraction of a
process whose flaws should have been obvious from the start. Not that I know anyone who wants an
apology. On the contrary, now that this proposal's demise is all but assured, the clouds are starting to lift
and everyone is energized like never before. Two negative synonyms for the "In Transition" label that I
didn't include on my slide are "disconnected" and "incohesive". After last night, all of Boulder knows
this neighborhood is neither of those things, and that is a huge positive for neighborhoods here or in any
city.
Right now, we are going to be exploring any and all possible means to respect and preserve this
property in the only way that makes any sense - by engaging the people most intimately familiar with
the school, the school grounds, and the neighborhood that has organically sprung up around it over the
decades. Various local government entities have proven unable to very well appreciate the element of
context for this site and the destabilizing potential for developing it simply based on its zoning. We
would still welcome them to our table, even though we've been mostly excluded from theirs. One of the
many positive discoveries we've made while rallying together is a very high level of relevant expertise
and creative power among us, along with (I hope) the dedication necessazy to do the proper follow-
through. I really hope the continuation hearing won't be necessary, but just in case, you might want to
ask the Board secretary if Macky Auditorium is free the night of September 13.
Sincerely,
John T. Gless
p.s. Sorry for the verbosity (again), but for process to be considered relevant it also has to be well
documented.
If Wonderland decides to get in the way for another few weeks, that's up to them. If we've been vigilant
about their plans so far, we'll be hyper-vigilant in the near future
F1G~11E9m# '~__F'~E~ ~~~
Karl Guiler - Washington Village
From: "Tommy Lorden" i>
To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Sun, Jul 22, 2007 1:59 PM
Subject: Washington Village
THANKS for helping to protect our north Broadway neighborhood! As
new residents on Jefferson Street we were very happy to hear that the
Washington Village project has been delayed so that more scrutiny and
planning can be done to absolutely ensure that it has a positive
impact on our community.
W e have four small children who plan to walk and bike 13th Street to
school, and as you know, that area of 13th Street is already quite
crowded with cars and parking---so are very concerned about the impact
of the proposed project. In addition, we are very concerned about
the loss of public green space in the area---and hope that ultimately
some sort of public access to a park(playground is permitted.
Please let us know if there is anything we can do to ensure the
highest and best use is found for our community.
Tommy & Katie Lorden
3015 Jefferson Street
CC: "Katie Lorden" <
[
A~3tl~f~Ntb;~ _~~ ` -
Karl Guiler - Fwd: TO BOULDER PLANNING BOARD
From: Aimee Dill
To: Guiler, Karl
Date: 7/23/2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Fwd: TO BOULDER PLANNING BOARD
. , ~. ~,~.~~eb 7/19/2007 3:46 PM »>
TO BOULDER Pu~NNING BOARD
Enough is enough! The ongoing Washington School development plan surges onward on it's path of destruction
of our neighborhoods. The plan that has defied the neighborhood residents input as well as the standards in
Boulder. Why are concessions granted to developers while concerns of residents fall on deaf ears? Isn't this
government without representation?
The ongoing fight with the neighborhood reached new heights when City Council and Planning Board members
decided very early to approve this neighborhood eyesore without hearing neighborhood input. After many
meetings with city officials, the results remain the same. Officials and developers listen but iYs very apparent
that they haven't really heard the residents. When were the standards in Boulder lowered to this level. Do the
long-time residents of Boulder (who helped build this beautiful community) have a voice now?? Where has our
representation disappeared to?
Thank you.
Win Nolin
1324 Cedar Ave., Boulder, CO 803n4
303-449-1315
C
k;~nda I~~ # ~~ I~ ~ ~_ ~ ,
Karl Guiler - washington school
From: ayal korcza.. _,.,_
To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Mon, Jul 23, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: washington school
Dear Karl, I just want to state tor the record that not all the
Washington school neighbors are against the Wonderland Hill
development plan. I live at 2970 13th street and am all for moving
fonvard with this plan to redevelop the site. It is an ugly empty lot
and is a waste of our tax money resources to water and keep clean.
There were not enough kids, the school closed, end of story. It is
not the job of BVSD to supply public parks to Boulderites. I heard
that the Thursday meeting effectively ended the developers plans for
the site but I just wanted to lei you know that some of us in the
neighborhood support the creation of something more attractive and
fiscally prudent to be built on that decaying site. Thank you.
Ayal Korczak
Resident, 2970 13th
;u~~i~tlaltaa~h S~-~~~ G ~1~
Karl Guiler - council email: Washington School Redevelopment
From: ]ennifer Bray
To: Guiler, Karl; PW PDS Communications; Ray, Robert
Date: 7/25/2007 11:01 AM
Subject: council email: Washington School Redevelopment
FYI only - you-may also receive this from Lisa Bondi and the Council Corr. system
»> Mikki Rainey __.____._~m> 7/24/2007 938 PM »>
Dear Members of the Boulder City Council:
Attached is a copy of the document I presented to the Council on
Tuesday night, July 24, 2007. Please share this with the Planning Board
and the Boulder Valley School Board. I will email it to the Wonderland
Development Corp..
I truly appreciate your comments and interest in our neighborhood's
continued failed efforts to communicate with the City and the Developer
until last week's Planning Board meeting. I also REALLY appreciate
Councilman Polk's comments regarding the CITIZEN dislike of the
"canyonization" of Boulder.
Thank you for your time, help and consideration. Please feel free to
contact me either at homa or at my place of business,
Classic Facets Ltd., 942 Pearl Street, 31 '
Mikki Rainey
The Washington neighborhood understands that the school will never
reopen and we understand that this is one of the last remaining open
spaces along Broadway. But there has to be a better way. Many of us
moved to Boulder from big cities to get AWAY from tall anonymous
buildings. If we want canyons, we have perfectly beautiful NATURAL ones
just West of town. We understand the need for affordable housing but
our neighborhood IS one of the last remaining affordable ones in
Boulder. If this project is allowed to stand, how long do you think it
will take before those of us with larger lots will demand equal
treatment so we can divide our properties and build either more huge
out of place houses or more condos? The temptation of huge dollar
amounts for development will be too much. Is this what you want for our
neighborhood? How about yours? This concept is'catching'! We are NOT
'in transition.' We are a stable community of small post War homes on
nice lots. We ARE mixed use. On our block alone, we have residents from
1 year oId to 80. We all get together - we support each other - we work
FOR our neighborhood and our City. Contrary to some opinions, we are
not opposed to people who are different from us. In our neighborhood
::r~uqtla He~ ~ h ~ _ I~ ~ L _~~
we have TWO homes for the mentally ill and one for people living with
AIDS. We don't need artificial means to enhance this diversity.
We also understand that Wonderland Development has sunk a fortune into
this projed and stands to lose a lot if this projed is denied. So I
am offering a compromise. It first asks the School District to lower
the asking price of the property. Then it asks the City of Boulder to
purchase the Eastern AND part ot the Northern sections of the property
to create a permanent neighborhood park. (We know Yhe money is there.)
By purchasing part of the Northern acreage - it also allows sunshine to
reach Red Arrow so it is not destroyed. OR Wonderland can retain the
Northern section of the property and just allow that part to be their
'open space: Along Broadway - build a continuation or different
version of the Broadway Brownstones designed in the STYLE of our
neighborhood, a much more compatible style with the School, that can
be sold at market value. Put the low to medium income homes in the same
style BEHIND the school facing the Northern parkland and some IN the
School, while part of the school, maybe the library, can remain open
for community use, Underground parking for ALL of the residents can be
accessed from the corner of Broadway and Cedar. There is no need for a
coffee shop or retail since there are already two shopping areas with
severai coffee shops 2 blocks away and residents can walk,. This plan
actually makes everybody involved happy - the neighborhood gets it's
park - as do the new residents. Wonderland Development makes money -
maybe even more than before! The City gets more affordable housing. The
School District unloads what they call a'surplus property.'
I have enclosed a sketch of the proposed plan and hope you will take
this seriously. I am completely aware that I am not an architect or
a developer. But I do love my neighborhood and I love this City. I am
hoping for the best for both.
Mikki Rainey
1302 CedarAve.
Boulder, CO 80304
303-447-1960
,,~~~~~r_~~ ~~ ~~~~`_
July 26, 2007
Dear members of the Planning Board,
Thank you for listening to and recognizing the concerns expressed in opposition to the
Washington Village proposal on July 19`h. Your comments and direction have given us,
the neighbors, great confidence that our voices have finally been heard and respected.
Most specifically, we'd like to thank you for your consideration of the historic value of
Red Arrow Townhouses. Your help to minimize the shading and scale impacts from the
North and Broadway buildings of the Washington Village concept plans may be the only
chance we have to steward the Red Atrow property into the future.
Additional Information re: Red Arrow Townhouses
Shading of Red Arrow Townhouses
In order to eliminate direct shading of the glazing of the two Red Atrow buildings in the
Witltei Tri01]thS (approximate measurements):
- The North building would need to be moved 10 feet to the south
- The Broadway building would need to be moved 15 feet to the south
- In addition, the buildings would need to be limited to 30 feet at these new
locations
- Reducing the height of both proposed buildings in their current location would not
eliminate the interior shading on either of the Red Atrow buildmgs
We realize these are difficult changes for the applicant to make, from both a design and
financial viewpoint. But we hope this information will help you and your staff further
define the conditions put forth to the applicant on the 19te. It will take drastic changes
such as these for Red Arrow to maintain passive solar heating in the winter months, and
for a more appropriate transitional scaling down to our 17-foot high buildings that have
been on Broadway since 1961.
Even with these changes our property grounds would still be shaded in the winter
months. This would merely ailow for the southern interiors of all of our units to continue
to receive light. And a larger buffer between Red Arrow and future development would
double as a corridor for the neighborhood to enter or traverse through the Washington
School site, helping to address the issue of site permeability.
In addition to our main concern of the north property boundary, as neighbors, we support
your asking the applicant to address all seven conditions you put forth on the 19`n
Please let us know if there is any additional information we can provide to you and your
staff before the continuation of this hearing in October.
C ~- p
I~~;;1161 I~f11 iF ~ f'~e # C o l
Thank you again for your time and consideration,
Ashley and Dante Ortiz
2950 Broadway Street
Red AiTOw Townhouses
Additional Red Arrow ArchitecturaUOwner Information
- The two buildmgs that make up Red Arrow are designed to track the sun from the
east to the west, like a sundial.
- The hexagonal buildings, with 5 units each, are all oriented extemally so that each
unit (with over A00 square feet of floor-taceiling windows) receives as much
sunlight per day as possible.
- Extended eaves block the high summer sun, keeping the buildings cool.
- Low winter sun floods undemeath the eaves to the floor-to-ceiling windows,
warming the inside substantially and filling the entire inside spaces with light.
- Each unit is 900 sf, two stories, with 2 bedrooms and i bath.
- The units range in price from $250,000 to $290,000 in value.
- Red Arrow Townhouses were apartments until 3 yeazs ago, at which time they
were converted into condos and sold. Thus, we are the first group of homeowners
to be considering how to preserve the historic azchitectural value of these
buildings and site, and are just beginning our master planning and vision.
- All units are owner-occupied.
- The Red Arrow community is committed to investing the time and money it will
take to maintain our unique architecture, property and quality of life.
- The Landmarks Preservation Board has acknowledged the historic quality of Red
Arrow, stating that it is already on the Historic Register of notable properties.
- We hope that it will become a Landmark in the future and will remain active
partners in this process.
,~~:~c~ai~r~~ ~~~ ~G°~~ ~~1~
Karl Guiler - FW: Comments on Washington Village
From: Paula Schulte ~m>
To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 7/28/2007 3:24 PM
Subject: FW: Comments on Washington Village
Sorry Karl, I typed a Q instead of a G
Paula
From:
To: ~~~ilerk@bouldercolorado.gov
CC: .
~uo~ect: ~omments on Washington Village
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:21:19 -0600
Greetings,
Comments on the site design:
1. See through access from Broadway to 13th Street through project.
2. Common landscape area instead of SFD on 13th Street.
3. No commercial or office--to strengthen not dilute the neighborhood Community Plaza area.
Thanks,
Paula Schulte
3030 15th Street
Boulder
PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best web mail-award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. Check
it out!
PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best web mail-award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. Check it out!
/ r',i~tl~lfem~ ~~ f~~ L I I
Karl Guiler - Fwd: Council Correspondence
From: Ruth McHeyser
To: Castillo, Carl; Guiler, Karl; Ray, Robert; Richstone, Susan
Date: 8/8/2007 5:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: Council Correspondence
Jim Leach spoke last night under citizen participation at Council.
»> ......._..~----.- - _ - - - --,ov> 8/8/2007 3:32 PM »>
This is only for your information. No need to reply.
From: Marlene Diamond
Date Received: 08-Aug-07
Response Key: 15327
Respondents sent this email:
]erry Gordon in City Attorneys Office sent an FYI only.
Kara Mer~ in CMO sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
]ohn Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Chris Meschuk in Planning sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
August 7, 2007
Dear Council,
Jim Leach apparently needs to move into the residential treatment center on 13th Street so that Dr.
Warner can get him on a regime of inedication to bring him back to reality. Mr. Leach?s statements to city
council this evening (Aug. 7, 2007) about the Washington School Neighborhood and his project are so far
removed from reality it is ridiculous.
1. Mr. ~each and the representatives of his company have NOT had 6 meetings with the
neighborhood. There have been 2 meetings in which Mr. Leach has simply TOLD the neighborhood how it is
going to be. At the meetings, Mr. Leach was not interested in anything that we had to say. In fact, at one
meeting the City hired facilitator kept trying to prevent us from talking and expressing ourselves. It was clear to
all of us at that meeting that we were there to listen to Mr. Leach. There was no dialogue. Mr. Leach sees us
(the community) as a nuisance to him and his goal of destroying this neighborhood and its quality of life.
2. Mr. Leach has been making telephone calls to various neighbors and has met with the people who
live at Red Arrow but not for any meaningful discussions. Tnstead Mr. Leach has insinuated, ?It is a done deal?
so we should take what he is offering now or we get nothing later. Really? The Planning Dept. has approved
the Washington School Project? If that is true, then Boulder City government has bigger problems than the
neighbors at Washington School.
Mr. Leach has also insinuated to several people in the neighborhood that if his projed is not approved then he
will sue the City of Boulder for a"Flawed process". Frivolous comes to mind. I find it difficult to believe that the
~.,;~!aicemt 5_~ F~e~ C~~ I~
City of Boulder guaranteed Jim Leach that he couid build whatever he wanted, and that the various departments
within the City wouid simply rubber stamp everything. There is no contract between the City of Bouider and Jim
Leach for anything. Actually I would love to see Mr. Leach bring a lawsuit against the City. What a headline
that would be in the Daily Camera: "Developer Sues City Alleging City Guaranteed He Could Do What He
Wanted with Washington School Property".
3. Mr. Leach?s statement that ALL of the low income/middle income housing components are still in
the project is a joke. I do not care how you do the math, Mr. Leach has proposed CUTTING OUT (that means
subtracting) 6 of the 11 middle-income units and instead pay the entitlement premium. Instead of 19
low/middle income affordable units as originally required, he now only wants to have 13.
Instead of making, the 8 low-income units the required minimum size of 1200 square feet, Mr. Leach wants to
make them 800 sq. feet. Therefore, instead of 9600 sq. feet dedicated to 8 low-income units, Mr. Leach wants
to dedicate 6400 sq. feet to low income unit. That is a reduction in space for low-income housing. The very
idea that City Council and the Planning Dept. believe that it is acceptable to make low-income housing 800 sq.
feet is disgusting when you look at the plans for the McMansions going up all over the city that have closets that
are 800 sq. feet of space! Peop~e may be poor, but they are not stupid. It is insulting to offer low-income
families/individuals the opportunity to buy a?closet? in Boulder.
Mr. Leach has also proposed reducing the size of the remaining middle-income units to a substandard size of
1,088 sq. feet. That is basically a further reduction in the total number of middle-income units.
4. Mr. Leach?s statement that the Washington School project is di~cult and the neighborhood does
not understand the complexities of the project is pretty true to how he feels about the neighborhood and how
he has treated us from the beginning. Mr. Leach sees us as being stupid, annoying and a nuisance to his goal
of destroying our neighborhood. I think the real problem for Mr. Leach is we DO UNDERSTAND the complexities
of the project, and Mr. Leach has not been able to convince any of us with his ?spin?. We are inteliigent, critical
thinking people. Mr. Leach cannot handle the fact that we see through his spin and do not buy into what he is
saying. He simply ignores the real issues and repeatedly says the ?project is di~cult and complex and the
neighbors do not understand?.
Frankly, it is Mr. Leach who does NOT understand the complexities of developing the property. The rest
of the appiicants realized a lot earlier in the very Flawed MOU process that developing the Washington School
property was a complex project that likely could not be brought to reality without doing irreversible harm to the
neighborhood. The other applicants understood the complexities far soo~er than Mr. Leach who to this day
does not understand what is at risk.
5. Mr. Leach?s statement and assurance that ALL of the community benefit components are stiil in
the project is not true. Mr. Leach does not consider the Washington School Neighborhood to be part of the ?
community?. He refuses to listen to what we are saying. He keeps ignoring the fact that WE ARE THE
COMMUNITY. The community benefit component that Mr. Leach is talking about that "remains in the project" is
the view of the school drivers in cars going North on Broadway will have when (i~ they stop for the nanosecond
at the light. Being able to see the school from a car is NOT a community benefit. The very idea that anyone
considers being able to see the schooi as you drive down Broadway a?community benefiY' and therefore meets
the criteria of the MOU is ludicrous. Instead, the park, which is a huge community benefit, will be lost forever
by Mr. Leach's proposal.
6. Mr. Leach is surprised at how organized in opposition to the project the neighborhood is. Duh --
he has not been listening! He is operating under the idea that "it is a done deal".
I frankly do not care how much money Jim Leach has sunk into this project to this point. The amount of money
that Jim Leach has spent to develop this projed to this point is NOT my problem, it is NOT the neighborhood's
problem, it is NOT the City's problem, it is NOT the School Board's problem, and it is NOT the Planning
Department's problem. Jim Leach CHOSE to get involved in this process. Jim Leach CHOSE to take the risk.
~
~~~,Y~ia f~ror Y t?~ ~~ L' l 5
Jim Leach has wasted his own money to this point by simply ignoring us and what we have been saying.
Frankly, when Jim Leach enrolls me in his company's profit sharing plan, then I will care whether or not any of
his projects are financially viable. Right now I do not care.
This project must not be approved. Thank you.
Marlene Diamond
13th Street
Boulder, CO 80304
cc: Jerry Gordon, Acting City Attorney
DISCLAIMER:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
Tax advice set forth herein is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to any other party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http•//intraweb ci bouider co us/itdev/CouncilCorr/servlet/CorrController~respFilled=15327.
~tl~lY0m1; `~/~',I~~ C-~l~t~
We are disgusted by Mr Leach's attempts to weasel his way through this process. WE live on the SouthEast
corner of 13th and Cedar and our property, that we have lived in for almost 30 years, is worth about $750,000 ,
the same amount Mr. Leach claims HE has invested in his attempt to ruin our little piece of paradise. But this
project is going to destroy not only our property but our entire neighborhood. Mr. Leach claims he had meetings
with the neighbors and indeed, many of us have attended all of them, but he NEVER listened or responded to
ANY of our concerns. In fact when we asked what, exactly his plan did for the
community, we were answered with silence. His design has NOTHING to do
with the architecture or feeling of our neighborhood - in fact it is a fortress faci~g inward with NO relevance to
the neighborhood. Even our park that has been in use for over 100 years is now a proposed site for 6 houses on
tiny lots and the 'open space' is only in the center of the fort, which, by the way, is designed in army barracks
style - nothing like the charm of our neighborhood.. The neighbors get nothing. We are BEGGING you to deny
his petition and start again with reasonable rules and prices for the Washington School property or the City of
Boulder we know and love wiil be destroyed and THAT will be the legaty of YOUR Council. IYs a domino affect
- our neighborhood goes because if this project is allowed, ali our large lots will be subdivided for Mac Mansions
- the potential for the big bucks will be too much for many of us to resist. And , of course, if you grant Mr.
Leach's variance for smaller lots with larger FAR's - you will HAVE to give US the same treatment,. So - first iYs
the Washington School neighborhood. Then it will be YOUR neighborhood. And your neighbor's neighbors.
What, exactly is your vision for Boulder in 7 generations as
the Navaho ask? An elitist gated community for the very wealthy surrounded by greenbelt? Or a town for
everybody with pocket neighborhood parks and affordable housing for the middle class - if there is one in seven
generations? Please listen to us. We are united in our fight against this extremely distasteful and inappropriate
plan. We are hoping for your unanimous support for the good of our city.
John and Mikki Rainey
1302 Cedar Ave.
Boulder, CO 80304
, ~;~,~~r~r, ~~_~~~ G-/~~
p~~ •
Karl Guiler - council email: 100 Washington advocates respond to )im Leach
From: Jennifer Bray
To: Guiler, Karl; PW PDS Communications; Ray, Robert
Date: 8/10/2007 1:18 PM
Subject: council email: 100 Washington advocates respond to Jim Leach
FYI
»> John Gles~ _ > 8/10/2007 1:13 PM »>
Dear Members of the Boulder City Council,
This week you heard from Jim Leach of Wonderland Hill Development
Company (WHDC) about the Washington School project now before the
Planning Board. The Washington School Neighborhood Association - a
newly formed group of residents from the Washington School area - has
prepared the following response for your consideration.
Mr. Leach's main point seemed to be problems he is experiencing
communicating with neighbors. In fact, there has been no shortage of
such communication over the past year, iYs just that the outcome of
these communications has been unsatisfying for both parties. The
pattern has been: WHDC calls a meeting, saying they want to explain
their progress and listen to neighbor's concerns, so that "we could move
towards a more active approach to sitting down and exploring
solutions" (quote from 5/4/07 announcement of 5/9/07 meeting). Lots of
neighbors show up, share our concerns, and WHDC spends the rest of
the meeting telling us that they can't really change anything due to the
"enormous complexity" of the project and the difficulty in balancing
"political and economic" constraints. Since WHDC is not willing to
change anything, they have often followed up these meetings with
results from studies (e.g. for parking, traffic, and solar access) that are
supposed to prove that our concerns are unfounded, or they provide
nebulous assurances that our fears are exaggerated.
WHDC goes away frustrated because the neighbors won't just give in,
and neighbors are frustrated because we think that "exploring solutions"
implies a willingness to compromise. Individual neighbors have
responded to this frustration by either:
• acceptance that the process is "rigged" and WHDC's project
is inevitable,
• determination to oppose the project and the woefully flawed
~ ~ ,-'~ Kcm ~, _ Sy} ~~~: i -l ~
process that allowed it to survive this long, or
• hoping that a win-win solution could be negotiated.
The latter response was still alive until WHDC met with a half-dozen
neighbors on July 31 and made it clear they would not entertain the kind
of wholesale design changes that would be needed to gain even tepid
support from the neighborhood. Reports from that meeting indicate that
WHDC's idea of win-win is that they win and everyone else capitulates.
As a consequence, the Washington School Neighborhood Association
has reached consensus agreement on two key points:
1. We have already made our concerns clear and have no further
desire for unproductive communications with WHDC. If they make
any changes to their plan we will respond to those changes and the
overall project before the Planning Board on Sept. 13.
2. The process that began when the school closed in 2003 has not
adequately accounted for specific impacts to our neighborhood, nor
many broader concerns shared with the extended community. We
understand our own neighborhood and the significance of the
Washington School site better than anybody, and feel it is our right
and responsibility to be strong advocates for both. Therefore, we
are committed to exert whatever influence is necessary to prevent
development that is harmful and to enhance Washington's status as
a community asset.
We became organized prior to the July 19 Planning Board hearing after receiving
no meaningful response when, as individuals, we provided consistent and focused
input throughout this process. As more citizens hear about our efforts, our group
and our support from outside the neighborhood continues to grow larger and
stronger. The following recent efforts are proof of our diverse membership as well
as our heart-felt commitment:
• 90 of us signed a Daily Camera Guest Opinion,
• more than 50 of us submitted email comments to the
Planning Board,
• more than 30 of us gave oral statements to the Planning
Board, .
• more than 80 of us (many of them elderly) attended the five
hour hearing that lasted until after 1:00 a.m.
These efforts, and those yet to come, are not testimony to an abundance of
political organizing skills. Rather, they are spurred by the nature of the threat
posed to Washington School, the neighborhood that has grown around it for 100
years, and to the democratic process. We will have much more to say very soon
about our observations on the government processes used here to effect the
disposition of public property, and we understand that a two-way dialog is not
;C~+.Ik1R1#_ 7f_I _ ~~cw~v~r' ~~7 ~
possible while this matter is in limbo with the Pianning Board.
For now, it is enough to say that we hope City Council will listen to us as this
matter plays out in the coming weeks. We also hope you will understand and
share our tremendous affection for Washington School, and appreciate the
existing and potential benefits our neighborhood and the entire city derive from it.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned Members and Supporters of the Washington School
Neighborhood Association
John T. Gless
Fred Rubin
Lucie & Paul Sommer
Geof Cahoon
Alfy Sommers
Lee & Trish Wood
Cary & Nancy Wolfson
Kent & Mary Young
Lena Phoenix
Anne & Mike Fenerty
Libby Brown
Mary Davidson
Richard Cooper
Karyn Robinson
Michael Hibner
Fran Brown
Emily Rose
Jed Bopp
Becky Wagner
Dan & Susie Hankin
Ellen & Chuck Knapp
Lawrence Baggett
Christy Sweet
Marlene A. Diamond
James & Rebecca Marienthal
Heather English
Tim & Amy Quinn
Ashley & Dante Ortiz
Michelle & Rowland Rincon
Paul Price
Cathy & Bryan Fluegel
Andrea Davis
Steffen Mehl
Denny Robertson
Steven Lewis
Susan Morley
David & Cathie Williamson
Heidi Feigal
Bill Henry
Walker and Claire Feigal-Hentry
Aaryn Kay
Jeanne & Win Nolin
Pieter & Susanna Tans
Marcus & Joan Nashelsky
Bob Poeschl
Deborah Arhelger
John & Mikki Rainey
,_~~,~C3fi'~i;_~'~~,_ [ G:~~fi' C-'~ ~5
Tina Anderson
Melissa McCarl
Sarah Quirk
Jim & Nurit Wolf
Ed & Chris Halteman
George & Jean Gless
Lawrence Dukrow
Stan & Holly Kyed
John Kyed
Paul Heller
Rena Gabbay
Scott Linnenburger
Vicki Naber
Cathy Regan
Margaret Massey
Kimberly J. Keech
Greg Strom
Sarah Silver
Liz Payton
Roger Wolverton
Kay Findlay
Lynn Segal
Pat O'Halloran
Tom & Mardy Harrold
Jeri Harrold
Sandy Locke
Tom Moore
Nancy Sullow
Jim Vacca
Jackie Schwarz
,.;`~^f4em#__`~,~__E`i.'yt~~e' L, / /
08!"L1l2007 11:~4 FAX ~OJ4946841
COPPER MOUNTAIN RESORT
~~
August 21, 2007
r~
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guilar
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear Ciry Council and Planning Board Members,
~a y/
~~3- yyr- ~ ~
GUc2s1~,-„~~~c~, 1~,~ila~e
~~Gfecu~
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiar with living in cohousing and has experienced the concem and
sometimes feazs of neighbors about the imgact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village pmject is as wel] thought out and batanced as could be under the
circumstance5.
I have often heard about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regarding the solar
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home ownez who has had new construction happen nearby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solar impact is far less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hi11 does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building nearby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thriiled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similar things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreCiate our homes and living spaces,
It seems to me that Wonderland ~Iill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to ma7ce this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - sometlung less than the ideal they would want on their own.
`~ i strongly encourage you to approve ttsis project. I think in ten years all of the people in
the neighborhood will find to the'u delight, that some real positives have offset the
negatives and it is an even better place to live and share in a larger sense of community.
5incerely, ~GGy4i~
/.~ 3" C' /3~~ ~I~ ~~
130~1~/~~ ~ ~ra.3ds
, :;.~7n~~_~~ s'~~ ~~Tlz~
Cynthia and David Edwards
2958 6~' Street
Boulder, Colorado 80304
August 27, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O Box 791
Boulder, CO 80,06-079I
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encoura~e you to support the Washington Village cohousin~ project proposed
for the site of the former Washin~ton School
I have known of Wonderland Hill for some time now For over 14 years, Wonderland Hill has been
actively building communities ancl, in particular, co-housing communities The point is not to isolate
cohousing residents from their surroundings but to promote a strong sense and commitment to
community and thereby be proactive members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an existing
nei~hborhood, such as that at Washington School, a housing development which is to be tilled with
people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neijhborhood in many ways is understandable None of us
would be excited about losing such a large open space This ]and has never been anyone's but those
involved in education - it has been a school and now the fiiture of the preservation of that historic school
is in jeopardy
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which integrates
people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a landmark buildii~g in Boulder
while providing an exciting plaee for people to live and to extend out witl~ services to the larger
community, is before you for approval. Please say yes~
Sincerely,
~~'~~
~ ~r~, ~
David and Cynthia Edwards
~,;~~~em~r_ ~" ~-~~ L"aI
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
As a professional Realtor in Boulder CounTy, I am writing in support of the Washington
Village cohousing project proposed For the site of the former Washington School.
The proposed design of Washington Village represents a number of positive features that
will provide a distinctive housing option for Boulder. From its' conception, the
community benefits of Washington Village have been thoughtfully designed to address
many interests, including the significance of historic preservation and the promotion of
neighborhood interaction. Wonderland Hill and their architectural team have cazefully
considered numerous design ideas to balance different interests brought forward while
providing Boulder with a practical housing solution for this site.
The proposed Washington Village plan demonstrates an excellent balance of distributing
density on the site with the denser urban zone along Broadway and lower density towards
and along 13`h Street in harmony with the single family neighborhood to the east.
Broadway is Boulder's most important multimodal transportation corridor and is best
suited to support the appropriately placed higher density building.
The proposed Washington Village development exhibits an example of a mixed use
development that will positively contribute to a higher level of environmental and social
sustainability in Boulder. I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I believe that
time will substantiate the many positive aspects of this development as Washington
V illage will turn into a vibrant place to live and shaze in a lazger sense of community.
I strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful
addition to the community.
J~
i
Sincerely, ~ f ~/ _
~ ~~ /
~ K~V~v //~4c1,~-~.s>
~~.'S. ~ L~~! L ~' L G'-~ 10 ~~.1~c2 S<r /~/~C~ v"J ~I{-~~
~ ~=~P~,e~ • l w cc c. ~ ~~,a~it£-r~ Sc`~= ~if~ ~~~~ 7
/-/7'C~7 '--T/Lt ,~,~.~- ~c~ "Tc G..,~ C/-f~/Ld,«~.yi ~5 _SC iY[r~~5
%-/-~~{n/ i~.~~p~,,~ ~ /~ t~El.t~' /1..'C--/Ci~C'>til~S /~ 7r
y . , i/«~..,
~~~ ~/,~.e ,~.;~2,~
,
:~~~~~n~__5_ ~wz~~ [,-~~
Karl Guiler - Council Correspondence
From:
To: ~
Date: Wed, AUJ'L'L, zuu~ ~.« ~ ~/1
Subject: Council Correspondence
This is only for your information. No need to reply
From: John Gless
Date Received: 15-Aug-07
Response Key:15523
Respondents sent this email:
Kara Mertz in CMO sent an FYI only.
Jennifer Bray in Public Works/Planning sent an FYI only.
Robert Ray in Planning and Development sent an FYI only.
Karl Guiler in P& DS sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
Dear City Council Members,
You will find below the statement from us delivered last night to the BVSD Board of Education. We're
forwarding it to you so that you are aware of our public communications.
S/14/2007
Board of Education Meeting
Boulder Valley School District
Statement by Washington School Neighborhood Association
After almost four years, we have learned much about how difficult it is to close a school and deftly manage
the aftermath. Unfortunately, we have also learned how easy it is for good intentions to go awry.
We were initially encouraged that the agreement between the School District and the City established a
citizen panel to foster public outreach and community input. We were also encouraged that everyone
wanted to respect the 100 year history of public use on the site by requiring public access and benefits
beyond what is typically required for private developments.
There were some concerns, though, about the narrow definition of community benefit and the limited
number of neighborhood residents on the citizen panel. Still, the RFP attracted several applications
ranging from very low to very high intensity use of the site. W ith a thoughtful evaluation process in place,
it looked like the neighborhood might find something to support, or at least tolerate, in this mix of design
elements.
But then, in the middle of evaluating the proposals, this thoughtful process was completely derailed when
all but one of the applicants withdrew. Each of them cited the purchase terms imposed by the School
District, especially the 10% non-refundable deposit and the accelerated closing date. The only remaining
applicant had received negligible support from the citizen panel, and had proposed the highest intensity
use and the greatest adverse impact to the neighborhood and historic building. It would have been
reasonable, perhaps even expected, at that time to stop and make the adjustments necessary to follow
the original intent of the competitive process.
Instead, the City and School District elected to proceed as though every[hing had worked as planned
Page 1
~,i,~~ f~AI i{ ~7~' i2a~ ~E ~ ~ ~~
Karl G~iler - Council Correspondence Page 2
because there was still one proposal on the table. So as the citizen panel disbanded, most of its work was
rendered moot. The City allowed the remaining applicant to embark on development review, and before
long the School District went ahead and granted a one year extension on the closing date.
From then on, public input was marginalized. Neighbors still wrote and spoke about their concerns at
every public hearing opportunity, but no one with the City, the School District, or Wonderland Hill
Development Company ever indicated much willingness to take us seriously.
We are now left with a development plan that has very little respect for the historic building or site, and no
respect at all for the immediate or extended neighborhood. The design blocks all the winter sun from the
Red Arrow Townhomes and has its trash area 20 teet upwind from the nearest neighbor?s kitchen. Large
buildings block all but the main facade of the school. No usable public open space is preserved, and six
out of scale homes are proposed for what is now our cherished and well used neighborhood park on 13th
Street. The project has evolved slightly over the past year, but in ways that increase the negative impacts
and sharply reduce the originally meager community benefits. Another thing that has evolved is the
growing willingness by project proponents to make the self-serving presumption that if this project is not
approved, the Board of Education will promptly knock down a 100 year fixture of this community to make it
easier to sell the land to someone else.
In response, we have greatly expanded our neighborhood and community support, and prepared detailed
analyses of the harm this project would cause. That was enough to convince the Planning Board to tap on
the brakes, and we are cautiously optimistic that nothing resembling the current proposal will be approved
by the City.
Nobody wants to cause more anxiety, and we understand the constraints you are under while the
development review process is still in process. But we do have three requests that you could fulfill:
First, please do not consider taking any contract enforcement or contract modification actions that would
make it more difficult for W onderland to gracefully withdraw.
Second, please make your intentions known regarding the potential demolition of Washington School.
Allowing wild speculation to continue is not advantageous to you in the short or long term. Taxpayers paid
for this building long ago, and deserve to know whether their elected representatives support its survival.
Third, please agree to meet with us so that we can share our ideas and our sincere willingness to work
very hard with you to chart a positive future for this treasured community and neighborhood asset. We
desire, and we think we are in the best position to achieve, a win-win-win solution for the School District,
the City, and our neighborhood.
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http://intraweb.ci.boulder.co. us/itdev/CouncilCorr/servleUCorrController?respFilled=15523.
_ s::'."a ~~@Al li `?/'T I't i~, ~Ln--1
Karl Guiler - council email: 114 Washington Neighbors on Community Benefits
From: Jennifer Bray
To: Guiler, Karl; PW PDS Communications; Ray, Robert
Date: 8/24/2007 231 PM
Subject: council email: 114 Washington Neighbors on Community Benefits
FYI - you may also receive this through the council correspondence system in the CMO...
Thanks!
»> )ohn Gles- ___,t>~2J2007_2:_22 PM »
August 24, 2007
Dear Members of the Boulder City Council and Planning Board,
The process to redevelop the Washington School site has always had tensions between
neighborhood impacts/benefits, citywide needs/benefits, and financial considerations (profit
expectations by the School District and developer). The physical parameters of the proposal
have not changed materially over the past several months, thus the neighborhood impacts
remain the same. Profit expectations also appear to be unchanged. What has significantly
changed is the actual amount of community benefits, as well as attempts to finesse public
and policy-maker perceptions surrounding these benefits.
The Washington School Neighborhood Association believes it is important for both the City
Council and Planning Board to understand our position regarding community benefits
because we are highly experienced and informed on the subject and because we have a very
large stake in the outcome.
It is necessary to go back at least to the Council discussion of March 7, 2006 for appropriate
context. This discussion preceded the Amended MOU and the RFP, both dating from mid-
March, 2006. The conclusions are best reflected in the RFP Goals:
. Preservation of the historic values associated with the Site and consideration of
appropriate uses that provide additional community benefit.
. Defining community benefit broadly to include any of the following:
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->o Attraction/benefit to the cultural orscientific or
educational or entertainment or artistic or humanistic or civic life of the community;
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->o Affordable housing beyond the percentage required
by existing city code (20%); The intent is to exclude from the definition unrestricted
market-rate residential development offering only the city's minimally required
affordable housing.
<!--[if!supportlists]--><!--[endif]-->o Seniorhousing; or
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->o Housing forpeople with disabilities.
i'';:;~~1~EI?lit___~!1__.i~.~~, ~„ ~ 'i2~`~,
Benefits the Site has Right Now
The words we've emphasized above at least tacitly acknowledge that there are existing
benefits to be preserved on this site beyond the mere presence of an old building.
Unfortunately, these benefits were never enumerated or analyzed as part of this process, nor
(as far as we know) during the preceding years when the City was considering whether to
acquire some or all of the site.
This is our biggest disappointment with the process. The existing benefits of park, playing
field, and a beautiful building that could be repurposed any number of ways are historic
(present for a long time) and tangible. Yet somehow they were overwhelmed by a grab for
money and a cupful of more diffuse and nebulous benefits. Right now is not the time to dwell
on the obvious, but in the next phase after the current proposal is off the table (we hope),
most of our focus wiil be on preserving and enhancing existing benefits. Some in our
neighborhood regret not coming forvvard with greater zeal two years ago or even earlier,
although iYs an open question whether that would have made a difference. Sometimes you
really do need to experience all three acts of the play to appreciate the refreshing catharsis at
the end.
Sanctioned Benefits
This is a summary of the officially recognized benefits that were supposed to be used to
competitively evaluate development proposals.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]--> HIStOriC Values
Our greatest problem with this benefit is the way iYs being used as a political tool by the
developer and even a few people within City government. What we have heard all along
(and lately with greater force and frequency) is that the two choices on the table are to
have this project succeed or to have the School District demolish Washington School. On
August 14 a group of 40 neighbors went to the Board of Education meeting to seek
clarification. Board members confirmed that they have never discussed demolition at
Washington, and expressed genuine surprise upon hearing about this speculation. BVSD
administration amplified this by saying: a) they believe the property is worth more with the
buildings intact, b) demolition would be too expensive, and c) the District has limited
political capital and would not spend it in this way. We suspect that the political
calculation may be influenced by the already contentious reconstruction of Casey, our
neighborhood's middle school.
The idea that the current development proposal is the last line of defense for preserving
historic values must be dispelled because it is not grounded in fact. Just because BVSD,
as a sovereign political franchise, could demolish this building does not mean it must,
especially if it makes no sense. There are other ways to preserve historic values on this
site, many of which would be far superior to the current proposal.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]--> Community Meeting Space
The earliest iteration of Wonderland's proposal only identified 1,500 square feet (the
..,fPo7~~,_~~_[ G~#,~L4~~r
existing library annex) for this use. They have since expanded the definition to include
various other areas of the common house (main school building) such as basement
classrooms, dining hall, and hallways on the main and second floors. Very few cohousing
developments have residences inside the common house. Washington Village would
have six of them, and that compromises the "public" designation of the non-residential
space. The library annex is also intended for use by the cohousing community, and its
availability to the public would be governed by a reservation and rental fee system similar
to the meeting rooms at the nearby North Boulder Recreation Center (where the space is
larger, dividable, and more parking is available).
We don't question Wonderland's intent to welcome the public and even host programs
beneficial to the public. But we do question whether these are extraordinary benefits or
just re-labeling of spaces they would provide under any circumstances.
<!--[if !supportLists]--> Affordable Housing
Of the 40 total residential units, the City minimum of eight units (20%) would be
permanently affordable low income units. The RFP language explicitly excludes these
from the definition of "additional" community benefit. The City has praised Wonderland for
including these units on-site, but has also admonished them for making the units
undersized (four are 600 s.f. and four are 1000 s.f.)
The proposal that went before Council and Planning Board in June, 2006 and before the
Planning Board in December, 2006 also included 11 permanently affordable middle
income units. This has since been reduced to just five units. The covenant with BVSD
requires Wonderland to pay the School District an "entitlement premium" of $155,000
each (plus market adjustment) for the six units converted to market rate.
What has only recently become public knowledge (in a memo included in City Council's
August 9 weekly information packet) is that as long as one year ago city staff raised
concerns that Wonderland's prices for the middle income units were higher than the
inclusionary zoning standard. It was then suggested that some of these 11 units be
converted to market rate and the price correspondingly reduced on the five remaining
units. This spring, Wonderland eliminated the six affordable units, and also requested a
reduction in the entitlement premium from BVSD. The School District reportedly modified
the covenant to accept only 75% of the premium with the other 25% allocated to lower the
cost of the remaining five affordable units. The revised covenant has yet to surface
publicly.
Affordable middle income housing is arguably the most significant community benefit in
this project, and is certainly the one requiring the most sacrifice from the developer. This
benefit has now been reduced by more than half.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]--> Senior' Housing
This project was never intended to be age restricted. The proposal that went to Council
and Planning Board in June, 2006 specified a target of 24 (60% of total) senior units.
Since then, Wonderland has most often used the terms "senior focus" and "diverse age
groups" to describe this benefit. There is really no way to tell what the age mix might be
or how it would change over time. We do know that they consider anyone over 50 to be a
. ~,~.
' ~'^fPcf~t4~_7/~'--1°i~i~~;_~~.~-. ..
senior.
Another thing we know is that even if the 60% goal is reached, the proportion of "seniors"
will be slightly less than it is in the existing population of the surrounding neighborhood
(2000 U.S. Census). This is significant because it means that adverse impacts from the
development wili be borne disproportionately by an older population, which would seem to
negate whatever benefits there might be from new senior housing.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]--> • Housing for People with Disabilities
The original proposal indicated that 24 units would have accessible features. We have
heard recently that this may have been reduced to 21 units, but it hasn't been a major
area of discussion.
Other Presumptive Benefits
Wonderland has put much effort lately into promoting the following benefits which are beyond
those sanctioned in the RFP.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]--> Open Space
In the RH-2 zone the minimum open space requirement is 20%. Wonderland's plan has
47% open space (not including private decks and patios). While this sounds impressive,
doesn't come without serious impacts. The OS breakdown is as follows:
<!--[if !support~ists]--><!--[endit7--> o Landmark Boundarv - 16,886 s.f. (front yard and
SroadwaylCedar corner)
About half of this is a steeply sloped driveway and vehicle turnaround leading to
underground parking, a quarter is lawn and plantings in front of the school, and a
quarter is a water retention area and plantings on the southwest corner. Wonderland
originally labeled this entire area a"pocket park" but it is really functional space
needed for garage access or drainage retention, and is not designed for any
recreational or social activities.
<!--[if !support~ists]--><!--[endif7-->o North Side - 5,079 s.f. (north property line setback)
This area is open to the extent required by minimum (or slightly greater) building
setbacks.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]--> 0 Center Court Yard - 19,830 s.f. (enclosed area behind
the school)
This is the common back yard for the cohousing units. It is not visible from any public
right of way.
The generous provision of open space has not caused any reduction in floor area. The
mvcimum FAR of 0.5 for residential uses has been reached, and when commercial space
, ~ ~-,~:f
' ificl;~i,_`'~7"_ f i~.~ ~___._
(7,100 s.f.), common areas (10,000 s.f.) and parking garages (20,000 s.f.) are added, the
total FAR is over 0.92. There is no doubt that the open spaces would serve the functional
needs and enjoyment of residents and visitors, but when combined with all the floor area
on the site, the result is very tall and massive buildings that cast deep shadows on nearby
residences and are completely out of character with the school building and
neighborhood. Wonderland has been unwilling to sacrifice any open space in order to
mitigate these impacts because it needs open areas to accommodate its preferred vehicle
circulation pattern and the nearly haif-acre courtyard is needed to justify the price it wants
to charge for cohousing units.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]--> Intentional Cohousing Community
The neighborhood understands cohousing to be an increasingly popular lifestyle choice
and appreciates the potential benefits enjoyed by those who choose it. However, we do
not believe it is possible to accurately assess the degree to which cohousing may benefit
the larger community, nor do we believe it is appropriate for local government regulatory
bodies to favor any particular community model over any other (especially in the absence
of clear and convincing evidence). The neighborhood has no quarrel with individual
prospective cohousing residents. We do have a quarrel with the size and arrangement of
the buildings in which they would live.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--(endif]--> LEED-ND (Neighborhood Development)
The latest purported community benefit is to have the project certified under a pilot
program that looks at the incorporation of various sustainable practices at the
neighborhood level. As with any certification program, its validity depends on what
parameters are analyzed. Will the certification take into account non-sustainable
attributes such as blocking the winter sun from passive solar heated Red Arrow
Townhomes? Will it subtract any rating points for the six 4,000 s.f single family homes
that are so critical to overall project financing? These six houses combined would exceed
half the total residential square footage for all 34 cohousing units, and each one is much
larger than the typical 2,500 s.f. (or less) existing homes in the neighborhood. If LEED-ND
does not factor in these negatives, it is exactly the wrong model to use when rating the
sustainability of infill development in Boulder.
Conclusions
This analysis leads us to the following conclusions:
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]--> 1. Existing benefits on the site for both the neighborhood
and larger community were never assessed sufficiently in order to consider them worth
preserving.
<!--[if !support~ists]--><!--[endif]-->2. Some important community benefits that were officially
identified by City Council have measurably declined as the proposal has evolved and as
more information comes to light.
<!--[if !support~ists]--><!--[endit7-->3. Some official benefits have been exaggerated by
creatively labeling project features that would be incorporated regardless of any
community benefit calculation.
~ ..., fie,m?; `~/} _ ~ i;~ (` L: ..~ ~
<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endit]-->4. The remaining official benefits are impossible to measure
or verify.
<!--[if !support~ists]--><!--[endi~]-->5. There are no benefits (only adverse impacts) to the
surrounding neighborhood.
<!--[if !support~ists]--><!--[endif]-->6. New unofficial purported community benefits have been
presented in ways that are misleading, and in some cases these "benefits" actually cause
more harmful neighborhood impacts.
Please do not allow this proposal to advance. Its net effect will be harmful to the community,
and Boulder can do much better if its leaders work in concert with caring and conscientious
neighborhoods like the one surrounding Washington School.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned Members and Supporters of the Washington School Neighborhood
Association
Tina Anderson
Deborah Arhelger
Lawrence Baggett
Jed Bopp
Libby Brown
Fran Brown
Geof Cahoon
Peter Castro
Richard Cooper
Elli Cox
Catherine Dardis
Mary Davidson
Andrea Davis
Marlene A. Diamond
Lawrence Dukrow
Heather English
Jorge & Maureen Espinoza
Heidi Feigal
Walker and Claire Feigal-
Henry
Anne & Mike Fenerty
Kay Findlay
Cathy & Bryan Fluegel
Rena Gabbay
John Gless
George & Jean Gless
Darren Hall
Ed & Chris Halteman
Dan & Susie Hankin
Tom & Mardy Harrold
Jeri Harrold
Paul Heller
Bill Henry
~
'e IPcrn,; ~ j _%~.v2 9, o-__L_ '; L-
Michael Hibner
Elizabeth Jacobs
Aaryn Kay
Ellen & Chuck Knapp
Stan & Holly Kyed
John Kyed
Steven Lewis
Faan Tone
Scott Linnenburger
Sandy Locke
James & Rebecca
Marienthal
Margaret Massey
Melissa McCarl
Bill McCollam
Steffen Mehl
Tom Moore
Susan Morley
Vicki Naber
Marcus & Joan Nashelsky
Jeanne & Win Nolin
Pat O'Halloran
Ashley & Dante Ortiz
Jean Osborn
Liz Payton
Lena Phoenix
Bob Poeschl
Paul Price
Tim & Amy Quinn
Sarah Quirk
John & Mikki Rainey
Cathy Regan
Michelle & Rowland Rincon
Denny Robertson
Karyn Robinson
Emily Rose
Fred Rubin
Jackie Schwarz
Catherine Schweiger
Lynn Segal
Sarah Silver
Margot Smit
Drew Smith
Mary B. Smith
Lucie & Paul Sommer
Alfy Sommers
Greg Strom
Nancy Sullow
Christy Sweet
Pieter & Susanna Tans
-'~ftemt` F~~;; ~ ~
. - _ ~~
Keene Tomsyck
Jim Vacca
Becky Wagner
David & Cathie Williamson
Jim & Nurit Wolf
Cary & Nancy Wolfson
Roger Wolvington
Lee & Trish Wood
Kent & Mary Young
i.~~om;, S/~" i-.-~~r ~ ~' ~~
John T. Gless
Prepured on bel7.alf of:~
Geor~e & Jean Gless
2)40 13`~ Street
Boulder, CO 80304
August 30, 2007
RE~ Comparison of Washinaton Villa~e and Casa Verde Co-nmons (Colorado Sprinas)
Dear Planning Board Membcrs and City Council,
By now you may have studied, or at least glanced at the most recent i-evisions f--om
Wonderland Hill Development Company (WHDC) in their application to develop the
Washington School site. Washington neighbors are studying thcm as wel1, and you can expect
to rcceive many more written comments in the next two weeks from both individuals and
group-endorsed comments through our Neighborhood Association.
These initi~l comments relate to the information WHDC provided about a project of theirs in
Colorado Springs called Casa Verde Commons. The WHDC information can be found on the
City's website here:
http~//~vw~v bouldercolorido ~ov/tiles/PDS/Wasl~in~;ton°I~?OSchool/casa verda cohousin~.n~1f
This document contains a letter from Colorado Springs Planner and Case Officer Steve Tuck,
and a March 28, 2007 article from the Colorado Springs Gazette. WHDC's apparent purpose
is to draw parallels with thc Washington proposal; particularly surrounding ncighborhooci
opposition which WHDC claims has since melted away in the Springs. Unfortunately, the
information from WHDC is incomplete and misleading - a persistent pattern Washington
neighbors have observed now for many months. Our purpose is to show you that the
Washington proposal bears absolutely no resemblance to Casa Verde in terms of scale, layout,
and neighborhood scnsitivity.
Casa Verde Analysis
Please refer to the aerial view on the following page showing the Casa Verde property
(outlined in red} which was obtained with the Colorado Springs interactive mapping website.
A commercial building (4,000 s.f.) with two small upstairs apartments (1,000 s.f. each) is on
the upper left corner (not built yct when photo was taken). There are four single family (non-
cohousing) homes: two are directly east of the cc~mmercial corner along Columbia St. and the
other two are at the southern edge on San MigueL The remaining buildings are 34 attached
cohousing units, common house, and garages (according to the development website
http://www.casaverde.us/Join/ there are 55+ garage, catport, and open parking spaces just for
cohousing). The entire site is 4.7 acres (Washington is 3 acres), and its former use was
commercial greenhouses. The trail adjacent to the site runs a long distance in both directions
and is probably an abandoned railroad right-of-way.
,a~
~ ~ r~~ r.;., ' ~
!,;-'r'', f~c~7 #; ~.~_..~ (-t.~~#; ~:...T ~~
Her-e are scveral points that significantly undermine the comparison with Washington:
•"I'he Casa Verde site was always privatcly owned and developed for commercial use.
• Casa Verde takes advantage of adjacent public open space rather than eliminatin~ it.
• The density at Casa Verde (40 units on 4.7 acres = S.5 units ~cr acre) is virtually
identical to the surrounding block~ which have betwecn 7- 8 units per acre.
• Density on the cohousing portion of Washington is 17 units per acre, which is
comparable to just a few nearby Broadway propertics. However, the ccppurent density
at Washington is much higher lhan c~riy nearby property because it also includes ahout
IS,000 s.f. of commercial and common spaces.
• Thc single family portion of Washington is 7 units pcr acrc with FAR of O.f, which is
much higher than the sun~ounciing neighborhood (typical FAR of 0.3 and under),
i.~'~;~'~~i,a 'j~' . ;'Ci
~ #. ~•
although neither the City nor WHDC has ever provided data showing existing densities
surrounding Washington in their analyses.
The Gazette article focuses on neighbor appreciation of the coffee shop, indicating that
it fills a preexisting need (the next closest coffee shop is a mile away). Washington has
two coffee shops within two blocks away, and 90% of Washington's commercial is
simply offices, for which no shortage exists in this or any other part of Boulder.
Conclusions
The article quotes neighbors as still being disappointed in the "big ugly buildings", parking
problems, and the perception that the cohousing units physically turn their backs on the
neighborhood.
If Casa Verde's neighbors were so riled up by what otherwise appeazs to be a very low impact
infill project, how could WHDC possibly expect any less opposition at an extremely high
impact project like Washington School? WF3DC should be commended for Casa Verde
because it is a good infill development that:
• has densities and bulk compatible with its neighborhood,
• is laid out to be permeable and inviting to its surroundings,
• provides needed commercial uses (not just real estate cash), and
• relates positively to existing public open space.
None of these attributes apply to the Washington Village proposal. A different Washington
proposal that included these attributes would have likely been embraced by the community and
neighborhood from the very beginning with little or no opposition. Shouldn't Boulder aspire to
be at least as competent as Colorado Springs concerning infill development? We are more
aware than most about the financial and physical constraints inherent with this site and with the
redevelopment process followed thus far. But unlike some, we are not content to simply shrug
and say "this is terrible, but iYs the best we can do".
Here aze the steps we believe can and must be taken to remedy this situation:
1. Clear the table by denying the current development application. This is a regrettable
but necessary step, and there are more than ample grounds for a denial.
2. Recruit a new development team. We and other neighbors have already started this
process by contacting potential developers. Recruitment efforts will grow considerably
once the future becomes less clouded.
3. Neighbors, City, and new development team need to jointly assess the existing benefits
of park/open space on the site and the resources each is willing to commit toward
preserving some of these benefits.
4. The development team will then work closely with the neighborhood on a site plan that
balances financial and infill compatibility goals needed for a successful project.
This would have been a sensible process to fo(low from the start, but is even more sensible
now. One key is that the School District will have to accept a market tested price for the
,~
, i,"7~1~'f11&~~'C~~ L .-~-
property rather than an arbitrarily high price that can only be met through multiple variances,
zoning changes, use exceptions, and trampling over policies requiring neighborhood sensitivity
in order to maximize density, bulk, and incompatible commercial uses. Of the four developers
chosen to respond to the City's RFP, only WHDC ignored or failed to see the storm clouds
gathering on the horizon.
As acting Planning Board Chair at the July 19 hearing, Mr. Shull accurately observed that the
School District was, in effect, imposing a tax on this neighborhood. We agree wholeheartediy
and would point out that this "tax" is accompamed by sharply reduced services we are getting
from the District d~e to the closing of what was by any measure a uniquely successful and
diverse neighborhood school.
The closings of Washington and Mapleton, the uncertain future of similarly-sized Whittier, and
the heavy-handed approach over Casey ought to be clear enough indications that the District is
content to extract a disproportionately large share of its income from Central Boulder and then
export it to pay for services elsewhere. At what point will the City govemment act effectively
to champion its citizens' interest in striking a fairer balance with the competing interests of the
Boulder Valley School District?
Our sincere hope is that the time and place for that is right here and right now. If the City
endorses the Washington Village proposal, it is also an endorsement for whatever additional
"taxes" BVSD seeks to impose. The resulting damage to this neighborhood and the precedent
setting damage to the city's land use and zoning regulations will reverberate all around
Boulder. Such a course is neither wise nor democratic.
Sincerely,
John, George, and Jean Gless
~`~I4amfi,--~~----~'`~~~ ~"A..?~;
Karl Guiler - RE: Washington Village revised plans
From: "elizabeth jacobs" ~
To: <Guilerk(sbouldercolorau~.y~v:
Date: Fri, Aug 31, 2007 7:57 AM
Subject: RE: Washington Village revised plans
Hello Karl,
Thank you for your concern for Red Arrow. I have reviewed the revisions
that Wonderland has made to the Washington Vlllage and I do not feel that
the applicant has responded sufficiently to the planning board's seven
issues. I would like to only respond to the Red Arrow issue because
otherwise this e mail could get quite long.
I feel that the applicant has made very minimal revisions to the Broadway
Building and has talked these revisions up to make the onlooker thing that
the revisions are much more than they really are. The height, mass, and
scale of the building have not been altered much and the design of the
building does not look much ditterent to me. I realize one of the main
concerns was the solar impact on Red Arrow and i see that they have given us
a little sunlight through our windows on the shortest days of the year and I
do appreciate that gesture but i do not feel that Wonderland has taken the
time to understand or hear the depth of our concerns. I do not feel that
they have thought about the main concern of the neighborhood which is the
scale, the canonization and impenetrable nature of the broadway building,
and the placement so that this village turns iYs back to the existing
structures.
I cannot support the revisions that have been submitted. I still feel that
we need to go back to the drawing board and work out a plan that can
actually function for the existing community.
Thank you for your time,
Elizabeth Jacobs
Red Arrow Town homes
>From: "Karl Guiler" <GuilerkQbouldercolorado.pov>
>To: "Dante Ortiz"
>CC:
><br
>Subject: Washi~gton Village revised plans
>Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:29:14 -0600
>Folks,
>As we review the revised plans, we would be interested in your comments
>about the revised design. Plans are posted online at
>www.bouldercolorado.gov. Just go to City A-Z, choose W, and choose
>Washington Village. Our task at this point is to respond to Planning Board
>about whether or not the applicant has responded sufficiently to the seven
>identified issue; one being the Broadway Building's impact on Red Arrow.
>look forward to your comments. Please also let me know if you have any
.- ,, .
/~~raitem~ `=~ 1-i~~~ C'~:~
Karl Guiler - RE: Washinqton Villaqe revised
>questions.
>
>Karl
>
>
>Karl Guiler, AICP
>Planner
>City of Boulder
>Planning and Development Services
>303.441.4236 - Direct
>303.441.3241 - Fax
>guilerk @ bouldercolorado.gov
>www. bou Idercol o rado. gov
>
More photos, more messages, more storage-get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGH M_m ig ration_H M_min i_2G_0507
CC:
`~',ii^filii 7~r j-~J~,'¢, L~ J~
Karl Guiler - Council Correspondence
From: _ _. _. ___.,... _
To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Fri, Aug 31, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: Council Correspondence
This is only for your information. No need to reply.
From: JoElyn Newcomb
Date Received: 30-Aug-07
Response Key: 15855
Respondents sent this email:
Kara Mertz in CMO sent an FYI only.
Jonathan Koehn in Environmental Atfairs sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
Robert Ray in Planning and Development sent an FYI only.
Karl Guiler in P& DS sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
August 29, 2007
436 Utica Ave.
Boulder. CO 80304
Dear City Council and the Planning Department:
I wrote a similar letter to the Daily Camera because I feel like the public
doesn't fully grasp the challenge of limiting greenhouse gases and the
tremendous improvements in building ihat the City is approving. The
Washington Village project is important because it increases the density of
people living there, increases the importance of mass transit, is more
affordable, has the one of the first Leed certifications for housing and
promotes solar. Please feel free to contact me at 303.503.7743 and yes, I
now am working for a solar company as I indicated that last time 1 spoke at
council. I have learned so much and am even more committed to green
building. As a matter of fact, Independent Power Systems is in the process
of bidding on many solar systems for low income housing through the housing
authority. The letter:
Angst about changing times in the neighborhood? W hat?s changing? Yes, it
is getting hotter. NOAA ran 42 different complex computer models to
simulate changes and concluded that the ?2006 warmth was primarily due to
human influences.?
And yes, planners are trying be smarter about infill, energy efficiency and
solar. Please note the all the innovation and Leed buildings in north
central Boulder. The County Commissioners just completed a 10 kW system on
the court house to provide electricity for their four 2008 plug-in hybrid
Priuses. 1155 Canyon is a Leed (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) building for core and shell, with solar thermal, solar electric,
good insulation and highly efficient windows.
Coburn development is leading by installing solar on nearly all of their
Boulder projects from low-income single family homes to upscale condos at
1505 Pearl.
..,.,sr~mrs 5 i~' E ; ~~? L-~~9
Karl Guiler - Council Correspondence
The City Council ~ust approved spending excise tax monies to help the new
Casey Middle School meet Leed standards and be more efficient. And, now
the question is being asked of planning and the City Council to approve the
development for cohousing and Leed certification at the Washington
Elementary School site. The proposal provides more housing at a more
affordable rate. It meets Leed Standards. It has innovative solar. Yes, it
is an ad~ustment for the neighborhood, but it also makes a mark on improving
the community building standards to improve the environment.
I hope the city council continues to push innovation and reduce greenhouse
gases.
Sincerely,
JoElyn Newcomb
JoElyn Newcomb
General Manager
Independent Power Systems
www.Solarips.com
•,~,e
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http:!/intrawe b.c i.boulder.co. us(itdev/Co unc i lCo rr(servleUCo rrContro Iler? resp F illed=15855.
~
-_~1~t~m~,_ S7~' ~,:~:-~tt L b
Karl Guiler - Re: Washington Village revised plans
From:
To: <Guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 9/2/2007 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: Washington Village revised plans
Karl, I've recently reviewed Wonderland's current proposal.
Some quick thoughts, regarding impact on Red Arrow and the site in general
Firstly, I'm somewhat conflicted in not wanting to complain too much or be too NIMBY.
Especially considering The whole 'by righY aspect that keeps coming up. That in a sense
makes me think we should take what we can get, even iYs only four feet or lowers the solar
fence to 14 ft. But this does seem to be a unique situation on many fronts. We at Red Arrow
seem to be starting from somewhat of a negative position, considering our proximity to the
property line. The closing of the school and subsequent high density residential zoning of the
Washington site were surely never foreseen by the architect of Red Arrow or countless others.
That along with the minimal foot print, design of and overall feel of Red Arrow and the length of
time existing next to the school, make the high density zoning and possible high density
development in of itself a serious problem for us.
Specifically I can't help but be unhappy with the full shading of our home in the middle of
winter. Secondly the scale and make-up of the Broadway bidg. are in my opinion totally
unappealing and unnecessary. I'm somewhat overvvhelmed with the whole thing but here are
some issues and thoughts, somewhat randomly:
I'm against the effect of 'Canyonization' the building presents -- it is impermeable and
monolithic.
I don't understand how this building and iYs contents, specifically- retail and commercial
development fit the neighborhood or the co-housing vision. The following is a quote from
Wonderland's website and Washington page:
"Located at North Broadway and Cedar Street, the site is within 2 blocks of a Boulder Community
Recreation Center and Community Garden. It is just two blocks from a full hospital as well as shopping
center with a grocery store, bakery, coffee shop and more. You are also only seven blocks from
downtown Boulder with excellent public transportation available."
The WHDC design flies in the face of this, especially considering their goal of environmental
sustainability ( IMO- should include using existing resources) especially such convenient and
high quality ones. It is also part of the reason a better physical relationship with Red Arrow is
not materializing. The second reason iYs not materializing is because of the Landmark
boundary. Which I myselt made videos of, that clearly show the view corridor to be largely
nonfunctioning, and a major reason a more comfortable physical relationship is in jeopardy.
Looking at the most recent elevation drawings of the Broadway bldg. one can easily envision
a Proto's or Amante on the north corner of the bidg. I can only say that I'm totally opposed to a
retail store front in that location. An in general any public retail evelopment.
~; :'aifenP;_~~_(r ~~,~~- ,~~
I'il close here. I'm certain I could go on, but I'll save it. I'd like to sincerely thank you for your
time.
Best regards, Darren Hall
-----Original Message-----
From Karl Guiler <GuilerkC~h~»>~+~-~~'- ' ~.gov>
To: Dante Ortiz
Cc: . . , _
ar
- --.--~~- .
Sent: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 2:29 pm
Subject: Washington Village revised plans
Folks,
As we review the revised plans, we would be interested in your comments about the revised
design. Plans are posted online at www.bouldercolorado.eov. Just go to City A-Z, choose W, and
choose Washington Village. Our task at this pomt is to respond to Planning Board about whether or not
the applicant has responded sufficiently to the seven identified issue; one being the Broadway Building's
impact on Red Anow. I look forward to your comments. Please also let me know if you have any
questions.
Karl
Karl Guiler, AICP
Planner
City of Boulder
Planning and Development Services
303.441.4236 - Direct
303.441.3241 - Fax
~uilerk @bouldercolorado.gov
www.bouldercolorado. eov
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
,~; i~F~ ~, ~"~_~ r~.~,: s~~F ~- y~
Karl Guiler - Re: Wash Village
From: "Stan Kyed"
To: "Karl Guiler" <Guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 9/3/2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Wash Village
CC: '7ohn Kyed" ,
Mr. Guiler:
To refresh other readers of this correspondence, we are the owners of the residence at 2945 13th St., a
property that borders some 225 feet on the north side of the proposed Washington Village. We thank
yo~ for your communication and appreciate the request for feedback. It is our hope that our comments
will be either forwarded to the Planning Board or included in the board packet.
We were contacted by the applicant to discuss "landscaping options" after the recent plan revisions were
submitted. We declined this meeting because the plans were already drawn, and because the other
meetings we have attended produced little. The current landscape plans show four eight foot evergreens
at the end of the alley behind the singie family homes--we can only presume that is an alternative they
are seeking to minimize impact on our property, or an alternative they are proposing in order to remain
financially viable, given the cost of building a wall.
In this email we will react to the current plans, our interpretation of the planning board comments as
they concern our property, and the direct impact of the site on our 225 foot shared boundary. Our
general comments in opposition to the proposal will come in another email to the planning board.
The wall and the im~act of the north boundarv relocation
The Planning Board memo said,
"Move bike structure and trash enclosure to low impact/appropriate locations and build privacy wall
between site and single-family property along 13th."
We thank the applicant for dispersing the bicycle, trash, and recycling activities throughout the site.
Our interpretation of the Planning Board statement is that a wall will be built along our entire 225 foot
border with the site. To us, the term "wall" means a stone, masonry, or concrete wall built to the
maximum height permitted by city code. It would have a similar look on each side and there would
need to be an appropriate construction access agreement made.
We are still having a bit of hard time telling where this wall will go. The plans and the survey marks on
the ground show the existing property boundary will move 4-5 feet north of a line that has been
established since 1946. This wil] endanger several large and magnificent trees within that space and
probably necessitate their eventual removal due to either construction impact or blockage of the property
line. Lilacs, wild roses, and other hedge plants, some of which exceed 10 feet in height will also
disappear. We do hope staff is confident of the survey made and aware of this impact. A natura] barrier
existing since 1946 will largely disappear--a fact adding more support for a wall along the north side.
We, of course, dispute the revised property line.
^. I(em f_ 5~'_ ( i:? Ir G' 1~~ 5
North building issues
The Planning Board memo said, "Improve the treatment of the north building to be less imposing and
more neighborly."
We can see litUe change to the north building in the revised plans besides a walkway on the north
side. This building overwhelms the northside and provides no transition to the northern boundary. The
excavation for the building and the underground parking will overwhelm the site and probably impact
vegetation well within our yard. Post-consCruction, this building will have a large impact on the lives of
not only those adjoining Washington, but also on those who live within several hundred feet.
As we have stated repeatedly, this is a development that is creating a new neighborhood; not a
development that wishes to join an existing, vibrant, and diverse neighborhood. The north building
demontrates this point clearly--Washington Village will tum its back on the neighbors.
Issues with the single family home bordering our aroperty
The plan resubmission shows a proposed footprint for the single family home bordering our property,
but offer little more detail. Our comments may be incorrect due to the incomplete plans, but we now
have some new fears, outlined briefly below.
One tree currently on our lot, but claimed by WHDC is covered by the covenant: The
restrictive covenant negotiated with BVSD stipulates that trees 15 inches in diameter at a height of
4 feet that lie withing 50 feet of 13th street shall be preserved. A large crab apple tree measuring
17 inches in diameter at a height of 4 feet lies within the strip of land claimed by WHDC some 30
feet from 13th street. Plans are hard to read online, but they seem to show this tree right on the
edge of the proposed northernmost single family residence. This is a magnificent tree interlaced
with one of the most spectacular wild roses in the area. It meets the criteria for preservation
outlined in the covenant, and if the land claim of WHDC is true, we urge the planning board to
insist on the safety of this tree. Precautions including no excavation neaz the drip line and no
construction activity below the drip ]me should be stipulated. Also, the guidlelines for the single
family lots should strongly restate the tree language in the covenant and include the city forester
as part of decisions concerning the fate of this tree post-construction.
Other trees near the single family Iot:There has been much controversy of late regardmg the
impact of construction on trees around the city. Several other large trees on the site boundary wili
be severely impacted by the construction of the northemmost single family residence, likely
endangering their health or creating a safety hazard.
Solar study for single family lot: We don't see a solar study on the single family lot bordering
our property in the plan resubmission. Again, the plans are hard to read online, but are we correct
that a five foot side yard setback is proposed? If this is the case, we are in opposition and we also
insist that no solar variance be granted to this lot.
Single family as part of approvaL• We feel that clear plans for the single family lots shou(d be
included as part of the approval package. The overhead view of the site looks much different
(much more dense) now that a footprint for the single family homes is shown. We deserve more
information from the applicant.
Sidewalk/tree lawn: The plans show a sidewalk/tree lawn approaching our lot that is vastly
~. L-L L
~. ...~ fi~ri' -- -- ~ ~.~,:~,~ -_ ~ ~
different from the current walk. How will this meld into the existing neighborhood? We don't
wish to vary our existing sidewalks because this will destroy more landscaping, a very large
Linden tree, and possibly a large Spruce. And who will pay for bringing the two sidewalks
together? Would a city approval of the WHDC sidewalk/tree lawn plan, imply our sidewalk
would have to change?
Historic view and use of the site:
We continue to oppose the loss of our view of the historic school building and the pending loss of the
schoolyard. Our property has a long association with the building, and the lack of consideration for that
in the plans is regrettable. It is so hard to communicate how strongly we feel about this building and the
historic open character of the site, given our many ties to the school and the schoolyard.
Final ~oint, the zoning line change:
Though we aze aware the planning board has litde issue with the zoning line change, we continue to
oppose the change. The "creeping density" and land use changes will have a severe impact on our
property.
Conclusion•
We began living in our house in 1981; first as renters, later as caretakers, and now as owners.
The impact on our lives caused by this proposal is considerable and we are in a state of total shock.
The applicant may azgue that there has been an effort to meet with us. As we have stated, the plans were
already submitted. The applicant may argue that they wish to preserve trees on the land they claim by
not building a wall, we feel the trees wili be killed by constmction activity and that a wall will be the
only way to minimize what will be a hoirible impact on our lifestyle.
We have also raised several points of concern regarding the north building and the northernmost single
family residence. We appreciate the removal of the bicycle/trash building, but feel that the current plans
have actually worsened the impact on our property, now that some preliminary plans for the single
family residences have been revealed.
As one of the most severely impacted property owners adjoining the Washington site, we urge the
Planning Board to deny the applicant's resubmission.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Stan, Holiy, and John Kyed
2945 13th St.
On 8/30/07, Karl Guiler <Guilerk@bouldercolorado•gov > wrote:
"~'(fC,~it` ~_ I ~ ~:#;~ ~_~y~
Stan,
The new design of the Washington Village shows the removal of the trash enclosure and bike structure from
the vicinity of your property. However, it does not show a fence or wall in that location, although the
applicant discusses this in their written statement. I just wanted to touch base with you and get an idea of
what you might find acceptable in that area by the alley. If the Board were to approve the proposal, we
would at feast hope to have a specific condition of what type of waff would be acceptable to you in that
location. Please let me know when you get a chance.
Karl
Karl Guiler, AICP
Planner
City of Boulder
Planning and Development Services
303.441.4Z36 - Direct
303.441.3241 - Fax
g ui lerk@ bouldercolorado.gov
www, bouldercolorado.aoy
~;:fiC'il~_ ~7(7_ _ ii:~i;~',_L _1(~'
Karl Guiler - RE: Washington Village revised plans
From: Dante Ortiz >
To: Jim Leach , Karl Guiler <Guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Tue, Sep 4, 2007 9:50 PM
Subject: RE: Washington Village revised plans
Dear Jim and Jon,
Thank you for contacting us regarding our opinions of
the newly proposed pedestrian path on the north edge
of the Washington school site. After getting input
trom all of the Red Arrow residents, we would like to
request that this idea of a path be pulled from your
plans.
Although we would be happy if that space were kept as
open space between our two properties, the idea of a
public path coming from Broadway actually opens up
many issues in terms of privacy and safety for our
units that are only several feet from the fence line.
As you mentioned, Jim, it would pretty much set in
stone the need for a high, opaque barrier between our
two sites, and we're not sure this is the best design
solution to this edge condition at this point.
So, again, thank you for asking us our opinions, and
we would prefer to not have a public access way on
this fence line. Please contact us with any further
questions.
Regards,
Dante Ortiz & Red Arrow residents
--- Jim Leach > wrote
> Dante and all at Red Arrow,
>
> The sketch that Jonathan sent you today showing a
> possible pedestrian
> way running west to east in the open space between
> our north building
> and your buildings shows a high privacy fence along
> the property
> boundary that I don't think is very attractive. We
> would like to get
> your input on the idea of having a well landscaped
> pedestrian way
> through that space between our buildings, but on our
> property. If you
> are opposed to it we will not promote the idea to
> the Planning Board.
>
> If we do have the pedestrian way I do not think the
> high privacy fence
> is a very good idea, but instead a more open way of
> defining the
'; (femY _S_~ I ~.~~#;_L- ~~_~
Washington School:
In my yard... not in my backyard... I would say that dominant NIMBY's in 8oulder tend to be self abwrbed and their ideas
and solutions amount to a net loss for the community. Want some examples: Rnt, how about the Hill neighbors who
opposed the new restaurant/dub run by a local restaurateur at Tulagi?s. After they ran the business off the space sat
empty for two years and now has a regional/national sub chain undercutting prices of the local shops. Second, how
about the Boulder Junior Academy on 4th street? The original proposal was for a dozen or so homes at a fower densty
than the surrounding neighborhood but the neighbors did not want that and thought it should match the exisGng density
and provide some on-site affordable unitr. But, when the neM [wo proposals came back both the city and neighborhood
shot them down. So we now have ONE home on 6 acres in central Boulder?.
Many of us tried our best to save Washington and Mapleton but it really came down to a self serving study by BVSD that
provided a means for budget cutting. The problem now is that the neighbors think itr their development. First, the
historical high point both these schools had a lot more visits than a few new neighbors will. Second, the developer a
nationally recognized builder and community developer took the teztbook approach from the beginning but forgot how
unreasonable NIMBY~s in Boulder are. So instead of initially proposing a development maximizing the FAR they
presented the most reasonable options by weighing in the economics, community, aty and nei9hborhood needs.
However, the only problem is that presenting this first did not give the groups a chance to get their meat hooks in on
some elements of the pro~ect. Unfortunately, a further reduction in the project will not meet the developers, community,
and aty needs oh yes but it will be a park for the neighbors for years to come?.
I think its unfortunate that we can?t get bram collectives like [hese neighborhood groups to focus on why are streets
aren?t painted and are full of potholes stressing our infrastructure further. And, why are public spaces are derelict of
attention medians, parks, paths, trails, open space, etc? are beyond repair without a large capital pro7ect.
We should try to be aware of the broader impacts of the choices we make because if every pro7ect is opposed and
sacrifced to meet the needs of the neighbors we will never meet the needs of our tommuniry.
~~•~-~~~{Cnmk ~ilrl' i~-~.u /.~~X
Karl Guiler - Washington School project
From: "Sahami, Victoria" <
To:
Date: 9/5/2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Washington School project
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of Newlands Neighborhood in North Boulder and I have recently become aware of a development
project in the works for the Washington School located near Dellwood on Broadway. The Washington School is a
large building that is currently owned by the School Board. In order to raise funds the School Board is interested
in selling this property which has not been used much in recent years.
Although I do not know the details of the monetary needs of the School Board, or the political details of the
proposed project (although I have been hearing alot of very loud objections recently among my neighbors), I see
that there is a beautiful property that the city/community currently owns and is about to relinquish to a developer.
I feel that properties like this should be treasured and held on to because once they are gone to redevelopment
reacquiring them is nearly impossible and never in their original state.
Since this is a philosophy that the City of Boulder exhibited in the 1960's when the greenbelt was first established
I have great hope that you might find the preservation of this property for use by the community in the city's best
interest.
The Washington School is a valuable city resource and i feel strongly that it should not be
relinquished. As Planning and Development for the city of Boulder, I am sure you have many ideas for possible
uses - uses that I have thought of include:
1. Use by the parks department as a place for adult classes such as education, art, music etc. and as a place
that people can rent out for weddings and other events.
2. Use of the grounds as muliti-use playfields for sports like soccer or ultimate frisbee (which is huge in Boulder
and I am sure that they could use more places to play)
3. An off leash Dog park. Provide a safe area for dogs to be off leash in the city.
4. A teen center. This may be redundant with the North Boulder community center so close but I think that a safe
place for teens is always a good thing to consider.
5. And in the end, perhaps it can be reconverted to a school at some point in the future when the population of
children in Boulder grows again. Based on the number of small children and pregnant women in my
neighborhood (including myself) this may be sooner than we think!!
Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope that you will become as interested in preserving the
Washington School for city use as I am.
Sincerely,
Victoria Sahami
~ma ~ ~ ~ti c. Q~Ulder CO 80304
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in tfiis message is legally
privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or
the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any release, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
`~}~- J (~ C~~]
~;"i:~~~~1~t?ill`i__~l ~_. .:74~~_L. __!~/
Karl Guiler - RE: Washington Village revised plans
From: "Heather Engli~h"
To: '"Karl Guiler"' <Guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 9/5/2007 3:55 PM
Subject: RE: Washington Village revised plans
Hi Karl,
Thank you for taking our comments. One of the issues I don't think Wonderland Hills addressed adequately is
the solar impact on Red Arrow. As you saw on Tuesday, our buildings are unique and deserve more space and
direct sunlight than they will get if the plan goes through at this point. If the plan does go through I believe the
city will be saying that it is OK to develop at the expense of the surrounding neighborhood. Red Arrow will be
overshadowed and I can only imagine it will have to be scraped so that a larger building can compete with the
mass of the Wonderland development.
Sincerely,
Heather English
english retreads
4949 N. Broadway, #147
Boulder, CO 80304
From: Karl Guiler [mailto:Guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:29 PM
To: Dante Ortiz
Cc:
Subject: Washington Village revised plans
Folks,
As we review the revised plans, we would be interested in your comments about the revised design. Plans are
posted online at www.bouldercolorado.qov. )ust go to City A-Z, choose W, and choose Washington Village.
Our task at this point is to respond to Planning Board about whether or not the applicant has responded
sufficiently to the seven identified issue; one being the Broadway Building's impact on Red Arrow. I look
• .1~~^(il:F ~'if 1 . .,j7,fi,,~,~'.~~
Karl Guiler - Input on Washington Village proposed plans
From: Ashley Clarke _
To: ~ -
Date: y/b/LUU7 11:26 AM
Subject: Innut on Washmgton Village proposed plans
CC:
September 6, 2007
Dear Planning Board Members & Staff,
We are writing in response to Wonderland Hi1Ps recent submittal for Washington re-development
The first thing we would like to do is separate the notions of "concept and program" from "architectural
site planning and form,° as we believe this separation will help us all understand the issues at hand.
Wonderland adequately responded to the City-issued RFP by including many of the community benefits
requested, and added co-housing and LEED certification as their own additional benefits. This is why,
as a list of words and concepts, the current development plan can appear as a great fit for the
Washington site.
However, the architectural response by Arch Inc. has developed into the current impractical and
inappropriate site pian. It is mainly the architectural site plan that is at fault for the widespread criticism
of this development. From the time the initial plans were presented, there has been inadequate
azchitectural exploration of multiple schematic plans to manifest Wonderland's program.
As you know, the site is extremely comp(ex, straddling two zones, with high and low density neighbors,
a major transportation corridor, and two historic buildings within its context Washington school on the
south and Red Arrow modern townhouses on the north. And yet, there has only ever been one concept
on the table since the start of Arch Inc.'s design process.
By the time the one site plan was presented to the public, it was already set in stone because of many
intemal design solutions, including a parking concept designed around a traffic loop underneath the
western half of the property, leaving no flexibility to respond to concerns they would learn from
neighbors and critics.
This is the reason why neighbors continue to feel like they have not been listened to. Wonderland
continues to claim that they have heard neighborhood concerns and have made a number of adjustments,
as their architects assure them they have done. But these adjustments have only ever been made around
this "precious" first and only plan, which still ignores at least seven major impacts identified by you and
the neighborhood.
Changes have been made, but only those that barely scratch the surface of a largely flawed, inwardly
focused architectural plan designed with a shallow recognition of its surroundings. And every change
has been made only when needed to assure the projecYs forward motion.
Take, for instance, the movement of the Broadway Building four feet to the south in Wondedand's most
' 1 P~? ~i ~< ~~ _ .i:;;~ ~ ~~ ~~
recent submittal. With special reference to Mc Shull's comment about this distance on tape, the
architects "suddenly" found a way to move this building south, when for two years we have been
assured, logistically and financially, there is no room to do so. This type of change makes it very hazd
to trust this design process, and leaves us wondering, "What if Mr. Shull had thrown out a higher
number, say 8 or ]0 feet?" This comment was suggested in the middle of a seven hour broadiy focused
meeting that was not a study of exact measurements or distances. There was no detailed discussion
about what this exact measurement would affect in terms of reduced interior solar shading of the Red
Arrow townhouses. What if 10 feet is possible, had been suggested, and would completely eliminate the
still present interior shading on these historic structures? We just don't know, and may never know if
we do not continue to scrutinize this plan.
The architect's response to this issue is a strikingly clear example of their design process to date, and
why you saw so many frustrated people at the last Planning Board meeting. And now, they continue
this same path with their response to your seven issues of concern. They believe these changes, very
mimmal in relation to the whole site plan, are enough to convince the Planning Board and City to
approve their plans. However, if you remember that the site plan itself is at the root of the problems, it
is easy to see that these token changes do not truly mitigate or even attempt to explore real positive
change for this mediocre and problematic site plan.
A1Chough we can a11 sympathize with Wonderland's financial investment to date, we hope that you will
not allow this concern to piay a part in your decision. They have moved forwazd for two yeazs with only
one concept that has almost entirely ignored sustained disagreement, dissent and criticism, and do not
deserve to gain development rights solely because they are the only ones still trying and have the only
plan on the table for consideration.
In summary, we believe there are many positive aspects to Wonderland's cucrent plan for development,
but the limited architectural manifestation of these qualities to date must result in a denial of their plans
at your meeting on September 13th. A denial of this one site plan would allow an opening for a new
development to come forward that could build upon and be educated by all of the valuable knowledge
everyone has gained during the past two years.
This site does not have to be just a"park" to be embraced by the neighborhood. It simply needs to
respond to the complexity and greater scale of its surrounding context. We ask that you, as our City-
appointed officials, demand excellence over expediency and allow for new architectural visions to
emerge that are more compatible with and inspired by the historical ]egacy of the site and its
surrounding neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and stewardship of our neighborhoods,
Dante and Ashley Ortiz
2950 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80304
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel_answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
r 2
~ ~''j?r?ill;'r_..~~~ ..j~?i,~_-~'_~ ~%
ROBERT POESCHL
ARCHITECTURE
September 6, 2007
To the City of Boulder Planning Board Members and Staff
I am writing in response to the most recent design revisions released by developers of the Washington
Village project proposed for the Washington School site. The plans, sections and eMerior perspectives
show that the efforts made to comply with the design goals established by the Planning Board at the July 29
meeting have been in the direction of ad~ustments and gestures, rather than the conceptual rethink that
may be required in order to achieve a completely satistying resolution. As a neighbor who resides at the
Red Arrow Townhouses, I will address only those issues relating directly to the relationship with the Red
Arrow buildings.
W ith regard to solar access for the Red Arrow units, the developer's architects have moved the west
building 4 feet farther from the Red Arrow south property line. W hile this modification does provide
additional winter light into the top portion of the south-facing living spaces, the shading sections show thai
that only the very top of the 12 foot high glazing receives light on December 21. I realize that the change
complies with the letter of the law, but it fails to measure up to the intent of the July 29 Planning Board
direciion document, which calls for buildings to be moved in order to "strongly reduce solar impart on Red
Arrow. My own calculations, based upon the latest shadow diagrams from Wonderland's architect, show
that eliminating the noontime shadow incursion from the West Building into the living room of the adjacent
Red Arrow unit would require moving the West Building 15.5 feet south of the position show on the
diagrams. I would equate this to a strong impact; please see my closing remarks on the landmark
boundary and view corridor.
This issue of permeability of the Washington Village site also was listed among the 7 items on ihe direction
document. The architects have addressed this by introducing an east-west pedestrian path along the south
Red Arrow property line. In order to provide privacy for Red Arrow, they've introduced a high wood fence
(visible in perspective renderings) which would reduce the feeling of interaction with the landscape en~oyed
by Red Arrow residents. A later e-mail from Jim Leach indicated second thoughts about the fence, and a
willingness to move or delete it. This would leave us with pedestrians staring directly into Red Arrow living
rooms as configured. Moving the West Building 10 to 15 feet south would provide the opportunity for a truly
interactive commons, which might require a gate at Broadway, and more significantly, a review of the
approved landmark boundary (please see my last paragraph). The Village developers have not introduced
a path into their own interior courtyard, according to their response letter, because it might compromise
security on the Village site. W hy it would be acceptable to compromise security at Red Arrow is a mystery.
I feel strongly that a more creative solution than a fence could and should be explored.
Architectural compatibility with the Red Arrow buildings seems to have been addressed by adding a
trellis or arbor fea[ure at the aforementioned pedestrian pathway, and some brick at the base of the Village
buildings. The more profound issues of compatibility with the scale of the Red Arrow buildings, and with
their informal, playful spirit (not to mention their passive solar aspect) remain to be addressed by the site
plan and the building elevations. In closing I would iike to note [hat we have never seen any alternative site
plans from the developer, only refinements and adjusiments to a plan that seems to have been etched in
stone rather early in the design process. A sensitive response to "strongly reduce the solar impacY' on Red
Arrow, as well as creating a truly interactive communiry of architecture and space, would probably require
revisiting the landmark boundary, which institutionalizes a nonexistent view corridor (Washington School
would remain nearly invisible from the southwest corner and completely invisible from Broadway in the
current scheme) and exacts solar and visual incursion on Red Arrow Townhouses (themselves a potential
landmark) as the apparent price.
Sincerely,
Bob Poeschl
2721 30TH STREET ~ SUITE 100 ~ BOULDER, COLORADO ^ 80301
.,i.t[f?71; ~/~~ '°~'ii L~ ~ ~
ATTACHMENT M
Boulder City Council Members
~ and
;
~ Members of the Planning Board
~ ~ Support Letters for
Wonderland Hill's Proposed Development
= of
Washington School
,
~
August 30, 2007
~
1~,~
~~
WYVondeErland
To: Boulder City Council Members and Planning Board Members
From: Jim I.each, Presidem Wonderland Hill Development
Date: August 30, 2007
Attached are over 100 letters from a wide variety of fi-iends, supporters, cohousing
members and professiouals in support of Wonderland Hill's proposed development of the
Washington School site.
To make it easier for many people, we offered a number of differe-rt templates which
they felt best expressed their views and therefore signed in their own hand. A number of
other people decided they wamed to write their own personal letter to you. We have
placed the personally written letters on top.
I think you will find from the semiment conveyed, that many individuals caa see both the
present and future of Boulder in this development and that we are heading on the right
direction for the benefit of all Boulder residents.
Si el ~%~
~
Jim Leach
..
::
,
+r
0
.~
W
~
v/
es
r
n
s
ma
'•i" 4676 Broadway • Boulder, Colorado 80304 P: 303.4493232 F: 303.4493275 www.whdc.com
WASHINGTON VILLAGE, An open letter to the Planning Board and City
Council:
With the Washington Village proposal coming before, you have the unenviable position
of voting "yes" or "no" on a pivotal project for the Boulder community. Please bear with
me while I ask you to fast-forward to that upcoming heazing where you will heaz two
presentations:
The first presentation is from a sincere neighborhood, giving voice to their frustrations
around long standing, un-addressed, and real concerns and feazs. Concern at the loss of
their neighborhood school, fear of losing their own piece of "pocket park", of losing their
street parking to employees in the medical district, of losing to the cancer we see in other
neighborhoods where "tear-downs" make way for "McMansions".
The second nresentation is from Wonderland Hill Development Co., a highly ethical and
committed, local co-hoasing developer with a project that creatively meets the current
zoning in all aspects, except for a reduction in the parking requirement, one which most
reasonable people agree should have been fixed long ago (four spaces required for a
typical home). It meets your stated requirements and has continued to evolve its plans to
meet the requirements of city agencies like the Landmarks Boazd and DDAB.
Now let us suppose that in a very difficult vote, vou decide to disapprove the proiect. The
results of this vote aze twofold:
The first result is that a group of neighborhood activists will be temporarily elated that
their frustrations have been heard, until they realize that their fears regazding the future of
their neighborhood aze still unresolved. Either the school district will be free to sell the
property to whatever developer will pay top market rate, or perhaps everyone will be
intimidated by this process, and we will have another derelict similar to the Academy
Building, which remained boazded up, and of necessity, fenced in for years, to avoid
liability issues.
- The second result is that the Boulder community will have lost exactl~he project that
'° should be on this uniaue site. It is a project that you have both hoped and asked for in
~ central Boulder:
,~ 1) One that puts the higher density where it should e~on the main transit
~ corridor near the center of town
~ 2) Affordable housing actuall~placed within a new development near downtown
°'" 3) A highly sustainable neighborhood (Boulder's only candidate in the elite
~ neighborhood LEED-ND pilot program)
~ 4) Faz more open space than is required
,~, 5) Indoor public space for community use and activities
"'' 6) Housing focused for seniors which is near the hospital and other support
w 7) A co-housing project which can be another positive step toward a more
'~ livable, sustainable community of Boulder
,.
~r
~
~
~
~
,r
8) A project which provides on site the appropriately-sized single family homes
(with alley accessed garages) as a transition into the existing scale of the
surrounding neighborhood
9) A project which not only meets the Solaz Access requirements, but has made
extensive efforts to go well beyond them
10) A revitalized, landmarked, historic building, with varied community functions
and a new lease on life
11) A new neighbor to the existing neighborhood, ready to help resolve those
long-standing issues still facing the community
12) A new resident family-my wife and myself, who wish to exchange our
Newlands home for a vision of helping to build communitv while livin~
lightly on tl~e land.
Or. ..maybe you do apnrove this project, knowing that it will not be the solution to a
better future for Boulder, but it will be another positive step in that direction.
~L~~•-~-~-
David Cazson ~~~
.,,
+A
~Y
°71
W
~
M/
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1635 Yellow Pine Ave
Boulder, CO 80304
August 27, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kart Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
VJe are writing in support of the VJashington Village cohousing project proposed for the site of the
former Washington School.
As recent transplants from Pleasant Hill Cohousing in northern Califomia to Wild Sage Cohousing
in Boulder, we are now living in our second Wonderland-Hill-developed cohousing community. We aze
impressed by the ability of the cohousing community slructure to bring neighbors together, within and
crossing the boundaxies of the cohousing community. Cohousing also fosters a commitment to civic
values and neighborhood cooperation, and to living lighdy on the land - including energy efficiency,
alternative energy use, decreased use of cars, shanng resources among neighbors, and more.
If a site such as the Washington School site is - sadly for the surrounding neighborhood - to be
developed somehow, we think cohousing is an excellent model to pursue. Consider the alternatives: The
other developer finalists dropped out of the RFP process with the requirements and land price as they
stood. If Wonderland Hill is not allowed to continue with the Washington Village pmject, we fear the
city will be forced to drop some of those requirements, such as preserving the landmark school building
or community access, in order to allow the school district to sell the site. This paves the way for a
developer with less concern for the community or the city to build as many as possible of the most
expensive homes for which s/he can gain approval, thereby increasing gentrification, eliminating
community access to this historic site, and doing nothing to support the environment or civic
involvement by the new residents. Boulder doesn't need more of t}ris direction of developa-ent. We
support the diversity in age, physical ability, and economic status that the Washington Village project is
striving to provide.
-~ If a coalition of neighbors or others were to raise enough money to buy the single-home sites on the
:; east side of the development, some open space couid be preserved as a community pazk. However,
~ absent that effort, iYs important not to stonewall a good project because iYs not perfect, thereby paving
; the way for something faz worse. Is a couple of years' continued access to the park, while the
w bureaucratic wheels tuin, really worth risking the permanent loss of all community access to tlris site?
~.
~• Please say yes W Washington Village.
~
"'~ 5incerely,
.~ C~~
~.
_'~-
~' ` ~w "U~'~~~-
~ Deborah and Tim Mensch
~
~,
w
,n
er
August 20, 2007
Y
~
„;
~,
~
~
~
~
,,.,
~
~,
;
~
.
~
~
,,,
~
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kart Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I(along with my husband - Robert) am a soon-to-be resident of Silver
Sage Viilage in the Holiday Neighborhood. I am also a fortner resident
of Wild Sage Cohousing, also in the Holiday Neighborhood. As I am
sure you know, there were some neighborhood concems (as is true of
Washington Village) prior to the development of the Holiday
Neighborhood. However, I doubt anyone would not consider the
Holiday Neighborhood an unqualified success.
While I am aware of some concems of the neighbors bordering
Washington School and understand how hard change can be, I do
know that there have been efforts to make compromises in the design
of Washington Viilage to accommodate their concerns.
One of the main concerns of the neighbors seems to be that they will
lose the "park° space they have had on the eastern portion of the
school site. I would like to note that while they have had access to this
space, the neighborhood has not stepped forward to preserve this
space by buying the school site. In contrast, the Holiday neighbors
have contributed time, energy, and funds to deve~oping the park in our
neighborhood. It seems unreasonable to me that the Washington
Village neighbors are complaining about losing a"park" into which they
have not been willing to put their own time and money.
As a person who is familiar with living in cohousing and has
experienced the concem and sometimes fears of neighbors about the
impact of such projects, I wish to say that the Washington Village
project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in time all of
the people in the neighborhood will that the neighborhood is an even
better place to live and share in a larger sense of community.
Sincerely,
c~ - h-~ ~„ ~..~.k~.~e~~
Timothy and Erin Bagnall
1319 Alpine Ave #21
Boulder CO 80304
As residents of the Old North Boulder neighborhood surrounding Washington
School we would like to voice our opinion of ~roval for the proposed
Washington Village Project.
For three years we have enjoyed living in the nei9hborhood and taking
advantage of all the nearby amenities, like visiting the parks of North Boulder,
Casey Middle School, and Salberg; working out, playing tennis, platform tennis,
and volleyball at the North Boulder Recreation Center; and growing fruits and
vegetables and volunteering at the Community Gardens. Many times over the
past three years we have traveled past, on bicycle and foot, the Washington
School and have wondered why it stood in such a state of neglect. We realize
that the Boulder Valley School district needs to sell the property to raise capital
for its future plans but are unimpressed with the state the school yard has been
subjected to during the transformation process.
Our opinion is that the proposed Washington Village will bring fonh a positive
transformation to the North Boulder neighborhood by showcasing and honoring
the historic Washington School. We believe that the co-housing values
incorporated in this project champion the city's vision of pursuing
developments that benefit the community and reduce harmful impacts on the
environment. Co-housing is both conducive to building community, by
encouraging people to share, interact, and form strong relationships, and
environmentally sustainable, by its use of the standards defined by the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design system deveioped by the United
States Green Building Council.
' As the City of Bouider has thoughtfully restricted unbridled growth, there is a
- need to be especiaily selective with the types of construction projects it permits.
` The Washington Village is a shining example of the type of development that
m, Boulder should demand.
:, Sincerely,
~ ~~ ~~
~. ~s ~~~
; Timothy and Erin Bagnall
w,
,~
*w
~
n
w+
~
~
~
~
,y
~
~
.r
August 23, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site
of the former Washington School.
I am a founding member of the Nyland Cohousing Community, which was the first
cohousing community undertaken by 7im Leach and Wonderland.
In the time since the development of Nyland, as you know, Jim Leach has become one
of the recognized national leaders in developing cohousing throughout the West, with
Boulder County increasingly recognized as a leader in the development of green
neighborhood communities.
I can understand how the neighbors next to the Washington Village project would prefer
to have the status quo maintained. I also doubt that this is possible.
The real question therefore, is what is the best use of the land moving forward.
In terms of energy use, uti(ization of mass transit, re-cycling - all of the key items which
Boulder must concern itself with as it begins to address global warming and other issues
- cohousing communities have consistently demonstrated the kind of performance that, if
implemented more broadly, will enable Boulder to achieve real change. I would expect
the residents of Washington Village to be even more effective in this regard, since they
are building on the experience and support of Wonderland and the other cohousing
communities.
W"ith W"ashington Village, Boulder nas the opportunity to actually implement a pattern of
development that achieves its stated goals of increased affordability, green development,
and a sense of local community.
I strongly encourage you to suppoR this project as proposed.
~ urs sincerely,
w~1 ~
„~ Robe Bruegel, P .D.
;~
5M
n q~
i/
0~
.~
~y~
=h
August 20, 2007
;a
.~
;~
~
~
~
,~,
~
„
~
~
a.
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am a soon-to-be resident of Silver Sage Village in the Holiday
Neighborhood. I am also a former resident of Wild Sage Cohousing,
also in the Holiday Neighborhood. As I am sure you know, there were
some neighborhood concerns (as is true of Washington Village) prior to
the development of the Holiday Neighborhood. However, I doubt there
is anyone in Boulder today who would not consider the Holiday
Neighborhood an unqualified success.
I am also someone who believes in green building and sustainability. I
believe that much of the future development in Boulder will of
necessity be in-fill and higher density projects. I believe that the
Washington Village project is a good model of sustainability and green
building practices, and I respect the integrity of ]im Leach and
Wonderland Hill Development Company.
While I have heard about some concerns of the neighbors bordering
Washington School and understand how hard change can be, I do
know that.there have been efforts to make compromises in the design
of Washington Viliage to accommodate their concerns.
One of the main concerns of the neighbors seems to be that they will
lose the ~~park" space they have had on the eastern portion of the
school site. I woutd like to note that while they have had access to this
space, the neighborhood has not stepped forward to preserve this
space by buying the school site. In contrast, the Holiday neighbors
have contributed time, energy, and funds to developing the park in our
neighborhood. It seems unreasonable to me that the Washington
Village neighbors are complaining about losing a"park° into which they
have not been willing to put their own time and money.
I have also heard about the concerns of the neighbors to the north
regarding the solar impact and obstruction of their view by the
proposed buildings. The city has developed guidelines about these
types of situations that delineates a"solar fence" and dictates how
close building can be to the property line. From what I understand, the
solar impact is far less than the allowed 25-foot solar fence.
Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property
line than their neighbors to the north have.
As a person who is familiar with living in cohousing and has
experienced the concem and sometimes fears of neighbors about the
impact of such projects, I wish to say that the Washington Village
project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have an in-fill community nearby
when one didn't exist for so many years is difficult. No doubt, I would
not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. However, I believe that
Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a lot
of effort tv make this project work for everyone, including the
neighbors and the surrounding community.
I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten years
all of the people in the neighborhood will find to their delight that
many positives have offset their concems about Washington Village
and that the neighborhood is an even better place to live and share in
a larger sense of community.
Sincerely,
U v-"`„~ '
.,
.,.
.~
~
~
~
~
~
`~
~,
~rr
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~Nqp MoorbY ' ~ ~
:
.
~
.
~: •
~.
~
~
~
~
^'~.
~y/
~
,+e{'
~.
wr
~
iNNPY MotioN ~ ~
399o bYOqdwdY ,
~ a
N~n~ber e '
bouLder co
. +
8030~ ~ ~
3b3~44~.255~ ~
. August 16, 2007 ,
To the City Council and Planning Boazd Members. ~
I am a member of the proposed Washington Village Co-Housing project and will be
purchasing one of the affordable housing units. ~ ,
I am aware of the concems raised by the neighbors as well as the Qne-sided infotmation
published in the media. ^ • '
I s~trongly ericourage you to approve this project. I feei that we at Washington Village and
Wonderland Hill have made an effort to make this project work for everyone and that it'
will be a pasitive contribuUOn, both to the neighborhood and the City, as well as a step
toward a "Greener Boulder". ~
~
~
Inge Moorby '
10~0 Malory Street,
L,a,fayette, CO 80026.
..
.
b ~
~
,
:~
Korkut Onaran, Ph.D. korkut@wlarch.com
Assistan[ Professor Adjunct, Univers~ry of Colorado at Denver and Boulder (303) 447-2786 work
Principal, Wolff-Lyon ArchitecCS (303) 557-8188 cell
August 30, 2007
City of Bouider City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
My wife, Jennifer Frank, and I live and own a condominium unit on the same block as
the Washington Village Cohousing Project proposed for the site on the former
Washington School. Also, my wife I are the presidents of the Washington Squaze HOA
(3000 Broadway). We slrongly support this project and looking forwazd for its
realization. I would like to provide the following reasons for your consideration.
.u:
,,,
W/
..,
~.
w~
a~9
~
~
~
~I
~
~
~
~
~
Since we moved to the neighborhood in 2001, the pedestrian-unfriendly nature of
Broadway has been disturbing us. Over speeding on Broadway, lack of comfortable
sidewalks, when combined with uses turning their backs to the street by means of
long fences (such as the one belongs to the Washington School) exacerbate the
conditions for the pedestrians and bikers. I believe that any residential and mixed use
development on Broadway, if they face the street in a proper way, will tame the
traffic and transform the street character in a positive way. The way Washington
Village Cohousing Project faces Broadway and especially the fact that some office
and retail possibilities aze proposed azound the bus-stop aze among the signs telling
me why this project will be an asset for us neighbors.
2. Part of preserving Boulder, to me, means preserving the demographic diversity,
which is as important as preserving the physical environment. Unfortunately the
increasing property values have been affecting the demographic diversity in a
negative way. Washington Village is a good example of the kind of mixed use
development that will provide choices for moderate and low-income families. I
believe it is my moral obligation to think beyond my immediate needs and consider
the long term positive effects of providing housing choices for diverse income
groups. The WasYungton Village proposal is doing this and therefore I strongly
strongly encourage you to approve this project.
Korkut Onaran, Ph.D. korkut@wlarch.com
Assistant Professor Adjunct, Unrversity of Cobrado at Denver and Boulder (303) 447-2786 work
Principal, Wolff-Lyon Architects (303) 557-8188 cell
3. Pve known Jim Leach and I've been following the work of Wonderland Hill
Development Company for ten years. Being and architect and urban planner myself I
have always been impressed with the quality of work they produce. More important
than the design quality of their work what impresses me the most is Mr. Leach's
sincere commitment to building strong communities. I am truly excited to see how the
quality of life in our neighborhood will be enhanced by Washington Village project.
Boulder has seen good examples of cohousing projects developed by Wonderland
Hill (such as, Nomad and Wild Sage). It is laiown that these developments have not
only created strong socialization patterns within themselves but also enhanced the
social life in their entire neighborhoods.
I believe Washington Village proposal is a unique opportunity for our neighborhood to
move towards a better future. Again I strongly encourage you to approve this project.
Sincerely,
Korkut Onaran, Ph.D.
~,
.,
'$';
,. ,
~.
,
W~
.;
,~ )
~~ ~
~~
~i
~~
~A
#il
'M \
G~~Z~ ~~.e~2~~~
~ ~
Rc_.:rdin!_ ~Ulshim,,on Park Proposeci Deselopment .~ugust 23. 200',
I~tio~~!u lik~ to start this letter by ackno~~led~`im~ my bias on the Washim~ton Park
Dc~ ~!upment. I am directl~ related to Jim Leach, and [ don't wish to pretend that our
r~iatiunshtp doesn't zxist. or [hut it doesn't affect m} vie~~s on the issue. That said. in
a~sition to bias. I also ha~e thou~hts and an opiniort I'd like to share regarding the
propused ~le~zlopment.
E int. ( wish that w'ashim_ton School was still a school: that it was tilled ~~ith life that it
~u~~i !o contain. It is sad to see such a beautifiil historic buildin<~ stand zmpty as an
;i~ai~uoned shell. becomin<_ run do~vn ns time passes. Mv tirst choice, in a perfec[ ~iorid.
~cuull be for W"ashington School to have remained a schooL However. this is not our
pr~_s~n[ realitv. ,~ park would be nice as well, and it is regretful that this option is
linsnciall~ unfcasible as w~il.
S<<?:n~ aside d1e ideals ~,~hich are not rcalistic options ar [his point (due to chan_es in
^cr~.~!:ir.on. I.ack o[ ;uppott tor th~ schoel ~~IZen it ti~as hinc~ionim~. lack of bud~r~t to'
re;cha;e d1e land 'ror a park, e[c.) ( am left ~~ith thc yuzstion ot what t'ealit} I mi~nt
-r!~r. ~Ji~ en that [ lo~ c upen spa~e an~l ~iespi;e urhan spra~~-1. the best ~~a} to ~upG~tt
~~~:.:1 l:11~U~ i1hOUL 130L~1~CC;1!ll{ QAUIQ W~l:lt 1 QO^ i~l~l; l~ CO ZRCUUCII~'? 1Rl{ SL'FF01', LICr1Af7
~u, .~. T~11~ :11Z111$ il~~lll~! 111 Ct1C 5~.'1l'CC 1~lIfl1P JIiI' CII~: ~a~i~h buiidin_~~. an~ preszr~in_
<h:,~..:i. : rmmunit~ spaccs and ~~ild ~pac~s ~mwuched.
\, ~, ;.rrs~~r, •.~i~u ~ares about re,ourczs and conszr.atiun. [ also beliz~e ~,n reducim~. rz-
... ~ _..i11C~ "el'~C~t*1'_. ~~lZ [JCOGU5Zl1 ~C~c:~O~7R;zn[ ~ioes this in rt~>ard~ CO I~;Z iCilOUI.
(„i_.^•C~\ [~?Z ~~f1C'VI ~tan~jS ~ttZCIRt'~~ ~TOC. ~Rlj UI1Ll5~U. 561f~ lI ~OU~~ ^r~:ll It ~~~tl i;'.~
_ir~i;nu ~h~re or dr.~ c b~. But personalh [~~ould racher s~e ~he buildin_ in us~ again.
.~t,~rir. ~~u iite anu ~i[alin. and offerim* hope for contir.uzd presenation in the funire.
r'.,~.~,:: ~_~ I~o .:omolain rhat the ~. ie~~ of di~ ~chroi ~~ould ~z obs'cured b~ ch~ ne~~
,....I~~pm~nt sre perh~ps o~e:lookin_~ dle tacc ~hat rieht nu~~ nu one can ~cz chc insid~ of
.,..: :~;1~~U~ ~CC:IUJC IC ~ 00[ ~~2111~_ Lb~ll. ~~ ~llli ~i7C[Ic'I' '~~flC.', i0C Q.:OtTiRlIIRIR ~lll~~l(1^_ UI"
_: mmw~in c.:nt~i'' [ don't ~~ar.[ builain<_s to !eol. s[- [~~an[ them as plac~s [o fi~r fii
.ir.i ~,~~tc~,~c: ;n.
(: ;!~ur ;hut ~l~nsir. ~~ill incrz:is~ in d~r nei~~hborhood ifthz proposed ~le~zlupmen[ _~~~s
. 1~.~r1_I?. I Il:l[ 5,1 Fi:lrt O1 ~I~IR~= IR ~UU~~Z.'. In .im ~in~ reall~. ~~here peuple ~CC f1lP~ If1_~ [i`
:nei'.ia~~~c_childrcn .~nd hu~in~~ hou.e.... Am .ie~~fopmenton the ~i[c ~~ill r~,ult in
<<•nt: in~r~:i>~ in ~icnsin. Sut bae.l [u thc uthcr ~ip[ion -•aoul~l .,uu rathcr ~cc diat m,in}
;,~I:l:< .Il:~~ ~.ll'~ ~~IZ1l~ Oll[ UR Oilc .lCit It~U .IIUII_ IL_t1~~Q~ O~ [U~~.If~S ~.~ OI1J ~~)C Ill.l~ hC
.~.. ~~`G1.: :i!~ iI11~~ I~1:1[ ~~Pl'.Il SD:K: Oll[ il`~\:1I'C> ~.U~1~OlUfl[... ~Uf1tiIl~CI' [~l~ CIIlt'.S Or
;".i;J^~ - ~:iK> ,11'J ~1C;1S~f [~~~~1Cu> i~lt ~.tl[~!' 1C1J Rlil~Z ~F`1l'IOtlS [l11\~f~S I~1C OLIISnif'.~.
°:1~',.;C~ I'.) NIUI'~.~ i['nlll C~1C ~Ja!'~ ~[t'lCl ~~1~~ li ~ii[ i~1C h~~t p~1iZ [O ~IA~ I[ ~U1A ~CIl~IC~
, ~Il'_ '~ .~Il~ ~IIL'~li?i i?CII~CII~ .
w
r
~
/
m
August 29, 2007
~.
~
,~
~r
~e,
w/
;~
~
w/
.~
mr
w~
r
ww
~
wM
iY
~
J~
~
,~
'~-
To the Boulder Planning Board and City Council,
The Washington School site and its proposed development as the Washington Village,
provides a unique opportunity for ttte City of Boulder to support a forwazd thinking
example for communities throughout the country. At a time when concerns about energy
resources, global warming, sustainability and ecology have moved to center stage, we
need to take afresh look at how our cities can work better, how we can live together.
What kind of growth and planning will support life styles and communities that need less
energy, ma~cimize existing resources and encourage neighborhood interaction. Many
elements and issues come into play, and a number of these aze being addressed in a very
creative way with the Washington Village. For that reason, this project has been
accepted as a LEED for Neighborhood Development pilot project.
One of only 240 projects nation wide, this is a tremendous honor for Wonderland Hill
Development and a tribute to their longstanding commitment to sensitive community
development. At the same time, it speaks for the City of Boulder as a place who's core
values can be expressed in bold planning, in bricks and mortar, in trees and greenery.
LEED? Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Let's see Boulder Colorado
be a leader in neighborhood development. Let us see the City of Boulder Planning Boazd
and City Council enthusiastically support the Washington Village proposal. Let this
community be an example for others, as we tackle some of the great issues of our time.
Sincerely yours,
-~.~
WASHINGTON VILLAGE
Change is hard to accept. When we citizens suggested tasing ourselves in order to
purchase land for open space, there was conflict; when the idea oF affordable housing was
first proposed, is was controversial. Now both these existing aspects of Boulder have
served to improve the physical beauty and the civic depth of our city.
This newest controversy over plans for the Washington school property, challenges all of
us to trust that the building of Washington Village will one day be seen as a positive
addition to the surrounding neighborhood.
The steps towazd this newest change began when the BVSD decided it was necessary to
sell Washington school. The resulting development, Washington Village Co-housing,
currently going through approval processes, is an opportunity for the entire city of
Boulder and the BVSD: For BVSD there will be much needed money added to its
treasury which will benefit the (approx.) 27,000 school children throughout the district;
The city has a chance to follow through with the resolution of shaping a sustainable,
environmentally responsible city.
How does the building of Washington Village accomplish this?
!) affordable housing close to downtown; 2) concentration of people along a main transit
corridor ; 3) having an excellent environmentally sustainable development as part of the
city fabric; and 4) Wonderland Hill Development and Washington Village Co-housing
members are paying $4,000,000 for the Washington School site.
Is it reasonable to allow one neighborhood to decide what is best for the school district
and he city as a whole?
~~Carson
Boulder
: ~~%
H11
~~
ql
~ I~
V i)
~ ~i)
~11
Q',1
.,
.~ ,
~~
~,.
.~
~r
,~ ~
Md
A,
.r
..
August 27, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members:
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing project
proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
First, much of my professional work in recent years has focused on educating others on the
importance of shifting toward a more sustainable way of living and in creating a reseazch
institute that documents the experience of creating and living in more sustainable communities.
It is from this professional position that I find cohousing, and specifically the Washington
Village project, to serve as an exemplary model of sustainable neighborhood development.
Particulazly in a city such as Boulder that has essentially reached the point of being built-out, the
high density mix of residential, commercial and community-oriented space, not to mention
Wonderland's keen eye toward cutting-edge green building practices, offers a socially vibrant
and environmentally responsible neighborhood model. In short, this is exactly the type of
neighborhood design that is good for both people and the planet and one that helps the city of
Boulder achieve its expressed goal of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
Second, as my wife and I have recently experienced the joy of becoming parents, we are ever
more attuned to our own desire to live in more intentional community with our neighbors. We
are particularly interested in the community-oriented aspects of cohousing developments,
including the common house where we can benefit from the opportunity to share meals with ow
neighbors, make cooperative child caze arrangements, participate in programs for the wider
community, and host visiting family members (without the need and related cost of having an
extra bedroom in our own residence). In this regard, we consider ourselves as potential
homeowners in either Washington Village or in another future cohousing neighborhood within
Boulder.
~
.
~.
,~
~
:~
~
~
~
~
A
~
~
~
~
In closing, we strongly believe that the Washington Village cohousing project, as proposed by
Wonderland Hill Development Company, would be a net win for its residents, the broader
community, the city and the planet. It is our hope that both the City Council and Planning Board
likewise envision a future Boulder that is ever more committed to supporting development
projects that enhance the social fabric of the community while simultaneously tending to the
health of our planet.
Sincerely,
John P. Enge
Boulder Resident
27 August 2007
To whom it may concern;
I am an architect and planner who has worked on the design of numerous
residential communities in Boulder includinq the Foothills Community of
Affordable Housing and the Holiday Neighborhood.
I am writing to vouch for the credentials of Wonderland Hill Development.
Wonderland Hill is one of the most hiqhly regarded progressive development
companies in the country. They specialize in sustainable communities and are
nationai leaders in new tre~ds in building strong, intergenerational and
affordable communities. They have been written up on the front page of the
New York Times (February 27, 2006), and Jim Leach has won countless awards
and has spoken at countless national conferences on community design.
Wonderland Hill is absolutely the best devel"oper for the Washinqton School site
that Boulder citizens could ever hope for. Any other developer would be forced
by economics to avoid a design focused on community and neighborhood
needs, affordability, and seniors.
The citizens of North Boulder should consider the involvement of Wonderland
Hill at the Washington School site as a gift. Work with them - and the results
will be a lastinq benefit for the livability and equity of Boulder.
Sincerely~
/~~'
Michael Tavel
„
~.
,.
,,,
,,
=w
A
:..+
.r
~
~
~
v
~
./
+r
rr
~
.y
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder CiTy Council and Planning Boazd
Athi: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0741
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for ttte site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
e~usting neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is understandable.
None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But this land has never
been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school and now the future of
the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a landmark
building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to e~ctend out
with services to tkte lazger community, is be£ore you for approval. Please say yes!
„. S1IfCCDEIY~
~ ~ ~~,~-.-~
~
~ Je t
0 Cedar Ave. #31
~ Boulder, CO 80304
w~i 303-247-1933 ,~y
'r~ ~- Q, w-~-~ O~.c~tk ~ ~ G'Lp ~' s I~-
~
\
r
~
,~
~
;~
`~x
C,
D~
~
~
~~
~
4
~
3~
~
~
~
`V
V
C
4
~
~
C
S f`~ E~~ '~ovh ~
~ ~. S ~ ~- ~~~ e ~ ~ ~~ v ~ 1ti-k, ~}~r~`- ~ ~ ~-~`ti° .
~ --~ .e,,~~'cv~-ck ~ ~ ~1 ' / ~ o / S'~ ~ J ~n0-' w ~ ~ C ~ ~ c,~ 't
~ ~•'~;..-Y~ ~ ~ ~ ~?
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.c,<, ~~ ,s ~ ~ ~ '~
~ ~I~C,Fic. wo rn.~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w- ~`
~ ~. ~, Lc 4 ~,t~' s ~ -~t,~ S c{,~¢l ~~~~ --~C`"''~~
_ , . ~. ,. + , c c,n r ~,.o -~- a h ~1~ Gth~7
August 21, 2007
~
;
...
~
w
w
«~
~
w
ar
r
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
[ understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Villa,e Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiar with living in cohousing and has experienced [he concern and
sometimes fears of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that [he
Washington Viltage project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under [he
circumstances.
I have often heard about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regarding the solar
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen nearby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solar impact is far less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building nearby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similar things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effoR to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
I sVOngly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten years all of the people in
the nei~hborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
negatives and it is an even better place to live and share in a larger sense of community.
/
r
, ~ \~
~J ~ E ~ / ~ O
~1 i ~c~l a l~ ~ Cv~.~-h s
August 22, 2007
y
ua r
„~
Mf I
A`
ve /
a~ i
~; 3
~; f
~3
~,~,
~~~,
~
w~~
~~,
~~.
,..
.~.
~~,
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
As a professional Realtor in Boulder County, I am wtiting in support of the Washington
Village cohousing project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
The proposed design of Washington Village represents a number of positive features that
will provide a distinctive housing option for Boulder. From its' conception, the
community benefits of Washington Village have been thoughtfully designed to address
many interests, including the signiFicance of historic preservation and the promotion of
neighborhood interaction. Wonderland Hill and their azchitectural team have carefully
considered numerous design ideas to balance different interests brought forwazd while
providing Boulder with a practical housing solution for this site.
The proposed Washington Village plan demonstrates an excellent balance of distributing
density on the site with the denser urban zone along Broadway and lower density towards
and along 13`h Street in harmony with the single family neighborhood to the east.
Broadway is Boulder's most important multimodal transportation corridor and is best
suited to support the appropriately placed higher density building.
The proposed Washington Village development exhibits an example of a mixed use
development that will positively contribute to a higher level of environmental and social
sustainability in Boulder. I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I believe that
time will substantiate the many positive aspects of this development as Washington
Village will turn into a vibrant place to live and share in a lazger sense of community.
I strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful
addition to the community.
Sincerely,
~~~ ~~~~
~ (1u-~- ~ ~~'Gl ~ ~
-~~' ~- ~ ~-LP .
~~~'~~ , ~~/~.~~-
G2~°~~ G~~9~jCo ~-7/~a 3D`"~7 "'/~3o~~~~t b~o~
~
.~ /~ ~., Q~
~,,~.,~as,'~S ~~ ~ ~
~ ~~-~ ~
O~'~,
' ~~~~~
~~~-~ ~~ ~
~~ ~
Ms. Ricki Hadow
809 Quince Av.
Boulder, CO 80304
303-449-2903
~:
,~~~
.«r
,«~
,..~
,e~
;~'
+~
w'
~
dl~
ar
,"w~
~
^~R
+~r
M,,
~w
~
ti
..
.~.
,~..
August 28, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear Cit~i Council and Planning Boarci ?~2embers,
It is iny understanding that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project. As someone who believes in the concept of cohousing and supports it wholeheartedly,
I know that there are can be concerns and fears on the parts of neighbors regarding a given
projecYs impact on the surrounding neighborhood. It is my opinion, however, that the
Washington Village project has been well thought out and should be allowed to go forward.
The neighbors to the north of the proposed project have expressed their concern as to solar
impact and obstruction of their views. In any project of this sort, there are going to be changes
to the local landscape. Change is inevitable; iYs just a matter of what form it takes.
Fortunately, the city has developed guidelines about these types of situations. From what I
have been told, the solar impact will be far less than the allowed 25 foot solar fence.
Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than their
neighbors to the north have.
We have all experienced a neighbor putting up a fence, cementing over a previously green
yard next to our house, adding an extension that will overlook our home, or something of that
ilk. It seems to me that what is being proposed for Washington Village wiil be a far better
outcome than any of the above events, which are normal occurrences in a neighborhood. In
this case, there is a plan and even an honest attempt to talk with and compromise on the
design and layout with the neighborhood in which it hopes to be a part.
I am aware that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have exerted a lot of
effort to make this project palatable for everyone. All are being asked to give a little in return
for a neighborhood that everyone can live with and be happy in.
I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I suspect that in time, everyone associated
will find that the positives have offset the negatives and that this part of Boulder has become
an even better place to live and share in the larger sense of community.
Sincerely yours,
~~
Ms. Ricki Hadow
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
' `%"~
~
,,,
.,.
~
.r
~
.~+ •
~
~
~,
,~+
~
~+s
J
~
»
August 20, 2007
City of Boulder Ciry Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing in support of the Wastungton Village cohousing project proposed for the site
of the former Washington School.
~~.y, ~ o ~
As a member of the ~-[~ _~~~~, I am
well awaze of the concems that have been raised by the neighbors surrounding the school.
It is a change and no doubt a difFicult one, but change is not automatically bad. In fact it
often brings a fresh approach and openness to what develops in the future. I believe that
the combination of these two groups of people, the Washington Village and the
surrounding neighbors, who both strongly support community, can only be a positive
contribution to the neighborhood and City.
It is my understanding the Boulder Valley School Board and the City of Boulder had an
opportunity to preserve the school and take on the financial responsibility to suppoR the
site as a local pazk or other open space. This did not happen. VJho will/can take on the
millions of dollazs in cost to purchase the property and then maintain it? The fact that
Wonderland Hill Development and the Washington Village Community have proposed to
assume this responsibility and wishes to provide space and services which can benefit
others in the neighborhood is truly a worthwhile endeavor.
_~ It is not often that people want to form a community, be engaged with their neighbors and
offer space which they have paid for through the purchase of their housing unit, for others
' to use.
;w This site is challenging because it has been avaiiaole to azea residens ~W an exter.siaa tc
~», their back yazd for so long. Yet change arrives and says what will happen next? Are
~ people impacted? Yes they aze. Is it possible to have no impact and develop such a site?
w' Without a major philanthropic supporter that isn't possible and I've heazd of none. There
~ is a balance which I believe Washington Village has achieved under diffiwlt
~^~ circumstances.
:w
~
'"'` I strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful
: addition to the community.
.,
~,.
.+ Sincerely,
~.
.~ ~~~~
-~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~~~ ~P ~-.~ ~~z~/2~7
_
s
.~
r
~,
August 21, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiaz with living in cohousing and has experienced the concern and
sometimes feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heazd about the concems of the neighbors to the north regarding the solaz
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen nearby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighborsto the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
~ lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
, something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
~
„
„ I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten years all of the people in
"' the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
: negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a lazger sense of community.
~
~ Sincerely, ~ ~~
v ~yQ "~.._ _ `~
~ /730 ~6r~,vt~o~/ ~9clL
« 80~~~~~-- co do3~ y
~.
,..
~
~,
..
~,
~,
~
~
~
..
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this Iand has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel Fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely, C~~~L~i~9~~~p/ ~ 7
~ ~~
;
,
,.
.r
w
~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
- Sincere
~
,,,
,W
;~
~
;~
~
~
~
~r
~
~,.
.~r
w.
,~
.~
~
M,
~
~,
ly, L~i~2"~`„'
~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 79]
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members oF the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
.,
~
,,,
~ / L/ •
,.~ ~~
.~,
,.
;:
..,
,.
~,
„,
,~
.~.
,w
«.
~
~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
' extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
~ yes!
;
Sincerely,
.,
,i
w~ ~ ~-v~ U~ ~ 0 C~'K (~
~ ~ ~
~~
,~
a~
A*
.r
.'.
.r
ia
r/
August 22, 2007
.w
~,
,,
~.
..
~,
,W
.,,
w.
.,
~
..
..
~.
.~
~
.
.~
~
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to suppoR the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
~D~ ~~ ~. ~O ~o
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791 .
Boulder. CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the fizture of the preservation of that historic school is injeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely, / /~
G.°v ~ /"G,~i~
:~
~
~
~
~
~
V
~R
a/
r
.w
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
..
~ ~f~-~
~
.~.
~;
,>
~.
~
r
~,
~
~
~
,~
~
p
~,
~
.,
~
August 22, 2007
CiTy of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filied
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
~ Sincerely,
~ ~~vs ~f ~4~.0
;.
.~
~
~
~
7
.~
~.
~
..
,~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
w~
~ Sincerely, //~~~
~~~y~
,.
~
.~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
~
_
~,
..
~
_
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to suppoR the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs
~'/oade:land Hiil has been active.y building cor.imunities ar.d in particular co-housing ,
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
ves!
~
°"' Sincerely,
w
~
,r
-.
,s
~
~rr
~
.r
.~
./
p.
w.
.w
~
yr
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel Fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
>r
*n
~
'rA
ar°
r
J
~
...
~
~
..
~
nr
.„
.s
..
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housin~
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be fiiled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a schoo(
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exci[ing place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
q Sincerely,
w yy//
, ~Gi~ i~ `~
° v
,
w
~
:~
~
~
.~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site oF the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
.r ~
.~,
A o~ ~~=U lit/u
w
~
~
~
~
~
wr
~
r
_„
~.
*A
M
w!
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
~ Sincerely, ~
a
w
"' ~- 2'S - O'l
~
;~
:~
,~
~
.~
~
~
+~r
~
~
+~/
~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. $ox 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to communify spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
-~, L~~'~~~
:,;
~
~
,W
.~
~
«.
~.
~
..,
~
~,
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
w Sincerely,
, /
~ g~z3 ~ ~
~
w
~
~
~
~
,,
.,,~
w
_
~
~
~
~
~.
August 22, 2007
..
.,
...
~
~,
~
~,
,~,
.~
~,
,.
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely
'~i~r...~r ~
~Ia.3 (0 7
~
~
~
„
August 22, 2007
.;.
~,
w
~
,,.,
w
~,
.~
~,
.~
~,
~
~
~
~
~,
~
,,
~
.,
~
.~
.~
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CQ 803Q6-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
:~ r-
-- . ~
~~Z3<°~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from ttteir surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
u Sincerely,
~
,
~, ~+~~(
~ ~aro~~~.
~
.
.
~.
~.
~
~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing to strongty encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the fonner Washington School.
F ktave known of WocxlerEand Hill for ~me time now. For ovea~ 14 years, Wonderland
Hill has been actively building communities and, in particular, co-lausing commUnities.
The poini is mt ta isolate coh~ousiug residents from their surroundings but to promote a
strong sense a~ commitment ur commiemty and tltereby be proadive members of the
neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a b~ter developer to take on the incredibie task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as tirat at Washington SchooL This task being taken on by
Wonderland is one that will cseate a housing developme~ wi»ch is to be filled wiih
P~PIe dedicated to communih' SPirrt, Sharing and workio8 taSetl~-
The response hy many of the peapte in the ~eighborhood in many ways is
- uodastaodabie. None of us woukl be e~cciteci about losing svch a iarge amount of open
- space. This land has never b~n anyone's but Wose involved io educatian - it has bcen a
; school and now the futwe of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
,° We shnutd feel focwnate t6at a proposai from 1~Vc~tierlaQd I3i11, w}sich has a model that
° in~ates paople &am assarted econamic bacdcgrounds, has also taken on preserving a
•: landmark building in Bould~. In utilizing iheir model, they will provide an exc.iting
~+ place for people to live and wilk e~citend s~vices to the iarg~ eommuuity. This proposal
.~,
„~, is before you for approval - Ptease say yes!
~
~
; Sincerely,
,~, ~
,w„ ,`
, ., ~
~
- ~,K ~ ~~,+1+eti~ ,
.. ~i.. ~ ~ ~C ~(~- i
~~ ~ S ~ ~)l. ~JE`Qc n3~,~ i.1ZE
.~ ~l C~
~
p,
..
~
..
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder. CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage yoa to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed f~r the s::e of the former Wasluington School.
I have known of Wondeeland Hill for some time now. For over 14 years, Wond~land
Hill has been actively building communities and, in particulaz, co-housing communities.
The paint is ~t ta isalate cohousing resic~eents fram their surroundings but to promote a
strong sense amf commitment to comnwnity and ti~xeby be proactive members of the
neighborhood and City they tive in.
I can't think of a better devetoper to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existi~ nei~hhborfiood, such as that at Washington Schoo(. This task being taken on by
Wonderland is one Yhat will create a housing development which is w be filled with
people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and wrorkiog togeti~er.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
~md~iso~dable. No~ of us would 6e eaccited about losing such a Iarge amount of open
space. This land has nev~ been angoae's but those involve~ io education - it has been a
„ school and now the fuhue of t6e presesuation of that historic school is in jeopardy_
~.
w
», We shoutd feel forwnate t1-at a propasal &om Won~rland FIill, which ltas a model that
'~ i~es people &nm assorted eoonomic backgr~ou~s, has aiso taken on preserving a
~~ iandmark building in Bould~. In utiliz~ng their model, t~ey will provide an exciting
;,~ place for people to live aad will eactend services to tl~e lazger community. This proposa!
-« is before you for approvai - Ptease say yesi
,,
~
a~.
~ Sincerely,
w
.,., iG~`~
.,~~,.
~ /p ~~ ~~,. ~1~L
% ~.1~ ~ ~ ~`~
r
w
~.,
r
.~
w
~
~
w
August 27, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder. CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
~'" f am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site of the
x~ '' former Washington Schoof.
~,~, As a member ofthe Lyons Valley Village Cohousing Community in Lyons, CO [ am well aware
~+~~+ of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors surrounding the school. I believe that the
~'~;; combination of these two groups of people, the Washington Village and the surrounding
„,, neighbors, who both strongly support community, can only be a positive contribution to the
""' neighborhood and City.
~, ~,~
~ lt is my understanding the Boulder Valley School Board and the City of Boulder had an
'; opportunity to preserve the school and take on the financial responsibility to support the site as a
n~ local park or other open space. This did not happen. Who will/can take on the millions of dollars
w~ in cost to purchase the property and then maintain it? The fact that Wonderland Hill Development
,, and the Washington Village Community have proposed to assume this responsibility and wish to
"„ provide space and services which can benefit others in the neighborhood is truly a worthwhile
endeavor.
h
«.
..
a.
>
~,
~.
~
w
~
-,
•r
It is not otten that people want to form a community, be engaged with their neighbors and offer
space, which they have paid for through the purchase of their housing unit, for others to use.
This site is challenging because it has been available to area residents as an extension to their
back yard for so long. Yet change arrives and says what will happen next? Are people impacted?
Yes they are. Is it possible to have no impact and develop such a site? Without a major
philanthropic supporter, that isn't possible and 1've heard of none. There is a balance which I
believe Washington Village has achieved under difficult circumstances.
I strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful addition to
the community.
Sincerely,
Rvland Gardner
181 2nd Ave. (PO Box 896)
Lyons, CO 80540
~..
~rr
.+,
.r"
Augsst 21, 2007
Cityof Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
At~ Kazl Guiler
P.QBox 791
BaYder, CO 80306-0791
De~ City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I imderstand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
"' Asa person who is familiaz with living in cohousing and•has experienced the concern and
~ sometimes feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that ihe
,, Wa~ington Viliage project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circa~nstances.
~~ I have often heazd about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regazding the solaz
-' impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
• home owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
', there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
'' of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
: line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
; fe~e. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
yeazs is di~cult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot af effert :o m:ke ~his projec: work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
. I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten years all of the people in
; the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
, negatives and it is an even better place to live and share in a larger sense of community.
~.
~ Sincerely,
~ ~ ~ ~a-~w-
v
DEANNE O. HOOAN
' 1525 KALMIA AVENUE
"' A(?L~S.DSR, CO n~^~n
M
Y
W
r~
tlY
August 21, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiaz with living in cohousing and has experienced the concern and
sometimes feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
. I have often heard about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regazding the solaz
y; „ impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
"" home owner who has had new construction happen nearby the question is not whether
°" there is an impact but how dire it is. The citv has developed Quidelines about these twes
~, .
°~ ^ of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
~ y line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
'° fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
yeazs is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
" It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
Y lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
,,~ something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
~ I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten yeazs all of the people in
*~' the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
r negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a lazger sense of community.
a~
~
~
~
..,
..
,~
.,
..~
~
~
~.
~
~,
.~
..
Sincerely, l~~2y~
~-I'l~e 6t~-r ~'YG.r,~~
(~2-0) a-3E- 7~IS'
Au~st 21, 2007
Cii~ of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
At1a: Kazl Guiler
P.~ Box 791
Ba~der, CO 80306-0791
Dea City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I~ierstand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
praject.
Asa person who is familiar with living in cohousing and has experieaced the coacerr. :r.d
so~etimes fears of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
cinumstances.
I hmve ofren heazd about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regazding the solar
i~ct and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
hoaie owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
th~e is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of~tuations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is far less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fe~e. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
theQ neighbors to the north have.
I da appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
.. I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten yeazs all of the people in
the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
~ negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a lazger sense of community.
~
~
-+ Sincerely,
~ ~~~~~
~ ~
~ ~~' G s ~ - ~.~
~ ~b3o
~~ ~~, ~_ z
.~.
~,
~
~
~
August 27, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site
of the former Washington School.
As a citizen of Boulder with a strong interest in community process, I am awaze of the
concerns that have been raised by the neighbors surrounding the school. It is a change
and no doubt a difficult one, but change is not automatically bad. In fact, it often brings a
fresh approach and openness to what develops in the future. I believe that the
wmbination of these two groups of people, the Washington Village and the surrounding
neighbors, who both strongly support community, can only be a posidve contribution to
the neighborhood and City.
~ This site is challenging because it has been available to area residents as an open space
y and pazk for so long. Building community is a messy process that requires bringing
, people with different interests together. It involves establishing relationships in order to
"` have meaningful discussion on neighborhood and community assets and how to hazvest
~ them to the benefit of all. It is difficult to do that type of community building in the
; midst of a contentious project appmval process, but I am sure that it will happen given
the nature of cohousing and the plans for the site.
~ When Washington Village is completed, it will contain space for valuable community
, programs that will enrich the larger community and especially provide unique programs
for senior residents in the neighborhood. The cohousing model is a very pmactive
,• approach to creaxing community at the neighborhood level.
~
~ It is not often that people want to foim a community, be engaged with theu neighbors and
~ offer space, which they have paid for through the purchase of their housing unit, for
.~ others to use. I strongly encourage you to support tlus pmject as proposed. It will be a
~ wonderFul addition to the community.
Sincerely,
'_ ~_ /~' 1 kt vi/c J~
~, o~
August 22, 2007
+r
~.
~.
.,.
.~
~:
~
,.
~
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing to strongay eneourage you to supQort the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington Schooi.
I have known of Wonderland Hill for some time now. For over 14 years, Wonderland
Hill has been actively building communities and, in particular, co-housing communities_
The point is aot ta esolate cohovsing residents fram theer surroundings but to promote a
straug sense and comm~~mem to com~nity and thereby be proactive members of the
neighborhood and City tbey live in.
I can't think o€ a bette,~' developer w take on ttre i~tedibte task of integrating into an
existing neighbarhood, such as t6at at Washington School. This task being taken on by
Wonderland is one that will cxeate a housing development wlrich is to be filled with
P~PIe dedicated to community spirit, sharing and workiag to$et}~.
The response by many of the people in the neighbarhood in many ways is
uod~tandab[e. Noae of us would be excited about losing such a large amount of open
space. This land has nev~ bcen anyone's bui ihose involved in education - it has been a
school and now the future of the pr~eavation of that historic 9cl~ool is in jeapardy.
We sSnuld feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderiand Htll, which has a model that
in~ates ¢eop6e from assorted eoo~omic backgirounds, has aLso taken an Qreserving a
landmazk building in Bould~. In utiliang tbeir model, they wiil provide an excitiag
place for people to live a~ wil! e~cteud s~vices to the larger community_ This propass!
is befoie you for approvat - Please say yes!
Sincerely,
~ ~ .
~~~~(J~ .
~~~~t G~6~~.~fi
° 32~ ocre~lo~~ D~.
~ ~~~1~- ~ ~~~c~ ~~3~~
Augnst 21, 2007
Cityof Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Atta: Kazl Guiler
P.0_ Box 791
Bou~er, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I u~erstand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a persor. who is familiaz w~ith livir.g in cohousing and has experienced the cor.cem and
sometimes fears of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heazd about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regazding the solar
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solar fence and dictate how close you can build to a groperty
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the noRh have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
yeazs is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It scems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
;, lot of effort to maice this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
~y something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
~
~.
i
.,
~
~
~,
,W
~
~
:
~.
~..
~,
,~
~
~.
I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten years all of the people in
the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a lazger sense of community.
Sincerel ,
v,~G~~~/---'
~~'~ ~e~v
'~L~ c~.~~r~%~
C~o~lt~c'~h, l~ ~~~tl/
August 21, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0741
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiar with living in cohousing and has experienced the concem and
sometimes feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heard about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regazding the solar
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solar fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when nne didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate ow homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
" I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten years all of the people in
~. the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
= negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a lazger sense of community.
'~ Sincerely,
y ~~~~~
M ~~~
:
~
~
~
August 24, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project
proposed at the site of the former Washington School.
It is my understanding the Boulder Valley School Board and the City of
Boulder had an opportunity to preserve the school and take on the
, financial responsibility to support the site as a local park or other open
'°' space. This did not happen. Who wili/can take on the millions of dollars
in cost to purchase the property and then maintain it? The fact that
', Wonderland Hill Development and the Washington Village Community
have proposed to assume this responsibllity and wishes to provide
space and services which can benefit others in the neighborhood is
' truly a worthwhile endeavor.
Tt is not often that people want to form a community, be engaged with
their neighbors and offer space which they have paid for through the
purchase of their housing unit, for others to use. This is a cqmmunity
which will move Boulder forward in the arena of sustainability and
provide much needed affordable housing especially for our elders.
:-
z~,
,».
~
~
,
.~.
w
~A
~Y/
~
~,
~,
~
~
~.
I would like for you to support this project as proposed. It wili be a
wonderful addition to the community.
Sincerely,
~^' L
Sue Thompson
1670 Wilson Ct.
Boulder, CO 80304
~.
August 21, 2007
,.
:r
~
~.
~,
~r
~
,~
v~
.~.
..
~
~
~
~
_
~
~
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiaz with living in cohousing and has experienced the concern and
sometimes feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heard about the concems of the neighbors to the north regarding the solar
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solar fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solar
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten yeazs all of the people in
the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a lazger sense of community.
Sincerely,
~ ~
,~-~E~) ~o ~ ~
August 20, 2007
r
.~
~
:
~
,.r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.Y
,~
,.,
..
~.
,,
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site
of the former Washington School.
~~ ~
As a member of the ~, i Cohousing Community in--}~~~ ~'~ , I am
well awaze of the concerns that ve been raised by the neighbors surrounding the school.
It is a change and no doubt a difficult one, but change is not automatically bad. In fact it
often brings a fresh approach and openness to what develops in the future. I believe that
the combination of these two groups of people, the Washington V illage and the
surrounding neighbors, who both strongly suppoR community, can only be a positive
contribution to the neighborhood and City.
It is my understanding the Boulder Valley School Board and the City of Boulder had an
opportunity to preserve the school and take on the financial responsibility to support the
site as a local pazk or other open space. This did not happen. Who will/can take on the
millions of dollazs in cost to purchase the property and then maintain it? The fact that
Wonderland Hill Development and the Washington Village Community have proposed to
assume this responsibility and wishes to provide space and services which can benefit
others in the neighborhood is truly a worthwhile endeavor.
It is not often that people want to form a community, be engaged with their neighbors and
offer space which they have paid for through the purchase of their housing unit, for others
to use.
This site is challenging because it has been available to azea residents as an extension to
their back yard for so long. Yet change azrives and says what will happen next? Are
people impacted? Yes they aze. Is it possible to have no impact and develop such a site?
Without a major philanthropic supporter that isn't possible and I've heazd of none. There
is a balance which I believe Washington Village has achieved under difficult
circumstances.
I strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful
addition to the community.
Sincerely,
,~ "'~!'^' V
Avgast 21, 2007
~.
~r
^~
w
~
;~
~
Wr
.,,
~.
~
,..
+.r
~
~
.~
..
.~
Cityof Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Atts Kazl Guiler
P.O_ Box 791
Bo~der, CO 80306-0791
De~ City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I u~erstand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiaz with living in cohousing and has experienced the concem and
soroetimes feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Wa~ington Village project is as well thought.out and balanced as could be under the
ciramstances.
I have often heazd about the concems of the neighbors to the north regazding the solaz
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
thc~e is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about tttese types
of rituations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is far less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
theu neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Waslungton Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
I shongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten yeazs all of the people in
the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a lazger sense of community.
~~5~7"/~'i ~ ~~~5
~~ ~~ ~~~
August 21, 2007
~
W,
~.r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.~
~.
^
.~
~,
~
Cit~af Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attc Kazl Guiler
P.QBox 791
Bo~fder, CO 80306-0791
De~ City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I uaderstand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
praysct.
As~person who is familiaz with living in cohousing and has experienced the concern and
so~times feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
W~hington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circamstances.
I hare often heard about the concems of the neighbors to the north regazding the solar
im}iact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
thae is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of siuations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
i'_nk F::,;,~ what I understarid, u5e solar impact is iaz less than ihe allowed 2~ foot solar
fevice. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
th~ neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a buiiding neazby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appceciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten yeazs all of the people in
the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
negatives and it is an even better place to live and share in a lazger sense of community.
r~ N~v ~7~~~
3 ~d~' ~~ Rc~l~~ ~ ~ ,~
,Qnur.~~~a. po3D~
P.O. Box 4211
Boulder, CO 80306
August 25, 2007
City of Boulder
City Council and Planning Board
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the s~te
of the former Washington 5chool.
, Although I have never lived in cohousing, I have a friend involved in the Washington
; Village project, and have been following it online as well.
I have heard about the concems of the neighbors to the north regazding the solar impact
and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a condo
owner who has had new construction happen nearby the question is not whether tttere is
an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types of
situations; thaf create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a pmperty line.
From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solaz fence.
Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than their
neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similar things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - somettung less than the ideal they would want on their own.
il I strongly encourage you to approve this project, while being respectful of current
~ neighbors' concerns and balancing with that the resgonsible and cazeful planning of the
~' Washington Village project. I think in ten years all of the people in the neighborhood will
~ find, to their delight, that some real positives have offset the negatives and it is an even
,~ better place to live and shaze in a lazger sense of community.
~ Sincerely, ,
^ 1 '~ .. .
; ,
% Linda Spiegler ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~.
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder. CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
:,% I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
M; existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
, landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
~' extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
. yes!
~„ Sincerely,
sr
,„~
~
t
.a
~
~
~ ~,el~-~ /~l
~
~+
~
~
..
~
„
~
..
~
~-23 07
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
;, , to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel Fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
„ integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
" extend out with services to the larger community, is before ydu for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
~J ~
~~~
c~---
~ ~-~-f-~ 5 ~ ~
2 ~- o ~
~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~
2l ° ~~ ~1~~~' ~'~~
August 29, 2007
City of Boulder City Couricil and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known of Wonderland Hill for some time and most recently joined the staf£ For
over 14 years, Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities, in particular,
co-housing communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their
surroundings but to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby
be proactive members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
~ Our task before us is incredible in scope and potential for the City of Boulder; I can't
, think of a better developer to integrate successfully an infill community into an existing
neighborhood, such as that at Washington School. The new housing development is to be
" filled with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
, The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. This
' land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school and
~ now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
.~
.,
~
,.
~
~,
.~
~
~
_~
~,
rr
..
~
Sincerely,
~'u~~ Cd d~v~ '
Caleb Costin
August 21, 2007
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members:
I have been following the news coverage on tlie proposed Washington Village
project and have informed myself on the issues involved wdh those in the immediate
neighborhood. While I empathize with them as they ooniront possible changes around
them, and as Boulder grows and density becomes one of the avenues in preven6ng
sprawl, it is obvious that thisparcel of prime land will be developed in one way or another
in the near fi~ture. The consideration shown by management of this particular project in
making adjustrnents might not be so well expressed by another developer.
As an 83-year-old resident, I am very much interested in the concept of co-housing.
The opportuntty to live in a project developed specifically for the purpose of promoting
community and interaction with other residerrts of all ages is very appealing. In addition, the
demographics indicate there will be a surge in people of rebrement age who will want to
give up houses too big and expensive for their present needs and who will want to spend
more time in creative and social endeavors. I would hope that Boulder would be open to
enoouragmg other such projects in the future and to this pardcutar project, which is so
admirabtj+ suited to such use of our scarce building sites.
I ask that you consider favorably for the Washington Village development.
Sincerely yours,
i~~~~~~'~ L~~~ti4,~,~.
Eileen Moore
1850 Folson
Boulder, CO 80302
~
,
,..~
W.,
~
~
~
~
,.:
.~
„
~:
August 21, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiaz with living in cohousing and has experienced the concern and
sometimes fears of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heard about the concems of the neighbors to the north regazding the solaz
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen nearby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how ~lire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solar fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is far less than the allowed 25 foot solar
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
yeazs is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
~ I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten yeazs all of the people in
`* the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
,K~ negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a larger sense of community.
,..
,~ Sincerely,
~.r
°* ~~~-~- C~ . , ~h .~.
.y
August 2Q 2007
.,
,.
4,
.,
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site of the
former Washington School.
As a member of the Wild Sage Cohousing Community in Boulder, I am well awaze of the
concems that have been raised by the neighbors surrounding the school. It is a change and no
doubt a difficult one, but change is not automatically bad. In fact it often brings a fresh approach
and openness to what develops in the future. I believe that the combination of these two goups
of people, the Washington Village and the sunounding neighbors, who both strongly support
community, can only be a positive contribution to the neighborhood and City.
It is my understanding the Boulder Valley School Board and the City of Boulder had an
opportunity to preserve the school and take on the financial responsibility to support the site as a
local pazk or other open space. This did not happen. Who will/can take on the millions of dollars
in cost to purchase the property and then maintain it? The fact that Wonderland Hill
Development and the Washington Village Community have proposed to assume this
responsibility and wishes to provide space and services which can benefit others in the
neighborhood is truly a worthwhile endeavor.
It is not often that people want to form a community, be engaged with their neighbors and offer
space which they have paid for through the purchase of their housing unit, for others to use.
This site is challenging because it has been availabie to area residents as an extension to their
back yard for so long. Yet change arrives and says what will happen ne~ct? Are people impacted?
Yes they are. Is it possible to have no impact and develop such a site? Without a major
philanthropic supporter that isdt possible and Pve heard of none. There is a balance which I
believe Washington Village has achieved under difficult circumstances.
I strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful addition to
the community.
Sinc~
Randy Compto
1600 Zamia Ave.
Boulder, CO 80304
303-449-2737
August 20, 2007
.~.
„
.r
es
.,,
«r
..
~
~
~
~
~
.,,
~
.,
...
~4
a~r
<r
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear CiTy Councii and Ptanning Board Members,
I am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site
of the former Washington School.
As a member of the Wild Sage Cohousing Community in the Holiday Neighborhood of
North Boulder, I am well aware of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors
surrounding the schooL It is a change and no doubt a difficult one, but change is not
automatically bad. In fact it ofren brings a fresh approach and openness to what develops
in the future. I believe that the combination of these two groups of people, the
Washington Village and the surrounding neighbors, who both strongly support
community, can only be a positive contribution to the neighborhood and City.
It is my understanding the Boulder Valley School Board and the City of Boulder had an
opportunity to preserve the school and take on the financial responsibility to support the
site as a local park or other open space. This did not happen. Who will/can take on the
millions of dollars in cost to purchase the property and then maintain it? The fact that
Wonderland Hill Development and the Washington Village Community have proposed to
assume this responsibility and wishes to provide space and services which can benefit
others in the neighborhood is truly a worthwhile endeavor.
It is not ofren that people want to form a community, be engaged with their neighbors and
offer space which they have paid for through the purchase of their housing unit, for others
to use.
This site is challenging because it has been available to azea residents as an extension to
their back yard for so long. Yet change azrives and says what will happen next? Are
people impacted? Yes they aze. Is it possible to have no impact and develop such a site?
Without a major philanthropic supporter that isn't possible and I've heazd of none. There
is a balance which I believe Washington Village has achieved under difficult
circumstances.
I strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful
addition to the community.
Sincerely,
Bryan Bowen
August 20, 2007
~,,
.~.
dT
=~r
,"
,,.
.r
xq
n~
,.
~..
:Y
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site
of the former Washington School.
As a member of thed~~;~~jQ~ohousing Community in ~'~+~J > I am
well awaze of the concerns th have been raised by the neighbors surrounding the school.
It is a change and no doubt a difficult one, but change is not automatically bad. In fact it
often brings a fresh approach and openness to what develops in the future. I believe that
the combination of these two groups of people, the Washington Village and the
surrounding neighbors, who both strongly support community, can only be a positive
contribution to the neighborhood and City.
It is my understanding the Boulder Valley School Boazd and the City of Boulder had an
opportunity to preserve the school and take on the financial responsibility to support the
site as a local pazk or other open space. This did not happen. Who will/can take on the
millions of dollars in cost to purchase the property and then maintain it? The fact that
Wonderland Hill Development and the Washington Village Community have proposed to
assume this responsibility and wishes to provide space and services which can benefit
others in the neighborhood is truly a worthwhile endeavor.
It is not often that people want to form a commu~ity, be engaged with their neighbors and
offer space which they have paid for through the purchase of their housing unit, for others
to use.
This site is challenging because it has been available to azea residents as an extension to
their back yazd for so long. Yet change arrives and says what will happen next? Are
people impacted? Yes they aze. Is it possible to have no impact and develop such a site?
Without a major philanthropic supporter that isn't possible and I've heazd of none. There
is a balance which I believe Washington Village has achieved under difficult
circumstances.
I strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful
addition to the community.
Sincerel
~°"-
August 22, 2007
,k
.,
.,
.~
~
~
~
~
~.,
~
,~,
n~r
~r
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washing[on Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assoRed economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with serv~ces to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,`'~~~
.~a~ c~;1,~5
5'-~3-~~
August 22, 2007
..,
.,
.,
~.
.,
~~
~r
~
~
~
~
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their sunoundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has talcen on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely, .
, ~
~
s~~a~~~ 7
August 22, 2007
,.
.~
a
z~
H
~eI
- ~R
Wi
,ny,
a/
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger commynity, is before you for approval. Please say
yes! ~
Sincerely,
' l~
`~ ~ r V
~ ~ ~
7aor~I ~~
~ ~
~~o,~~ ~.b,11~~
` ~` /~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
. ~
.v ,
, ~ ~
a
WI
`~+, I ~1Z~~O~-
~,'yr ~G.n~Q_1 ~G.1G
wn
-ur
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
v Sincerely, ~ ~
:; ~"'t • '
v>
xR ^
'~' ~../~ ~VQV r~1JQ2'
A/
~I
~~
N~
~,~1
9~1
#!~
~
~4~
wJ
xr
xr
August 22, 2007
,r
uY
„
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
` ~
~ rm~~-" ~ a~ c?~
~' ~j (9
~~ ,. _
1 ___.._.___ '..._
~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assoRed economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
.. Sincerely,
„
w ,11 ~G~~~-„-
August 22, 2007
,r
.ti
.v
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing to strongly encoutage you to suppoR the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yeS~ - --------
Sincerely,4:~y --. ._ ~_
.+^~ fr-f
l" \ `V ` r'\I
\
ta/
-' - - >
1 /1~~/1~~'~-rNi~i
~ _~ ) -
r~i ~ ~_ ~
.w
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to suppoR the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerety, ~,( Y/~ dt~ ~O ~~/l.~- I~( 0(/~
::
„
~
;~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think oF a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder•while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
YeS~
„ Sincerely,
, Y`y-~i
, ry.~~
/
: ~//~//,O~L ~".~o,c,7~z•0~
~/~c.•+~Os~>9~G C9NG~,/~~S li9r~+P
August 22, 2007
.
~
~
.~3
~
~
^A
-rr
s/
rr
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Gui-er
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
~~~~-~~--
~~~~`r~~ ~~~y 8/z3/o~
~tA'/~-T lNlt~/L/OK SaLUTIaNS
„r
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel foRunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
., i - ---- - -
~,
er
~ ~~ ~ ~~~.J
~j
.a gJ~ ~~~~
,,
~,
:;
„
v,
4l
vY
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
'communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
~ We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
.; integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
~ landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
"± extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
a~ Sincerely, /~
p / , %
,. ~~
., i
~
4. ~
.r ~~,
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yeS! .""~
_,, Sincerely, ~
~
. `~
^
.r
p~
.W
,r'~
,.,
.~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the lazger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
r ~_~~%r~ (-
~.
,.~
.,
+~O
M~1
wI'
~~
~.r
m~
~
~
,..
Mr
,~ti
a~r
v~
wr
-.r
~es
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assoRed economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
.d
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely, ~
~. Q~~~3cs~t ~'l'~~
~
,~
„«,
~/
-+h
a~/
-.s
er
.~
.r
.y
+,
,.+
.y
+r
,ur
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
exisiing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neiehborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been ariyone's but those involved in education - it has heen a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from ~~'onderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an excitine place for people to iive and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
ves!
w
^ Sincerely,
,r
~°~ ,~ ~~
.~
~..
,r
»~r
'8~
+M~
.v~
dW
V~
fR~
A/
-~i
Ay
M
'.!
W
+/
Au~st 21, 2007
w
.r
,~,
.r
.~,
-.y
,/
,r
Ciryof Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Atta Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boutder, CO 80306-0791
Dea City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I twderstand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiaz with living in cohousing and has experienced the concern and
sometimes fears of neighbors about the unpact of such projects, I wish to say that Lhe
Washington Village project is as we(1 thought out and balanced as could be under the
ciraunstances.
I have often heazd about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regazding the solaz
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my esperience, bein~ a
home owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
thete is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed o idelines about these types
of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the nofth have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't esist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
ha~e had similaz things happen to me and it is amazin~ that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to ~ive
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten yeazs all of the people in
the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
negatives and it is an even better place to live and share in a laz~er sense of community.
Sincerelv ~
~
/ /
~'+zLST%Y1 ~°
t~dEL
~G~S
~~ ~3~~-
August 21, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiar with living in cohousing and has experienced the concern and
sometimes feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heard about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regarding the solar
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solar
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
I strongly encowage you to approve this project. I think in ten years all of the people in
the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a larger sense of community.
~w Sincerely, ~
.. ~ y1~"
~
„~
August 21, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiaz with living in cohousing and has experienced the concern and
sometimes feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heard about the concems of the neighbors to the north regazding the solar
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new constnxction happen neazby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is far less than the allowed 25 foot solar
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building nearby when one didn't exist for so many
yeazs is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
m I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten yeazs all of the people in
~ the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
., negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a lazger sense of community.
~.
m Sincerely,
,.
..~
_,~ ~
~.~. ~~ ~~
;:
:~
,W
;::
~,
.~
BLILEY INSURANCE GROUP, LLC
Personal and Business Benefit Planning
John H. Bliley, CLU
Pnmelu J. Ingraham
Lars B. Parkin
August2?,2007
Ciq~ of Bouldu City Councd and Planning Boacd
t1tGi: Kacl Guiler
P.O. Bos 791
Boulder, CO 8030G-0791
Dcac Citc Council and Planning Boazd Membe:s,
I:un mriring ro strongly encoucage you [o supporc the IX'ashington ViUage cohousing project
proposed Eor the si[e of the fortner ~~i/ashington School.
I have known Jim Leach and the company that has become Wondetland Hill since I moved to
Boulder in 1984. P'or over 14 years, Woaderlaad Hill l~as been actively building communities and, in
particulaz, co-housing communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing tesideats from their
sutroundings but to promote a strong sense aad commitment to community aad therebp be
pcoacdve membecs of t6e neighborhood and City thep live in.
I can't think of a bettci developec to take on the inccedible task of integrating into an e~tisting
neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, a housing development which is to be filled with
people dedicated to communiry spirit, shaeng and working togethes.
T'hc ccspoasc by many oE the people in the neighbothood in many ways is undecstandable. None of
us would be excited about losing such a lergc open space. But ~is land has never been anyone's but
those involved ia education - it has been a sc6ool and no~v the fumie of the preservaUOn of that
historic school is ia jeopudy.
We should fcrl formnau that a proposal fiom Wondedand Hill, wluch has a model which integtates
` pwple Emm assorted economic backgcounds, has taken on preserving a landmaLk building in
-,~ Boulder while providing an endting place foc people to live and ro extend out wi~ seroices to the
4 larger communiry, is before pou Eoc appcoval Please say pes!
. Sincerely~,
w
" Lars Parkin
, [ndependent Broker - Bliley Insunnce Gmup I.LC
Registered Health Undenvriter
Registered Employee Benefits Consultant
4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200 • Boutder, Colarado 80305
(303) 494-8866 • Faz (303) 499-9853 • www.blileyinsurancegroup.com
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
As a professional Realtor in Boulder County, I am writing in support of the Washington
Village cohousing project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
The proposed design of Washington Village represents a number of positive features that
will provide a distinctive housing option for Boulder. From its' conception, the
community benefits of Washington Village have been thoughtfully designed to address
many interests, including the significance of historic preservation and the promotion of
n~ighborhood interaction. Wonderland Hill and their azchitectural team have carefully
considered numerous design ideas to balance different interests brought forward while
providing Boulder with a practical housing solution for this site.
The proposed Washington Village plan demonstrates an excellent balance of distributing
density on the site with the denser urban zone along Broadway and lower density towards
and along 13`h Street in hazmony with the single family neighborhood to the east.
Broadway is Boulder's most important multimodal transportation corridor and is best
suited to support the appropriately placed higher density building.
The proposed Washington Village development eachibits an example of a mixed use
development that will positively contribute to a higher level of environmental and social
sustainability in Boulder. I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I believe that
time will substantiate the many positive aspects of this development as Washington
Village will turn into a vibrant place to live and share in a lazger sense of community.
I strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful
addition to the community.
Sincerely,
~. '/~ - /`~
=r 4 1 1 O JL.X/-+%~C•C~ ( _Vl~(Q~E(T ~
~ S`~ S ) ~j • ~-r~ ~~L c~
~
~ }~~~~~, cc~ ~~~~~
,.
,~
,w
August 21, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Cruiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiar with living in cohousing and has experienced the concern and
sometimes fears of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say tttat the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heazd about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regazding the solaz
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solar fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building nearby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
-° I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten yeazs all of the people in
;; the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
^ negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a larger sense of community.
,,
~
"'~ Sincerely,
,.
..: ~~~~~~
ty
,w
Ms Lawa D. FToyd
1100 E Ridge Ave
Boulder, CO E0303-170J
~[y~'S
$"f.
w
.~ 303 y~y-2233
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear Ciry Council and Planning Boazd Membecs,
I am writing to voice my support for the Wastungton Village community co-housing project.
I beiieve in this project and respect the integriry of Jim Leach and the Wonderland Hiils
Development Company. While I have heazd about some concerns of the neighbors bordering
Washington School and understand how hard change can be, I do know that there have been
efforts to make compromises on the design accommodating their concerns.
I have often heard about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regazding the solar impact
and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. The city has developed guidelines
about these types of situarions. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the
allowed 25 foot solaz fence. The Washington V'illage project dces not propose building any
closer to the property line than their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building nearby when one didn't elcist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I have
had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to appreciate our
homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a lot of
effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give something up -
somettung less than the ideal they would want on their own.
I strongly encourage you to approve this pmject. I think ten yeazs from now, all of the people
'A in the neighborhood will find that real positives have offset the nega6ves and it is an even
=~ better place to live.
~ Sincerely,
.r
.~ ~~ ~
,~
xi
';~ Fsika Cazlson
w~ 781-lith Street
„ Boulder, CO 80302
~~ (303)494-1890
~- Erika@jeremycazlson.com
August 21, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiar with living in cohousing and has experienced the concern and
sometimes feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washingto~ Viliage project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heazd about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regarding the solar
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a pcoperty
line. From what I understand, the solar impact is far less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similar things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
; I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten years all of the people in
~ the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
•w negatives and it is an even better place to live and share in a larger sense of community.
.,,
air
. Sincerely,
.m
,~ .
~ ~
.~~~
„ ' ~ ~ ~o
v G~ ,
~y
~:
August 21, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiaz with living in cohousing and has experienced the concem and
sometimes feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as weli thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heard about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regazding the solaz
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen neazby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solar fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building nearby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
, have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
"' appreciate our homes and living spaces.
: It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
- lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
'" something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
'~ I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten years all of the people in
r
^ the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
W
negatives and it is an even better place to live and share in a lazger sense of community
,«.
. Sincerely,. ~„
~ % ~ r
. ~~J / ~~ ~ ~C./
G~'i% ~ ` ~ l
August 21, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiar with living in cohousing and has experienced the concern and
sometimes feazs of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heard about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regarding the solar
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen nearby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solaz impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hil] does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similar things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
° I strongiy encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten years all of the people in
y the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
~+ negatives and it is an even better place to live and shaze in a larger sense of community.
,.
A.
«w
.,~
..
.*
wr
.,
wr
..
Sincerely,
t~ ' Pv~O ~ `! ~~ ~ l
~a rd~P~, (,-~~~ ~ (e~
C~~~ ~ ~ C o
August 21, 2007
,~,
»r
r
W
~
~w
.~,,
...
Hw
a~
er
;d
~
_.~
:~
q
aV/
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washin~ton Village Cohousing
proj ect.
As a person who is familiar with living in cohousing and has experienced the concem and
sometimes fears of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say [hat the
Washington Village project is as well though[ out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have often heard about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regarding the solar
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen nearby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solar impact is far less than the allowed 25 foot solaz
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building nearby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if 1 was in their shoes. But I
have had similar things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
1 strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten years all of the people in
the neighborhood wil] find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
negatives and it is an even better place to live and share in a larger sense of community.
Sincerely,
~j,n~Z h ~
Rr~.e~ ~~. 2a~~
`~,ovl d,e.Y C~
August 21, 2007
City of Boulder City Counci] and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I understand that you will soon be reconsidering the Washington Village Cohousing
project.
As a person who is familiaz with living in cohousing and has experienced the concem and
sometimes fears of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wish to say that the
Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be under the
circumstances.
I have oRen heazd about the concerns of the neighbors to the north regarding the solar
impact and obstruction of their view by the proposed buildings. In my experience, being a
home owner who has had new construction happen nearby the question is not whether
there is an impact but how dire it is. The city has developed guidelines about these types
of situations; that create a solaz fence and dictate how close you can build to a property
line. From what I understand, the solar impact is faz less than the allowed 25 foot solar
fence. Wonderland Hill does not propose building any closer to the property line than
their neighbors to the north have.
I do appreciate that to suddenly have a building neazby when one didn't exist for so many
years is difficult. No doubt I would not be thrilled about it if I was in their shoes. But I
have had similaz things happen to me and it is amazing that we find new ways to
appreciate our homes and living spaces.
It seems to me that Wonderland Hill and the people of Washington Village have made a
lot of effort to make this project work for everyone - and everyone is going to give
something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I think in ten yeazs all of the people in
;~ the neighborhood will find to their delight, that some real positives have offset the
» negatives and it is an even better place to live and share in a larger sense of community.
,,,,
,~,
> Sincerely,
uy
.a >
su/ ~ ~
i
W *
°utV _~
.w~ ~0~~~~~J ~
,xY ~ \
°; \~_ ~ ~~ `. \ ~l/~
`
~W
9V
August 27, 2007
y
:.
~
ur
.~
~s
.y
sW
::
~4
+~r
.>
..
,~
:.
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn; Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site of the
former Washington School.
As a cifizen of Boulder with a strong interest in community process, planning and historic pres-
ervation, I am aware of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors surrounding the
school. It is a change and no doubt a difficult one, but change is not automatically bad. In fact
it often brings a fresh approach and openness to what develops in the future. I believe that the
combination of the Washington Village and the surrounding neighbors, who both strongly sup-
port community, can only be a positive confribution to the neighborhood and City.
This site is challenging because it has been available to area residents as an open space and park
for so long. Building community is a challenging process that requires bringing people with dif-
ferent interests together and estabiishing relationships in order to have meaningful discussion
on neighborhood and community assets. It is difficult to do that type of community building
in the midst of a contentious project approval process, but I am sure that will happen given the
nature of cohousing and the plans for the site.
When Washington Village is completed, it will contain space for valuable community programs
that will enrich the larger community and especially provide unique programs for senior resi-
dents in the neighborhood. The cohousing model is a very proactive approach to crearing com-
munity at the neighborhood level.
It is not often that people want to form a community, be engaged with their neighbors and offer
space which they have paid for through the purchase of their housing unit, for others to use. I
strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful addition to
the community.
Sincerely,
( ~ ~~
Mary Phillips
2711 Mapleton Avenue #7
Boulder, CO 80304
..
August 27, 2007
~
,~
s
~~
.
~~
~
~~
~r
~:
~..
'w
t.
!~
~~.
!~
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am wriring in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site of the
former Washington School.
As a citizen of Boulder with a strong interest in community process, planning and historic pres-
ervation, I am aware of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors surrounding the
school. It is a change and no doubt a difficult one, but change is not automarically bad. In fact
it often brings a fresh approach and openness to what develops in the future. I believe that the
combination of the Washington Village and the surrounding neighbors, who both strongly sup-
port community, can only be a positive contribution to the neighborhood and City.
This site is challenging because it has been available to area residents as an open space and park
for so long. Building community is a challenging process that requires bringing people with dif-
ferent interests together and establishing relarionships in order to have meaningful discussion
on neighborhood and community assets. It is difficult to do that type of community building
in the midst of a contentious project approval process, but I am sure that will happen given the
nature of cohousing and the plans for the site.
When Washington Village is completed, it will contain space for valuable community programs
that will enrich the larger community and especially provide unique programs for senior resi-
dents in the neighborhood. The cohousing model is a very proactive approach to creating com-
munity at the neighborhood level.
It is not often that people want to form a community, be engaged with their neighbors and offer
space wluch they have paid for through the purchase of their housing unit, for others to use. I
strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderfixl addition to
the community.
Sincerely,
~;~ ~~~
Betsy Shears
365 Quail Circle
Boulder, CO 80304
August 27, 2007
.
rr
,~~
:~
~~
,,
~e.+
.,
~
„~
w
~.
,.
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site of the
former Washington School.
As a citizen of Boulder with a strong interest in community process, planning and historic pres-
ervation, I am aware of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors surrounding the
school. It is a change and no doubt a difficult one, but change is not automatically bad. In fact
it often brings a fresh approach and openness to what develops in the future. I believe that the
combination of the Washington Village and the surrounding neighbors, who both strongly sup-
port community, can only be a positive contribution to the neighborhood and City.
This site is challenging because it has been available to area residents as an open space and park
for so long. Building community is a challenging process that requires bringing people with dif-
ferent interests together and establishing relationsMps in order to have meaningful discussion
on neighborhood and community assets. It is difficult to do that type of community building
in the midst of a contentious project approval process, but I am sure that will happen given the
nature of cohousing and the plans for the site.
When Washington Village is completed, it will contain space for valuable community programs
that will enrich the larger community and especially provide unique programs for senior resi-
dents in the neighborhood. The cohousing model is a very proactive approach to creating com-
munity at the neighborhood level.
It is not often that people want to form a community, be engaged with their neighbors and offer
space which they have paid for through the purchase of their housing unit, for others to use. I
strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful addition to
the community.
Sincerel
Michael
4940 Th
Circle #308
Boulder, CO 80304
.
Winter & Company
Urban Design • Historic Preservation - Design Review
Special Needs Studio • Facility Proqramming • Planning
August 27, 2007
.~
*r
.,
rer
.~,
,,
.,.
,~
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 8~306-0741
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
1265 Yellow Pine Avenue
Boulder, Coloredo 80304
I am writing in support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site of the
former Washington School.
As a citizen of Boulder with a strong interest in community process, planning and historic preserva-
tion, I am aware of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors surrounding the school. It
is a change and no doubt a difficult one, but change is not automatically bad. In fact it often brings
a fresh approach and openness to what develops in the future. I believe that the combination of the
Washington Village and the surrounding neighbors, who both strongly support community, can
only be a positive contribution to the neighborhood and City.
This site is challenging because it has been available to area residents as an open space and park for
so long. Building community is a challenging process that requires bringing people with different
interests together and establishing relationships in order to have meaningfixl discussion on neigh-
borhood and community assets. It is difficult to do that type of community building in the midst of
a contenHous project approval process, but I am sure that will happen given the nature of cohous-
ing and the plans for the site.
When Washington Village is completed, it will contain space for valuable community programs
that will enrich the larger community and especially provide unique programs for senior residents
in the neighbarhood. The cohousing model is a very proactive approach to creating community at
the neighborhood level.
It is not often that people want to form a community, be engaged with their neighbors and offer
space which they have paid for through the purchase of their housing unit, for others to use. I
strongly encourage you to support this project as proposed. It will be a wonderful addition to the
community.
Sincerely,
~~~~~
Nore V. Winter
• (303) 440-8445 • fax: (303) 443-0725 • www.winterandcompany.net •
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
F am writing to suongly encourage you to support the Wastvngton Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known of Wonderland Hill for some time now. For over 14 years, Wondaland
Hill has been actively building communities and, in particulaz, co-housing communities_
The point is ewt to iso~ate cot~cwsing resi~nts from their surrcxuidings but to promote a
strong sense and corpmitment to community and thefeby be proactive members of the
neighbor6ood and City they live in.
I can't think of a beiter developer ta take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neig6borhood, such as tbat at Washington Schooi. This task being taken on by
Wonderland is one that will create a housiag developmenx wlrich is to be filled with
people dedicated to community spir'st, sharing and ~og tog~.
The response hp many of the people in the neighborhaod in many ways is
unde~andable. Na~ of us would be e~ccc~ted about losing svch a large amount of open
space. This land has never been anyo~'s but those involved in education - it has been a
school and now the futwe of the preservation of tS~at ln~c~ic school is in jeopardy.
We shouki feel forWnate that a proposal from Wonderland Hi11, witich has a model that
~ P~PIe from assarted eco~mic b~ckgxounds, has ats~o taken on preservinb a
landmark building in Bould~. In utilizing the'v model, tbey wili provide au exriting
w place for people to live and wilt extenc! seavices to the larger eommunity. T6is proposai
;, is before you for approval - Please say yes!
^~ Sincerely,
^
~r
y - ~ ~~ - -
~r
~~ A~~°--~ G~~~os ~5
,~~
;~
..
~,r
~
~v
v
.,
r
~r
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Councii and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to sffongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known of Wonde~}and Hill for ~me time now. For over 14 years, Wonderla~
Hill has b~n actively building communities and, in pazticular, co-Uousing communities.
The point is ~t to isolate co}uwsing residents from their surroundings but to promote a
strong seose and caq~mntment to communiEy and thcreby be proactive members of the
neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better devetoper to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
e9cisting neigh6orfaod, sueh as t6at at Washington SchooI. This task being taken on by
Wonderland is one that will create a housing development which is to be filled with
people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working togetha.
The response by mauy of the peaple in the neighborhood in many ways is
~mde~staodabEe_ No~ af us would be eaccited about l~ing such a large amount of open
space. This land has never b~n anyone's but those involved in educatiQn - it has been a
school and now the future of the preservation of tliat histaic school is in jeopardy_
We should feel fortunate that a proposal &om Wonderiaad Hil{, which has a model that
icd~stes pa~ple 6am sssorted econc~mic baclcgrotmds, has aiso taken on preserving a
landmark building in Bould~. In utilizing their model, t~ey will provide am exciting
place for people to Gve and will exteud services to the larger cammunity. Tlns propasal
is before you for approval - Please say yes!
~,
wW
w~
»~
,vY
n•1
s/
«~q
+i/
Mw
•My
r
. ~~(a l ~-t~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Cruiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I azn writing to strongly encpurage you to suppo~t the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have lcnown of Wonderland Hill for some time now. ~or uver 14 years, Wo~erland
Hill has been actively building coaununities and, in particular, co-housing communities.
The po~nt is ~t to isotate cahousing residents from their surroundings but to promote a
~ sense and co~pmiunern ta comiratnity and theseby be proacEive members of the
neighboifiood and City they live in.
I can't think of a b~ter developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing ceigh6orfiood, such as that at Washington Schoat. This task being taken on by
Wonderland is one that will create a housing development wJrich is to be filled with
P~PIe dedicated to communih' sP~, 3~'~n8 ~~~~ toS~~-
The response by many of the people in the ~ighborl~od in many ways is
und~andab~e_ 230~ of us would be excrted about losing sr~ch a large asnount of open
space. This land has never t~een anyone's but those involved in educatian - it has been a
school and ~w the firture of the prese~vation of that historic school is in jeopardy.
We s3~wid feel €atunate that a proposal &om Woaderland Hill, wtrich has a model that
iote~ates peoplc from assorted ecammic bsalcgrou~s, has a[sa takeu an preserving a
landmark building in Boulda. In utilizing their modei, they wiil provide an e~iting
, place for people to live and witl eact~ s~vices to the larger eommunity. This proposal
"' is before you for approvai - Piease say yes!
:;
Sincerely,
~
. ~
~ K--I~ ~~I'v~~~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Bouider, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
!
I am wreting to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former WasFrington School.
I have known of Wonderland Hiil for some time now. For over 14 years, Wonderiand
Hill has been actively building communiYies and, in particular, co-housing communitie~
The point is ~t to isolate cohousing ravidents from their stirroundings but to promote a
sUong sei-se aod co~pmitment ta communit}+ and thereby be proactive members of the
neighborhood and City tl~ey live in.
I can't think of a bett~ developer Eo take on the inccedible task of integrating into an
ezcisting ~ighborhood, such as t6at at Washington Schooi. This task being taken on by
Wonderlaad is one that will create a housiag development which is to be filled with
people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and workiug togeth~_
The response by many of the people in the ~reighborhood in many ways is
understandabEe. No~ of us would be e~cciteci about losing such a large amount of open
space. This land has nev~ been anyone's but those involved in edvcation - it has been a
school and now the £uture of the pres~vation of that Li~<xic sch~oo( is in j~pardy_
We shouki feel foctuaate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model that
~~~ P~P~ fram assorted economic backgrounds, has aLco taken on preserving a
landmark building in Bould~. In utiliziog their nade), they will provide an exciting
place for people to live and wili ext~d services to the largcr eommuaity. This pro~OSal
is before you for ap~xoval - Please say yes!
~
r
„, Sincerely,
~
.
. , ~
,.
°' /
~
.~
.„,
.r
~ ~,~I Y5T1 e. ~e~cl~e~
AuguSY 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kari Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Bouider, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encovrage you to support the Waslrington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site ofthe focmer Washington School.
I have known of Wonderland Hill for some time now. For over 14 years, Wonderland
Hill has been acxively building communities and, in particular, co-housing communities.
'Fhe poini is not to isolate cohcwsing r~dents &om their surronndmgs but to promote a
strong se9ose and coqmurtment to community and tbereby be proactive members of the
neighborhood and City tbey live in.
F can't think of a bett~ developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
e~cisting neighborhood, sucit as that at Washington Schoal. Tfris task being taken on by
Wondedand is one that will create a housing developmeat which is to be filled with
people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working toget~.
The response by many of the people in the neighbochood in many ways is
undasPaadabte~ Noce of us wouid be eaccited about losing such a large amourn of open
space. This land has neva been anyo~'s bui tl~ose involvad in education - it has been a
school and now the firture of the prese~vation of that hi~oric school is in jeoQardy_
We shouid feel fiorwaate that a proposal from Wonde~land Hiti, which has a model that
i~ates peapie &om assorted eoonomic backgrounds, has aiso taken on preserving a
landmark buildiag in Boulda. In utilizing their m~ode~ theg will provide an exciting
place for people to live az-d will e~cte~ s~vir.es to the iarger community. This psoposa3
is before you for approvai - Please say yes!
.„.
;;Y*, Sincerely,
~~
;;~ L~'~
~r ~~Fa~,~ ~ f Gr~~SthJ
~,
,~
;.
~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Cruiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0'I91
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
~ am writing w strongly encourage you to suppo~E the Washingtoa Village cohousing
project pmposed for the site of the focmer Waslungton School.
F tiave known of Wonderland Hill for some time now. For over 14 years, Wonderlaad
Hill has been aciively building communities and, in particxtlar, co-housing communiries_
The poent is not to isolate cohousing residents frout their s~uroundings but to promote a
strong ~ and commitment to com~nity and thereby be proazxive members of the
neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredibke task of integrating into an
existiag neighhoiiwo~, such as t6at at Washingtcm School. This task being taken on by
Wonderland is one that will create a housing development which is to be filled with
peop(e dedicaYed to community spirit, sharing and workiog together.
`The response hy wany of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
uode~andabte. No~ne of us would be excited about losing such a targs amoum of open
space_ This land has never been anyone's but those involved in educatian - it has been a
school and now the future of the pre.s~vation of that historic school is in jeopardy_
We shouki fcel foituoate that a proposat &om Wonde~'land Hill, wlrich has a model that
i~ Peop~e &om assorted economic baclcgrounds, has a[so taken on preserving a
landmark building in Bould~. In utilizing tLeir model, they will provide an exciting
place for people to Gve and will extend savices io the larger ~mmunity. This proposal
is before you for approvai - Piease say yes!
::
,
.r Sincerely,
~
,~
,~
, ~,/}~~~~(~~~
~
.: 1~ v ~~ R-~ C /~-oG~~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Councii and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you w support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of ihe former W ashington School.
I have known of Wonderland Hill for some time now. For over 14 years, Wond~land
Hill has been acYively building communities and, in particular, co-housing communitie~
The point is not ta isolate cohouseng residenES from their surroundings but to promote a
strong sense and commitmem w communety a~uE thereby be proacteve members of the
neighborhood and City they live in.
1 can't t}unk of a better developer to take on the ineredibie task of integrating into an
existing ceighborhood, such as that at Washington School. This task being taken on by
Wonderland is one that will create a housing developmeai whicii is to be filled with
people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and wodcing togeth~.
Tbe response by many of the people in the neighborhood in mauy ways is
imd~taadabEe. Iso~ of us would be e~ccited about losing such a large amonnt of open
space. This land has nevea bcen anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a
school and now the future of the praservation of that lnstoric ~chool is in jeopardy.
We should feel foctunate that a proposal &om Wonder(and L~ill, wtuch has a modei that
ioteg~ates Qeople 6um assorted economic baciEgrounds, has also taken on prese.~ving a
landmark building in Boulda_ In utilizing their ~de~ t~y will provide an eaccitiag
place for peopk to live and will exte~ savices to the larger community_ This proposal
is before you fa appraval - Please say yes!
'~, Sincerely,
'~ ~= /~G~i-2 ~ ~-v~
Z
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ F^G~(c
,,
~w
YI
p
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box ?91
Boedder, CO 803Q6-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the farmer Wasteington School.
I have known of Wonderland Hill for some time now. For over 14 years, Wo~deriand
Hill has been actively building communities aad, in particular, co-housing communities_
T'he point is ~ to isolate co}~wsing residents fram their sucroundengs but to promote a
slrong sense and co~pmrtrt-ent ta comnwaity and thereby be proactive members of the
neighborhood and City t6ey live in.
I can't think of a better devetoper to take on the incredihle task of integrating into an
e~cisting ceighborhood, such as that at Washington School. This task being taken on by
Wonderland is one thai will cxeate a housing development which is to be filled with
people dedicaled to community spirit, sharing and working tog~.
The resQonse by many of the peogle in the eieighbort~ood in many ways is
onderstandab6e_ None of us would be excited about losing such a large amount of open
space. This land has never been anyone's but those involved in educatian - it has been a
school and now the firture of the greservation of that hi~oric schod is in jeopardy_
We should feel fortuaate that a proposal from Wonderiand Hill, which has a modet that
, i~ peogte finm assorted ~o~ueic ba~Icgrau€:ds, has aLo takt~ oa preserving a
landmark building in Bouldea. In utilizing their model, they will provide an eacciting
. place for people to live and w+l} e~ctend savices to the largex community. This proposal
' is before you for approva[ - Piease say yes!
•~ Siucerely,
d.
;,; ~
., -~'/.v~.
i
wr
'w -.) 0 tt-rJ /~c lu l~``-~t~(Z-
::r
ay
August 27, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousiqg
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 yeazs,
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and, in particulaz, co-housing
communities. ,The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, a housing development which
is to be filled with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
_#
~~~
:J
~~
+~
,~
~~.
..
~~~
Sincecely,
(~
J~~ c 1~~1~c~~~H~
S~~-~.,-- - c..-t-
~.
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particulaz co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, shazing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
,.. Sincerely,
~;~ ~~'~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~,a~
. ~~
~- ~~~~~ ~~ ~ j~ ~
.n i~-j .-~ _' `J'-,j ~ b
,o ~ v 3 '~
M.
.~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known Jim Leach and Wonderland Hill for a long time. For over 14 years
Wonderland Hill has been actively building communities and in particular co-housing
communities. The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but
to promote a strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive
members of the neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School, housing which is to be filled
with people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge open space. But
this land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a school
and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model which
integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has taken on preserving a
landmark building in Boulder while providing an exciting place for people to live and to
extend out with services to the larger community, is before you for approval. Please say
yes!
Sincerely,
~ ~~-~i~ ;,~~-z~l~---"
r~'~ _
.; ~
,. ~~ t 1 /3'~U~l 3 . T~c~ ~l4
_,
~:
^'.
August 20, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
As a citizen of Boulder with a strong interest in affordable housing I am writing in
support of the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for the site of the former
Washington School.
Wonderlands proposal is unique in that it includes a wide spectrum of housing
affordability all within the same neighborhood community. With Boulders high property
values and development costs and given the quality of the W V site location within the
city most developers would likely buy out of the city's affordable housing requirement,
choosing only to develop an exclusive project of high end housing units. These enclaves
of $ I,000,000 plus condominiums are not what Boulder needs more of.
The Washington Village project will include not only inclusionary low income housing
and the high end mazket rate housing, but also a substantial amount of mid price range
units in the $300,000 to $500,000 price range, with some deed restricted for permanent
affordability. This economic diversity together with the cohousing community building
model will generate an enriched housing opportunity in an extremely good location
especially for senior Boulder residents. . Success with tnxly integrating economic
diversity is a hallmark of cohousing.
In addition, Washington Village will when completed contain space for valuable
community programs that will enrich the lazger community and especially provide unique
programs for senior residents in the neighborhood.
It is not often that people want to form a community, be engaged with neighbors of all
eco~omic levels and offer space which they have paid for through the purchase of their
housing unit, for others to use. I strongly encourage you to support this project as
proposed. It will be a wonderful addition to the community.
,:
,.
mY
~`
~ /~
~AS~ ~)sc,-I-GI'L~
`31 Zc~ 3 ~d S--F y
3D(n.t~e/~ C~ OV3v~7
August 22, 2007
Ciry of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
As a professional Realtor in Boulder County, I am writing in support of the Washington
Village cohousing project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
The proposed design of Washington Village represents a number of positive features that
will provide a distinctive housing option for Boulder. From its' conception, the
community benefits of Washington Village have been thoughtfully designed to address
many interests, including the significance of historic preservation and the promotion of
neighborhood interaction. Wonderland Hill and their azchitectural team have carefully
considered numerous design ideas to balance different interests brought forwazd while
providing Boulder with a practical housing solution for this site.
The proposed Washington Village plan demonstrates an excellent balance of distributing
density on the site with the denser urban zone along Broadway and lower density towards
and along 13~' Street in harmony with the single family neighborhood to the east.
Broadway is Boulder's most important multimodal transportation corridor and is best
suited to support the appropriately placed higher density building.
The proposed Washington Village development exhibits an example of a mixed use
development that will positively contribute to a higher level of environmental and social
sustainability in Boulder. I strongly encourage you to approve this project. I believe that
time will substantiate the many positive aspects of this development as Washington
Village will turn into a vibrant place to live and shaze in a lazger sense of community.
I strongly encourage you to support this ptoject as proposed. It will be a wonderful
addition to the community.
~ Sincerely,
~" ~,
ri c4~Cc~L`~~
~
" ~US~ ~~/NSIC/~ r~Ef~-T02.
~
08/28/2006 10:58 3034444198 PARAGON BUILDERS PAGE 02
August 2S, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Gouncil and Planning Board Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing project proposed for
the site of the former Washington School.
I have known of Wonderland Hill for some time now, For over 14 years, Wonderland Hill has been actively
building communities and, in particular, co-housing communities. Cohousing does not isolate its residenis
from their surroundings but instead promotes a strong sense and commihnent to comrr+unity and thereby
encourages members to be proactive in their neighborhood and City.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrafing into an existing neigh6orhood,
such as that at Washington School, a housing development which is to be filled with peopie dedicated ro
community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of ihe people in the neighborhood is understandable. None of us would be excited
about losing use of any open space, However, this land has never been anyone's but those involved in
educa6on and naw the future of the preservation of the historic school is in jeopardy.
The City is fortunate for the proposal from Wonderiand Hill. Their proposal integrates people from assorted
ecanomic bacicgrounds, preserves a landmark building in Boulder, while still providing an exciti~g place for
people to live and provide services to the larger community.
Please say yes!
, Sincerely, ~
C`~
y
_ Ms. Cody Yelton
"' 3095 29~^ St ~k102
,
~ 8oulder, CO SD3Q9
August 28, 2007
Boulder City Council and Planning Board members
Attention: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder CO &0306-0791
Dear Council and Board members:
The application to redevelop the Washington School site presents a dilemma for
decision makers who want to preserve and protect a neighborhood and at the
same time encourage development that is friendly to walking and public
transportation. I have been interested in Boulder land use issues for quite some
time. The purpose of my letter is not to dissect all of the issues of the site plan;
rather it is to encourage you to look to the decades ahead.
Just as the neighborhood around Washington School has been strong and vital
for at least half a century, the Washington Village proposal looks forward to the
next half century. It's certain to be a time of diminished resources such as
gasoline and reduced use of single occupant vehicles. When I look at the
townhouses being built just south of Washington School, I see the density
Boulder should be encouraging along major transit lines.
The single family lots along 13th Street on the east side of the property are a good
transition kom the more intense uses elsewhere on the site to the existing single
family homes east of 13"' Street.
Change isn't easy for most of us but given the constraints of the Washington
, School site and the visionary elements of this development proposal, I believe the
y concept merits your approval.
' Sincerely,
.,.
~ ' 0 Y~
~ Roger Cracraft
GEORGE WATT
~
~
-.W
.~
.~
~
August 22, 2007
City of Boulder City ~ounciT and Ftanning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
The development of the Washington school property is a raze opportunity for city staff, planning
boazd, and council members to consider how to create an exemplary project within the existing,
multi layered fabric of this neighborhood and of our city. The consh~aints are numerous, the
potential great for an addition to the city that meets many of the stated city goals.
While many people will support this project based on the design and building program created by
Wonderland and their consultants as one that has balanced the issues and goals successfully on this
projecYs site, as I do, and others will not support it for reasons of their own, I wish to offer another
point of view.
This project is presented for the Planning Boazd's review by Jim Leach and Wonderland. In my
professional experience with Jim over the last twelve years I have found him to be a man of the
highest integrity, one who has created a company that also lives up to that uncommon standazd.
Jim and Wonderland aze builders of consensus among disparate views and beliefs. They are fair,
understanding and compassionate in how they conduct the process of evolving all of their works.
The importance of this shotild not be underestimated. It is the people involved in the project's
creation who aze chazged with iYs outcome. It will be those same people who will continue to work
toward the projecYs success long after the positive influence of neighborhood meetings and
Planning Boazd's comments and conditions. I cannot imagine a better leader than Jim or a better
group than Wonderland to pursue the success of this project I urge the board to approve the
proposal for the Washington School and support ~im and Wonderland as they bring this project to
life.
Respectfull bmitte ; --
Geor Wa~ r
1455 YARfNOUTH AVE SUITE 114 BOULDER, CO 80304 PH: 303.443.4848 FX: 303.477.1787
August 20, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Karl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I have been a member of the Washington Village Cohousing project since May of
2006. I have been a resident of Boulder since 1990 when I moved here from the east
coast. T have been working in the field of human services as a psychotherapist,
hospice chaplain and support person for individuals and families faced with the
diagnosis of cancer. Now semi-retired and Iooking into how I want to live out my elder
years, I discovered co-housing and in particular the Washington Viilage community. Tt
is here where I want to serve my neighbors and greater Boulder community. I believe
in this project and respect the integrity of lim Leach and the Wonderland Hills
Development Company.
While I have heard concerns of our neighbors bordering Washington School and
understand how hard change can be, I do know that there have been efforts to make
compromises in order to accommodate their concerns. While they wiil lose some open
space, there are 4 other areas located within a.5 mile radius of the school.
1) 9t'' St at Cedar
2) Casey Middle School at 13"' St and North
3) 17th Street at Elder
4) Frederick Law Olmstead Park just north of Elder on Broadway
As a person who is familiar wlth living in cohousing and has experienced the concern
and sometimes fears of neighbors about the impact of such projects, I wlsh to say
that the Washington Village project is as well thought out and balanced as could be
under the circumstances.
It seems to me that Wonderland 4ii11 and we the people of Washington Village have
; made much effort to make thiS project work for everyone - and everyone is going to
•~ give something up - something less than the ideal they would want on their own.
,~
*Y
p/
e/
Please do approve this project. I think in years to come all of the people in the
neighborhood will find benefit and share in a larger sense of community.
Sincerely,
C~ ~
Cdrole Lindroos, MA LPC
303-875-0229
August 27, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Boazd
Attn: Kazl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have known of Wonderland Hill for some time now. For over 14 yeazs, Wonderland
Hill has been ac6vely building communiries and, in particulaz, co-housing communities.
The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but to promote a
strong sense and commitment to community and tttereby be proactive members of the
neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School. This task being taken on by
Wonderland is one that will create a housing development which is to be filled with
people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
understandable. None of us would be excited about losing such a large amount of open
space. Tttis land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a
school and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
. We shoul~l feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model that
; integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has also taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder. In utilizing their model, they will provide an exciting
' place for people to live and will extend services to the larger community. T'his proposal
~ is before you for approval - Piease say yes!
,.
Sincerely,
::~ ~~c~
~, ~~ ~
., ~S ~. `FOfi- 5~ ,
.~
., `~O~ c~ . c~ . ~o>,v S~
, (~a3) ~a~- ~7S
August 27, 2007
City of Boulder City Council and Planning Board
Attn: Katl Guiler
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Deaz City Council and Planning Boazd Members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you to support the Washington Village cohousing
project proposed for the site of the former Washington School.
I have lrnown of Wonderland Hill for some time now. For over 14 yeazs, Wonderland
Hill has been actively building communities and, in particular, co-housing communities.
The point is not to isolate cohousing residents from their surroundings but to promote a
strong sense and commitment to community and thereby be proactive members of the
neighborhood and City they live in.
I can't think of a better developer to take on the incredible task of integrating into an
- existing neighborhood, such as that at Washington School. This task being taken on by
~ Wonderland is one that will create a housing development which is to be filled with
~ people dedicated to community spirit, sharing and working together.
' The response by many of the people in the neighborhood in many ways is
- understaudable. None of us would be excited about losing such a lazge amount of open
u space. This land has never been anyone's but those involved in education - it has been a
. school and now the future of the preservation of that historic school is in jeopazdy.
~~~ We should feel fortunate that a proposal from Wonderland Hill, which has a model that
;; integrates people from assorted economic backgrounds, has also taken on preserving a
landmazk building in Boulder. In utilizing their model, they will provide an exciting
"'~ place fdr people to live and will extend services to the lazger community. This proposal
'" is before you for approval - Please say yes!
Sincerely,
`~r/~~ ~it~ ~
~"~~ s 40~-- S~.
~u-('cF~.,e. Cv ~o3vs~
~3U3,~ g~2 ~- 9~ 7S-
,
l
)
~
~
,~
~ ~ ~?~
~ !j~;.~~~h,
~ ~~ ~"~,~~i~
~i, :
1~ ~ ~~
i ~~. ~ r,r
b~„
1 .•~, ~ ...pr ~,~.
~~ i;~
7 4 ~,~'~A
1 ~ ~~ ~
~~,Y ~.
'1~ ~
~ ~~4.._" . '._.~r.mq~!
~~
~
~
T~
~r~ ,,~,
f~,~~.
~~
~~ ~
1
r~
; tA.~.
' n,
, ~~
... e1'f`}.~.J
~
~~
~.
~J
ATTACHMENT 0
7~ .
~ '
i:Lt k... r
~ ~ ~v~w~w
+i ~ Y ~' e ~l ~e'~:di.
t M I, hv, ~'
-r~, w,SN,N~TO~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE
~1~~'~"-'~„~~'~'~- W ~""~~ 1215CEDARAYEBOULDERCOLORADO
~~„~.~„~.,,,.,,,,
'..rG.I..YY-1 ~L~ L~ ~vti. ~
MR~
4~M I ~ :F' ~~11IY1~. . .
a,Yi9:tldiC e1~::ii;e
,
~~`~-
p,- wesuiHCrou
W v7LLAGE
~ I ~`,~,r~.~rr~~,
INGTON VILLAGE
CEDARA4E BOULDER COLORADO
. ~ 4~~ ~~~'I~i/
.~~~ ~, ~ ,y, ~.~~,
+'~ y i~~~ltl~, ~l ~ ~l:
~ / /
M *r ~ ~ ~~i r . ~~1'.
~
f'J''~~,~r 4 ~ ~ ~,g' ..
~ ~,
~ ~ ~~ j ~ _
l ~ '~`~'w , I ~ ,~ ~,~ r' .,
- :'t~=-~~~
~I' ~ ~
~ ~.A
. ,~,
~ ZiR~~~~~,°~n~±
V,Ay WdSHINGiON
VY VILIAGE
::::~~.:_;;~z~
_~~°"5c-=-~,.-r ~
i . .~ a y'-} u ,
~ tf,1 1 ' 1." y~,'• ~l'9 i~'
~
.{~~ , ~ `I~r` ~r~ n ,
M '''
t
t'~ ~ ~
1~ ~ , ,
I
VIEW TOWARDS SOUTHWEST CORNER
HINGTON VILLAGE
VIEW TOWARDS VEHICULAR ENTRY
_~
VIEW THRU NORTHWEST PEDESTRIAN PATH
' ° ~;:~~ waS~,N~TaN WASHINGTON VILLAGE
lL'~m~te;~lar,~ w °1L"~E 1215CEDARAVEBOULDERCOLORADO
~,. a~ ~,~ .
VIEW TOWARDS NORTHWEST PEDESTRIAN ENTRY
~w '~~
' "~,:
W ; ~ ~,~"
~~
~;~<~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE
v,A., wasuin~roN
ti;~!%ridFr~r,`d ~v Y~"'~F 1215CEDARAVEBOULDERCOLORADO
~ .._. ,,,, „
r iu 7
t"'
VIEW TOWARDS S4UTHERN PEDESTRIAN ENTRY
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS M~ISSING STUDY
-+~,=': ~,.=~ •r`' 1~,r^~._ ---- ------ ~ p~ ~ ~! ~
~ ~~~ .~• ~ ~ .
C10
o~#P
c~e
c~~
c m
c+e
ci+
eie
c++
cao
c~~ e~a
cx~ eo<
e 8 .,
p i
w.
e~s ~
eis ~~ ~
~
PARKING GARAGE
.~. ~
~
~ ~~
~if
~~,~ c
ef
~
610
ii~
G]O
1~I
p1]
~~0
6]a
6T
~71
a» U~
Nt~lo
~I] 811NA(
...."_Z_"'"__'_"'
~ ."_.._.....__'_'_'"____J L......._ .................. ~
......~
w ~~
e" ,~_........_._.----~
W
~
Q
C
~, a ~ _....._......,
.
5 ~ ~
`~
a \
\
a _. J .
~ - aw
~~w~ HISTQRICSCNOOL ~~
GNIERF
e
E
wawxa ~ u~n~c~ua ,wixoa. +a«~w
ex ~ w+
ai I cae
z~
9I
m
F
NQ
W ~
I ~
I „
~
w' eee
~e+
i "'
S7 ~.._ ~,
Z iu
O
J ~' ~~0
7
m
I- v",~
~
`
'n
e~i
Q
W ~
S
C~ cs~
____.
~---~-~ ..z
~
~ e~rxr ua
.ewMa
acnas
nw~meu
~r wr
ANN1l0
'KAR!
RRlINbLA
~AMLYIA~
.»~
~~.~
.~.~.:~
tAMLYLOT
.ee~Mev
oc~a
reneu+ete
r~wix ur
..um+en
aarte
~eaerau
.wtr~o*
~eauMe~
~c~Re
veReinsi.e
.~~~•~or
dNWIA~ ~
,~a '~Y /
.~w , _
:~~. .~
WASHINGTON VILLAGE n
0 1 11 ]1
WaSHINGTOu
W VILLAGF 12~5CEDARAVE80UlDERCOLORAD~ N
.>
~~, WaSx,N~TON WASHINGTON VILLAGE o e „ b n. ~
W VIlLd6E 1P15CEDARAVEBOULDERCOLORADO N
~g
occK ouK o~cK cecR amnooxn
~
] L:~'
~
- eeoxaaxn
BPLRWM
p~~ p~q~
BEE 6FD
9EDNRhWAx~
OEDpOM
~~ ~x~
8FD BEY
BEOP OpY
~ _ r
-
~ L._ ~ L
~
~
~~
o ~
a ni
~~a
~m~a onwc uxew owxs oxnnc
tmrc imrp u~c u~m't
~ ~,{
! ~ ~ Na ~
~~
"" ~ ~.
~
~
I
I I
GmY
mmr
FmRY
NF
fC
WmY
I
L
~
'_""
I i
4•"'~ r ~
I
N
; ~
......-
NORTH BUIL~I
w.~„
G ~,,
--~~ -~ --~---
' ~~ , ,~•
- -- ------
~ ~~ ~ - - -_.~3i.__. .. ,
,
I s
~
~
p ~ I ~ , ~mnc I
J
7
~
~
i~
ti
~
~ ~ p ~~~
3
a
~'
~'' i
o
~
~ ~
~
~
~~
~
; ~
'
~ ~~~~ _
m ~
~' ~
~ ~
~ ;
~ i
~~ uwic u~mic uww
i
y ~ AWNG qtfllp
a
-
~~ nrc~x
~
0 ~~x
~
___ ai I
~ ~~•
~ MABifA
BfDfiWN NISiEP
AfMntON GdAeC L
NW ~ ~
;
~ a ~
~
' ~
_
'J
~ ~
~~ ~
~ , ..___.
RIC SC
MiYSP
-- ____.__
.
-
-------
610Al.GE BttNWE
~~
1
~
~
~r~
~
---
o --
; ---
--~-
.. •
~ ,
~
~ o
~J ~
~
~
:
rtq1EN
I(RCX
~ROON ~ I
~
I .
~
1 c:e:
uwVn ~ r~
-
~ ~
_
_ .
orwm~ew
,
unxc
,
~
_ ..
I '
1 .... .............-...~
~ DINMC I S1UOY MnNfi LINYG
I ~
~
~ LINNG
_ ..
..,.....___. .. .. ... _
~
~ uws
I
I ~
' i
I
,~ i
_'"
~
' oouvesow umic ••"
~a~
_'"'_...._.....______._
i
~
~' "
~.
wn
l ~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE
1~' \A/ W6SHINGTON
~` •ti~ _a.,~, _~ vv vi~~ACE 1215CEDARAVEBOULDERCOIORADO
f~ vJt,ae„siii ~
.~+~,~ /~, WdSHINGTON
/~~1_~~i1~'~enl,i.l:,' `,Y VILLAGf
f .., ..,_. ...'...
..
~~'~
W W85NINGTON
;:~~:,~
~ ~`~,~ ~ .,.. ~~~~b~E
BROADWAY BLDG EAST ELEVATION
NORTH BLDG SOUTH ELEVATION
~
EAST BLDGS WEST ELEVATION
SCHOOL BLDG NORTH ELEVATION
.~: w,SN,„~TO~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE , , , ,< ^
1~1+ ~~ ~~ a ~ E 1 p15 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO