Loading...
5A - Site Review Amendment LUR2007-00053 for 2525 Taft to modify Site Review LUR2006-00102 that allows redevelopment of a 117 unit congregate care facilityCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 13, 2007 (Agenda Ite~n Preparation Date: November 23, 2007) AGENDA TITLE: Site Review Amendment #LUR2007-00053 For 2525 Taft Drive to modify Site Review #LUR2006-00102 that allows redevelopment of a 117 unit congregate care facility in the RH- 5 zone district. The number of approved units will not change, however, the proposed Site Review amendment application includes expansion of approved buildings, a change in unit mix and land use code modification requests to allow building heights up to 55 feet, a 10.5 foot side adjacent to street setback modification as well as a parking reduction of 24% where a 17°/o reduction was originally approvcd. Applicant: MGL partners Owner: The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society REQUESTING DEPARTMENT Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Charles Ferro, Case Manager OBJECTIVE Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: I. Hear Applicant and Staff presentations 2. Hold Public Hearing 3. Planning Board discussion 4. Planning Board take action ro approve, approve with conditions or deny STATISTICS Proposal The applicant is proposing to amend the recent Site Review approval from April 2007 to develop 117 age restricted, congregate care units. The originally approved buildings will be increased in size in order to make the exterior of the building more attractive and pedestrian friendly, while amending the unit mix and making interior units more functional for daily service needs as well as the needs of the senior citizen residents. Improved pedestrian connections through the building will also result from the proposed amendment. No increase in the total number of units is proposed. The original Planning Board approval from April 2007 included the development of 117 units. The existing 9 story tower was to be renovated and two new 55' tall buildings east and west of the existing tower were approved for development. The Following Land Use Code modifications AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # 1 were granted by Planning Board in April 2007 as allowed through the Site Review process by Section 9-2-14(c), B.R.C., 1981: 1) Section 9-7-I, B.R.C., 1981 to allow for a height modification to 55 feet (where a maximum of 35 feet is permitted by right). 2) Section 9-7-1, B.R.C., 1981 to allow four story buildings (where three story buildings are permitted by right). 3) Section 9-7-1, B.R.C., 1981 to allow a 10.5 foot setback modification on the south side of the site in order to accommodate a porte-cochere along Taft Drive. 4) Section 9-9-6(b), B.R.C., 1981 to allow a parking reduction of 17% based on the congregate care /senior citizen occupancy type and the site's proximity to mass transit and services. The proposed Site Review amendment requires the same code modifications, although the parking reduction has been increased from 19% to 24% based on the decrease of 2 bedroom units and increase of 3 bedroom units as discussed below. Project Name: Residences at Boulder Creek Location: 2525 Taft Drive (refer to Attachment A) Size of Tract: 93,773 square feet, or 2.1 acres Zoning: RH-5 (Residential High -5) Comprehensive Plan: High Density Residential KEY ISSUES Staff has identified the following key issues relevant to the proposed amendment: 1) Is the amended plan consistent with Site Review criteria? 2) Are the proposed building design amendments compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area? 3) Is the requested 24% parking reduction appropriate for this use? 4) Are the proposed land use code waivers appropriate for the site? BACKGROUND Site History The site was originally developed by the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society as a congregate care facility in 1975. The original facility was developed with 66 apartments, 13 assisted living units and 60 skilled nursing beds. The apartments and assisted living units were located in the existing 9 story tower and the 60 skilled nursing beds were located in the one story section of the building east of the tower. In 2000, the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society sold the undeveloped portions of the site on the north and south sides of Taft Drive (25 ] 0 and 2775 Taft Drive) to American Campus- Titan LLC, which received Site Review approval for the "Village at Boulder Creek" in 2000 in order to construct 126 new units in four story buildings with heights of 43 to 49 feet. Eighty-two of the units were developed for student hauling and 44 were sold as "permanently affordable" condominium units. Taft Drive has historically been used by CU students for parking due to the proximity to the main CU campus and as a result, on-street parking is heavily used during the day during the regular school year. As a part of the Village at Boulder Creek, Taft Drive was improved and redesigned AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # 2 to include curb extensions, traffic control devices, defined on street parking bays and pedestrian cross walks. As noted above, in April 2007, Planning Board approved a Site Review for the development of 117 congregate care units. The existing 9 story tower was to be renovated and two new 55' tall buildings were to be located on the east and west sides of the tower. (Refer to Attachment B for the plans and original disposition of approval from April 2007). In September 2007, the applicant retained a new architect and submitted a new application for a Site Review Amendment to refine the existing approval to amend the unit mix, make the interior building layout more functional and the exterior of the building more attractive and pedcstrian friendly. Process Per Section 9-2-14(b), B.R.C., 1981, properties in the RH-5 zone district are required to complete Concept Plan and Site Review if the property is over 2 acres in size or an application proposes the development of 20 or more units. Additionally, per Section 9-2-14(g), B.R.C., 1981, applications requesting a modification in building height require the approval of the Planning Board. Since the proposed application for Site Review Amendment involves the partial expansion of the approved buildings above the 35 foot height limit for the RH-5 district, Planning Board approval is required. Per Section 9-2-14(c), B.R.C., 1981, certain Land Use Code standards maybe modified through the Site Review process such as building height, setbacks and parking requirements if improved design results and the Site Review criteria found in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C., 1981 are satisfied. Should the subject application be denied or withdrawn, the applicant may move forward with redevelopment of the site based on the April 2007 Site Review approval granted under LUR2006- 00102. Applications for Site Review Amendment are considered de novo meaning that the entire development proposal is subject for review, not only the proposed portions of the site that are proposed for change. Zoning and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Designations Per Section 9-5-2(c), B.R.C., 1981, areas zoned Residential High-5 (RH-5) are primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including without limitation, apartment buildings and where complementary uses may be pennitted. The site also carries a Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) designation of High Density Residential (HR) to accommodate high density residential development as proposed. As indicated below, the immediate area carries appropriate designations For high density residential, with the exception of the University Heights neighborhood immediately to the north. AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # 3 ~ . ~ ionat"Business. Transit ~ ~ F , \ _ 1 ply' t , i ' - , :Park. Urban and Other ~ ~ : 4 :Y'. ~ S ~ + 0~ ~ - F I r°"' it i.. ~~a~~ ~ i. - ~ Fi?~fi ~ens? Resic~ent?ai F~ ~ _ i~ f iii r' r . ~ ~ 1 - - ~a3 ' ' •'7~ ~ .i:..4+rk . 4 ~ ~•Y. i Y r ~ ~ ~ I 333 ~ ~ F -ter- _ zl r ~ ~~'.Y.C~7~-IGk ~ ? ~ i ~ ' i ~ ~ 1_: - ~ BEN i t F k cij~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ , - ' - ~ } ~ I:.:_ F i ' 2525 T.'l=? OR~ ~ -_,y~t 3 _ ~ F=Y'ii 2.~ t i F ~ t l.:- i ILL rx ~ ~ ! 11 z_ I - '~v - - _ _ _ R p~/~ L _ ~ ~1!e~:,;-~!~ei•~.n=il E:~a~ a1:~ t: ci' iii 1' ..t-~ .:L~ - > I~ciy;,~-Iii . ~ ..f ' e:• r-:•'~:;~ +40°'=~~ ! ~ . ' i l ~ ~ - t ~ L--- PEN AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # 4 Existing Site Context This site is located south of the Millennium Hertel tennis courts and parking area, as ~tiell as the Boulder Creek path. The Millennium tennis courts and associated parking areas are within the Boulder Creek flood plain conveyance /high hazard zones and are restricted for development accordingly. As indicated below, the Village at Boulder Creek is ithin the Houlder Cxeek 100- year tloodplain and subject to the 100 year lloodplain regulations. - ~ et r - i - ~ , - lerial Cuntc~t ~~\-lap - - . r' 9i _ ~4 `u ~ as ~ a } 7 t . ,iFtC~jjj~i~ _ ~ i f = ~ 7?. - i f~ c .r 3 ~E CC L 4 ~1 ~ I , , _ iY.3. ~ f; ~ ~ ~ , , AGENDA ITEM # ~A PAGE # r Flood lone 11~~r ~ ~ 'E'~ } - ~ Conveyance ~~_x ; - - Year 1 ` ? h ~ ~ 1 t Y 111 f {S`~-~-~y ti Y: + S-~ 1 ~ ~ t ~ ~a t ~,1 ~ ~ Y [ J ~ ri Immediately to the south and east is the Village at Boulder Creek, a 126 unit multi-family housing development constructed in 2000. Beyond the Village at Boulder Creek to the south is a north- facing hillside where the local topography changes rapidly. The University Heights neighborhood is located at the top of the hillside and is approximately 4~ feet to 52 feet above the residences at the Boulder Creek site, making the proposed towers visible from many of the homes located in the University Heights neighborhood. While the University Heights neighborhood is located in close proximity to the site, the topography creates a significant geographic separation between the sites. Building heights in the area vary. The Millennium Hotel immediately north of the site is approximately 60 feet tall. The buildings at the Village at Boulder Creek immediately south of the site across Taft are four stories at 43 and 49 feet tall. Additionally, Landmark Lofts Phase I across 28t1i Street located at 1000 28`I' Street has been approved with four story buildings at heights of 55 feet as well as the Golden West Manor addition located at 1055 Adams Circle (which front onto to 28t1i Street). Currently the existing Good Samaritan facility is vacant. Attachment B provided by the applicant at the time of the original Site Review application in April 2007 provides additional information regarding the relocation of previous Good Samaritan residents. Project Description The original Site Review from April 2007 for the residences at Boulder Creek was approved for a total of 117 congregate care units with the following unit mix: AGENDA ITEM # SA PACE # 6 Unit Type Number of Approved Units Number of Proposed Units 1 Bedroom 50 39 2 Bedroom 67 60 3 Bedroom 0 l8 TOTAL 117 117 As indicated by the table above, the total number of units has not changed; however, the unit mix has changed with the addition of 18, three bedroom units and 7, two bedroom units. Eleven one bedroom units will be reduced. Section 9-16, B.R.C., 1981, congregate care facilities are defined as: A,faciliry jor long-term residence exclusively by persons sixty years of age or older, and which shall include, without limitation, common dining and social and recreational features, special safety and convenience features designed for the needs of the elderly, such as emergency call systems, grab bars and handrails, special door hardware, cabinets, appliances, passageways, and doorways designed to accommodate wheelchairs, and the provision of social services for residents which must include at least two of the,fol[owing: meal services, transportation, housekeeping, linen, and organized social activities. Per Section 9-8-6(d), B.R.C., 1981, for the purposes of calculating density, three congregate care units are considered the equivalent to one standard, market rate residential unit. Based on the size of the subject property, the site could support 57 standard residential units based on a lot area of 91,773 square feet, as the RH-5 zone allows one unit per 1,600 square feet of lot area (91,773 / 1600 = 57). Based on the density conversion for congregate care, a maximum of 171 congregate care units are permitted on-site (57 x 3 = 171), however, only 117 were approved through the original Site Review. The amount of units is not proposed to change under the proposed amendment; however, the three proposed buildings will expand by a total of 8,984 square feet or approximately 4.5%. In accordance with the original approval (refer to Attachment C), the site will be redeveloped to retain the existing 9 story tower, with two podium style 55' tall buildings constructed on the east and west sides of the existing tower with at-grade parking garages on the first floor. The proposed development will also be restricted to residents ages 60 and over and will provide meal service as well as a shared shuttle service for residents in compliance with the land use code definition for a congregate care facility found in Section 9-16, B.R.C., 1981. Essentially, as indicated by Attachment C, the proposed amendments involve alteration of the building footprints to allow for more building articulation and rearrangement of units to be slightly larger and more functional for residents. Unit layouts have been expanded to better accommodate furnishings, as well as a three bedroom option for residents. The first level interior floor plans will be reoriented to locate the main kitchen closer to the loading area to make service, deliveries, and trash removal easier and less disruptive for residents. Finally, the reoriented first level floor plan will allow better transparency and direct pedestrian connectivity through the middle of the building from the main entrance on the south side of the building to the north side of the building. Elevator locations have also been moved closer to the interior of the buildings to be more convenient for residents. As originally proposed, the two new podium buildings will have grade-level parking garages integrated into the first floor of the building screened and disguised by building fagade elements. The parking garages will meet floodplain regulations which require that the lowest floor of all AGENDA ITEM#SA PAGE#7 residential units be elevated at or above the flood protection elevation (two feet above predicted 100-year flood levels.) Access to the site will not change from the original approval. Four driveways have been proposed to support access to the site. Garage access will be provided on the east and west sides of the property, as well as two curb cuts from Tafr on the south side of the site to allow for circulation of the covered drop off at the main entrance to the towers. The loading and service area will remain on the north west corner of the site. A network of sidewalks is proposed around the buildings to provide easy and convenient pedestrian access around the property as well as to the Boulder Creek path and the various outdoor seating and garden areas proposed. As indicated by Attachment C.; the proposed towers were originally approved with large flat roof expanses and minimal architectural detailing. The proposed amendments involve architectural enhancements to increase fagade articulation by creating additional building movement, variation of roof forms through the addition of hip and gable roof elements and cornices. High quality faFade materials have been proposed as part of the amendment to replace portions of the original stucco expanses, including the addition of a masonry plinth, awnings, and additional first floor glazing and landscape walls to help anchor the building and reduce overall building mass, while increasing screening for parking garages and improving the overall visual and pedestrian appeal of the buildings. Additional windows will be added to the tower to open views from the units as well. No additional mechanical equipment will be relocated to the roof than was originally planned and approved as indicated by the proposed conditions of approval. Eight condenser units will be placed on the proposed east and west towers respectively. All mechanical equipment will be appropriately screened and insulated from public view and will not exceed more than four feet from the top of the roof as indicated by the attached conditions of approval. As indicated by Attachment D, the applicant retained an acoustical engineer to provide an analysis of the potential noise generated by the condenser units. As noted in the study, the proposed condenser units will not violate the city's noise ordinance and will have little impact on surrounding residential units. Building heights of 55 feet will not change from the originally approved Site Review application nor will the amount of parking. Although open space will be slightly diminished from 40% to 39% to accommodate the building expansion, the site will remain in excess of the 20°l0 on-site open space required by the Development Code. The originally approved network of sidewalks around the building will not change, and landscape materials have been rearranged to result in no net loss of landscape material. Additionally, outdoor dining and outdoor sitting areas will remain on both the north and west sides of the building. Proposed expansion of the building is as follows: Original Floor Ap rova] Proposed SF Increase SF Ground 44,672 46,409 1737 Two 34,394 42,988 3594 Three 34,546 36,784 2238 Four 34,546 35,961 1425 Five -Nine 46,620 46,620 0 TOTAL: 199,778 208,762 8,994 AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # 8 Since the number of overall bedrooms will increase with the proposed three bedroom option, the proposed parking reduction would increase from 17% to 24%. The proposed parking reduction is discussed below under the analysis portion of this memo. ANALYSIS: 1) Is the amended plan consistent with Site Review criteria? As noted above, the site is located within an area designated for high density residential development. The area to the north is zoned Business Transitional (Millennium Hotel), Residential High - 5 to the east, Public to the west (CU campus) and Residential Low - 1 (University Heights) to the south. With the exception of the University Heights neighborhood to the south, the site is surrounded with high density residential and commercial uses. Development of the site based on the Site Review criteria requires consideration of the impacts to all surrounding land uses. The most sensitive area of concern is the single family zoned areas to the south of the site in the University Heights neighborhood. Staff has found the proposed amendments to be on balance, an improvement to the original approval from April 2007. While the buildings will expand by approximately 4.5%, the proposed architectural and material changes and overall building detailing will help to make the building more visually attractive and pedestrian friendly. Since no new Land Use Code modifications are proposed (with the exception of a 7% increase in the proposed parking reduction) the additional square footage will not result in any additional impacts on the area not originally contemplated under the original Site Review approval from April 2007. Per Attachment E, staff has found the proposed amendments compatible with all Site Review and applicable BVCP criteria, especially with relation to neighborhood compatibility and building design for the public realm. 2) Are the proposed building design amendments compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area? Under the original Site Review approval, the applicant worked closely with staff to develop a building that would blend with the existing architecture of the area. The building form, size, and materials were originally proposed to be similar to the approved Village at Boulder Creek Site Review (immediately south and east of the site) with use of stucco as the primary building material. The proposed material changes to masonry, wood, metal, and stucco will be an upgrade in many cases from the materials used in the existing Village at Boulder Creek apartments and condos. Masonry will be used up to the first and second floors of the building, in addition to the stucco element of the existing buildings. The existing tower will be refaced with a new stucco facade. Individual patios will be added to the outside of the tower to the 55' height limit, but will not be added above 55 feet. Building changes above 55' are limited to the addition ofwindows and changes in the exterior materials only; new elements which add floor area such as decks can not be added to the exterior of the building above 55 feet. Awnings, landscaped walls, additional glazing, and wood trellis elements have also been added to help better disguise the parking garages while adding pedestrian interest at the street level. Building heights to 55' have been proposed, consistent with the existing buildings in the Village at Boulder Creek. The new buildings will have flat roofs with some mechanical equipment to be placed on the roofs as noted above. Based on the photo simulation included in Attachment C. The proposed building heights have been shown to have no impacts on views through the site from the south to the mountain backdrop. The original approval for the Village at Boulder Creek required all mechanical equipment to be placed/screened within the finished roof line of the building. Standard ridgeline roofs were required to meet this criterion. This site is not directly adjacent to the University Heights AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # 9 Neighborhood, however, roof top mechanical units will be easily visible to neighbors and sound from roof top mechanical units may be audible if not appropriately screened and soundproofed. To maintain consistency with this previous condition, staff has included as a condition of approval that mechanical units located on, or through the roof not exceed a height of 4' above the finished roof. In addition, other than solar panels, screening of the mechanical elements shall include both visual and sound reduction design elements. If it becomes necessary to have larger mechanical equipment placed on the roof, this condition will require mechanical equipment rooms to be developed into the fourth floor of the buildings and not be taller than the approved height of 4' above the roof line. As noted above, this site is in the Boulder Creek floodplain, requiring new residential structures to be placed above the flood protection elevation. As a result, the living spaces have been raised above the ground floor to the second floor level. A parking garage will be developed at the ground floor level. The proposed architecture will screen the parking garages from view through design treatments to the first floor facade to make the garages appear as an active floor with landscaping, window forms, awnings, shapes, colors and fenestration elements. The originally approved Site Review included ground level parking structures that were not well disguised or architecturally detailed, resulting in conditions of approval related to the design of the first floor element of the building (refer to Attachment B). In addition, the yards adjacent to Tab Drive will be heavily landscaped to break up the various building elements and screen large sections of the false facade at the first floor level. Overall, the proposed amendment results in an improved appearance where the parking garages are better integrated into the building. Connectivity is also a major consideration of site development, especially in the area of the site based on the proximity to the Boulder Creek path. Large numbers of students traverse the area between the student populated areas east of 28`x' Street and the CU campus located directly west ofthe site. The existing building is over 650 feet long with no breaks in the building for north / south pedestrian access. Site Review criteria encourage buildings to be broken up into a series of building modules to allow for permeability and pedestrian access between buildings. The redesigned building has been designed to appear as a series of individual modules at the street level and while no actual separation occurs between buildings, the revised ground level floor plan will allow for direct north /south pedestrian access through the buildings (as opposed to the originally approved floor plans). As a building designed for senior citizen use, the internal connections through and between the buildings are critical to the success of the development and the convenience and usability of the residents. The proposed amendments strengthen the internal building connections and therefore result in more useable, direct, improved access on site for residents and visitors. Additionally, the plan will provide improved pedestrian access to the Boulder Creek Trail path at the north, east and west ends of the new buildings in conjunction with the walkway(s) that will circle the site (where only east and west building accesses were proposed under the original Site Review approval). 3. Is the requested 24% parking reduction appropriate for this use? The applicant is required by the general parking requirements of the code to provide I parkv~g space per 1 bedroom unit, 1.5 parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit, and 2 parking spaces per 3 bedroom unit for attached residential development in the RH-5 zone district. Section 9-9-6, B.R.C., 1981 contains a supplemental regulation that allows congregate care facilities to provide a level ofoff-street parking appropriate to the needs and use of the facility as determined through AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # 10 review. Additionally, per Section 9-9-6(f)(1), B.R.C., 198], the Land Use Code permits staff to consider a parking reduction of up to 70% administratively for governmentally sponsored housing for the elderly. Based on the proposed mix of units below, 165 parking spaces are required: Unit Type Number of Units Required Spaces Per Unit Total Required Spaces I Bedroom 39 1 39 2 Bedroom 60 1.5 90 3 Bedroom 18 2 36 TOTAL 117 N/A 165 As noted, a total of 165 parking spaces are required for the mix of one, two, and three bedroom units proposed. Based on Attachment C, the applicant will provide 134 parking spaces (with 82 on-site in the proposed garages and 52 off-site spaces located directly across the street at 2510 Tafr (refer to Attachment F for cross-parking agreement map), however, 9 of these will be tandem spaces which are not credited under the land use code. Removing the 9 tandem spaces, 125 credited spaces meeting city standards are proposed resulting in a 24% parking reduction. (If the tandem spaces were credited under the development code, an ] 8% reduction would be required.) The applicant has also provided a parking analysis in Attachment C on 7 similar age-restricted developments in other congregate care communities. The average number of spaces needed to serve these facilities is 0.70 spaces per unit. As indicated by the study, the applicant is providing more than one parking space per unit. Per Section 9-2-14(K), B.R.C., 1981, the following criteria must be satisfied to be considered for a parking reduction: (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 accommodated. Based on the study provided in Attachment G, the average number of parking spaces needed to support a congregate care facility is 0.7. Based on the total number of spaces provided, the site will accommodate more than one parking space per unit. (b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses will be adequately accommodated through on- street parking or off-street parking; Not applicable. The proposed development does not contain any non-residential uses that will be open to the public. (c) A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; Not applicable. The proposed development is residential. (d) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and Not applicable. No joint or shared parking arrangement is proposed. (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. A significant portion of the logic for the proposed parking reduction is based on the fact that the units will remain age restricted senior citizen congregate care housing which generally have lower vehicle AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # I1 storage requirements. Based on reviews of other senior citizen communities as provided by the applicant in Attachment C, staff supports the request fora 24% parking reduction at this location. 4. Are the proposed Land Use Code modifications appropriate for the site? As noted above, the following Land Use Code modifications were originally approved as a part of the original Site Review application from April 2007. Since the Site Review process is a hearing de novo, all Land Use Code modifications must be reconsidered: 1) Section 9-7-1, B.R.C., 1981 to allow for a height modification to 55 feet (where a maximwn of 35 feet is permitted by right). Building heights in the area are similar to the proposed 55 foot tall building elements. The Millennium Hotel immediately north of the site is approximately 60 feet tall. The buildings at the Village at Boulder Creek immediately south and east of the site are between 43 and 49 feet tall. Additionally, Landmark Lofts Phase I across 28`x' Street located at 1000 28`h Street has been approved with building heights of 55 feet, as welt as the Golden West addition located at 1055 Adams Circle (which front anto 28`x' Street). Per Section 9-5-7(d), B.R.C., 1981, structures attached above grade are measured as one structure. As a result, the maximum SS height only occurs at the eastern end of the building. The building height at the western end (west of the tower) is approximately 7' to 8' lower. The existing tree line along the Boulder Creek corridor includes cottonwoods and willow trees with mature heights varying from 50 to 65'. For areas south of the new buildings, the tree line heights screen more of the mountain backdrop than the new buildings, as illustrated in the photo simulation included in Attachment C. Based on the high density nature of the area and the surrounding area context, staff supports the proposed 55 foot tall building heights. 2) Section 9-7-1, S.R.C., 1981 to allow four story buildings (where three stories are permitted by right). Several 4 and 5 story buildings exist or have recently been approved in the area (refer to response # 1 above). Based on the high density nature of the area and the surrounding area context, staff supports the proposed 4 story buildings. 3) Section 9-7-1, B.R.C., 1981 to allow a 10.5 foot setback modification on the south side of the site in order to accommodate aporte-cochere along Taft Drive. A 12.5 foot side adjacent to street setback is required for properties in the RH-5 zone district. Based nn the proposed occupancy, staff supports the proposed setback reduction in order to allow for a covered drop-off /pick-up area 2 feet from the southern property line. Additionally, the porte-cochere will also serve as a formal architectural element helping to define the main entry to the building. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS As required, residents within 600' of the Village at Boulder Creek boundaries were notified of this application. A number of residents requested additional notification by email of the Planning Board meeting and were notified of the specific date of the hearing. A neighborhood meeting with residents was held on October 23, 2007 as well as November 26, 2007 and was attended by AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # 12 approximately 20 neighbors. At the October 23, 2007 meeting, concerned residents requested an acoustical analysis of the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment which was presented to the neighbors on November 26, 2007. While neighbors appeared satisfied with the results, they notified the applicant that they would seek an independent acoustical consultant to review the results of the analysis. Staff has received verbal and written comments from residents located in the University Heights Subdivision to the south of the site. Concerns were expressed regarding placement of mechanical equipment on the roofs and the view and noise impacts which may result. The type of balconies will be constructed in a way that assures that undue ambient noise is not generated from the design of the balconies. Concerns were also expressed that the proposed parking reductions will further impact the already limited parking available along Taft Drive. Additionally, staff has received a letter of support for the proposed project from the General Manager of the Millennium Harvest House Hotel to the north. Please refer to Attachment G for all correspondence received by staff. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Planning staff finds that this application for Site Review Amendment is consistent with the Site Review Criteria found in Section 9-2-14, B.R.C., 1981. A height of 55' is appropriate at this location based on the findings that the new buildings will be consistent with the original development of the Village at Boulder Creek Site Review and the findings of this memo. Staff recommends Planning Board approval, incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact subject to the following Recommended Conditions of Approval: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated December 3, 2007 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Rooftop mechanical shall not exceed a height of 4' above the final approved roofline. Mechanical rooms placed on the roof shall not exceed the 4' height above the rooftop. If taller mechanical equipment rooms or screening structures are necessary, they shall be incorporated into the fourth floor such that the 4' above roof height is not exceeded. The new mechanical rooms or screening structures shall utilize the best available technology possible to attenuate sound transmission and shall be insulated to reduce noise and visual impacts. At the time of building permit, the applicant shall submit manufacturer specifications for the proposed rooftop mechanical units accompanied by a letter from an acoustical engineer verifying that the noise transmission from the proposed units will be compliant with the city's noise ordinance found in Section 5-9, B.R.C, 1981 and remain consistent with the existing Village at Boulder Creek Site Plan and Site Review criteria "Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area", 9-2-14(h)(2)(F), B.R.C. 1981. 3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, and subject to the approval of the Planning Department: a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, and floor plans to insure AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # 13 compliance with the intent of this approval (and compatibility with the surrounding area). The intent of the proposed architecture is acceptable, however, architectural details such as parking garage windows, and rooftop mechanical screening and insulation will be reviewed at the Techical Document Review stage. b. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality ofnon-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed, and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the city's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in city right-of--way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester. On site walkways and hard surfaces shall be constructed to minimize the number of transitions in materials and type to provide a consistent pavement surface and smooth transitions between materials. c. Final transportation plans in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all transportation improvements. These plans must include, but are not limited to, the following: i) A signage and striping plan in accordance with the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. d. Final storm water plans and report in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all storm water improvements. e. Final utility plans in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all sewer, water, and street lighting improvements. These plans must include, but are not limited to, the installation of required fire hydrants and installationlupgrade(relocation ofstreet lighting as detailed in the city development review comments dated February 23, 2007. £ A Floodplain Development Permit that meets the requirements of 9-3-6, B.R.C. 1981. g. Dedicate to the city, at no cost, a public access easement dedication in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for the proposed CDOT Type 1 drive cut. h. Dedicate to the city, at no cost, a public utility easement dedication in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all proposed public utilities located outside the city right-of--way. i. Final parking management plan that includes signage for the parking areas and designation of parking areas for residents, employees, and visitors of the property. j. Final floor plans that include an exterior access-way through the building, if practical from the north side of the building to the south side of the building in a location that is east of the tower. If the exterior access-way through the building is not practical, the applicant shall provide a major access from the north side of the building. 4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall provide the city with a financial guarantee, in a form mutually acceptable to the Director of Public Works and the Applicant, for the eco-passes required in the approved Transportation Demand Management plan. AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # 14 5. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall apply for a Revocable Permit for all existing private street lights located within the public right-of--way. 6. Upon execution of the Development Agreement, this approval shall replace the April 5, 2007 Planning Board Disposition of Approval, the Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 2170389 on July 6, 2001, and the Development Agreement recorded at Film No. 1685, Reception No. 01120322 for PUD #P-90-50. Approved By: Ruth Iv cH ser, Achn tanning Director Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Disposition of Approval /Plans from LUR#2006-00102 and Planning Board Minutes from April 5, 2007 Attachment C: Applicant Plans and Written Statement Attachment D: Acoustical Study Results dated November 19, 2007 Attachment E: Staff Analysis of Site Review Criteria Attachment F: Map of Recorded Cross Parking Agreement with 2510 Taft Attachment G: Neighborhood Comments S:\PLAN\PB-ITEMS\MEMOS\2525 Taft SRA.CF.doc AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE # 15 - - - _ - - ATTACHMENT A City of Boulder Vicinity Map - Arapahoe Av - ,t ' - i I I~ _ i -9.. ~ - _ _ . , - - ~ ~ - Olson Dr B T 1 ~ - - RH-5 - ~ RL 1 - _ N Cordry Ct P I~ E ~ ~ ~ ,J Taft_Dr ~ ~ ~o H - Subject Area R M ~~,IK 2525 Taff Dr t,µ. t fkfF University Heights A: ~ d ~ } .A- ~ is - R r~ m. .~.~.ff i.. .~iA'.'S'k I ~_.__.I i I ~ ~ ~ ~ -i~ - ~ ~ ~ ! _ R'L- ~ ~ i - _ ~ Colora ~ ~ doAv - r -t- _ Jr___~f__ _ t s ~r R H 5 i 4~ r- Q . _ r _ , - J Subject j ~ ~ _ ~.--r_.,--~-----_ -_-_I 1•~ 1--1- 3 ~ _ . . ~ _ ~ i~ K i i - - Location: 2525 Taft Dr ~ ~A, I Project Name: Residences at Boulder Creek { '1~1. ~~~r\~~ Review Type: Site Review Amendment Bc~rrlc%~~~ The information depicted on this map is provided Review Number: LUR2007-00053 as graphical representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty, expressed or implied, as to 1 inch e ua Is 4fl0 feet the accuracy and/or completeness of the information Applicant: Mike Gerber q , ~ , co aine hereon /_1 I I'1'] i . y ~ i s,~ ix rl ATTACHMENT B WEEKLY INFORMATION PACKET MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ruzzin and Members of City Council FROM: Frank Bruno, City Manager Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Ray, Current Planning Manager Brent Bean, Senior Planner DATE: April 26, 2007 SUBJECT: Call Up Item: Planning Board approval of Site Review LUR2006-00102 for Village at Boulder Creek, more specifically referred to as the Residences at Boulder Creek, which is a 2.11 acre lot zoned RH-5 (Residential High - 5), to develop 117 congregate care units at 2525 Taft Drive. The request includes exceptions to building heights to develop two new four story buildings with heights to 55 feet, a side yard adjacent to a street setback of 2' for a porte-cochere and a 17% parking reduction. This approval is subject to City Council call-up no later than May I, 2007. This item was heard by the Planning Board at the April 5, 2007 meeting. The Planning Board conditionally approved Site Review LUR2006-00102 for the Village at Boulder Creek (6 - 0, E. Jones abstained) amending the recommended conditions of approval to include: On a motion by B. Holicky, seconded by R. Sosa, the Planning Board added the following condition as 3j. Final parking management plan that includes signage for the parking areas and designation of parking areas for residents, employees, and visitors of the property. Vote 4-2 (W. Johnson, A. Sopher, opposed, E. Jones abstained) On a motion by B. Holicky, seconded by A. Sopher, the Planning Board added the following condition as 3k. Final floor plans that include an exterior access-way through the building, if practical from the north side of the building to the south side of the building in a location that is east of the tower. If the exterior access-way through the building is not practical, the applicant shall provide a major access from the north side of the building. Vote 6-0 (E. Jones abstained) On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board added a parking reduction of up to 20%. Vote 6-0 (E. Jones abstained) On a second motion by A. Sopher, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board recommended that the transportation division look into either adding the Village at Boulder Creek area to the University Heights parking district or creating a new parking district. Vote 7-0 The decision can be reviewed by the City Council by serving written notice to the Planning Board by May 1, 2007, and notifying the applicant of the call-up. aaeadalt~# 5~ # f CITY OF BOULDER ~~,y~,r Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 797, Boulder, CO 80306-0797 phone 303-441-1880 fax 303-441-3241 web boulderplantlevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF DISPOSITION You are hereby advised that on April 5, 2007 the following action was taken by the Planning Board based on the standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9-0, B.R.C. 1981, as applied to the proposed development. DECISION: Approved with conditions PROJECT NAME: RESIDENCES AT BOULDER CREEK DESCRIPTION: Site Review for the Village at Boulder Creek, more specifically referred to as the Residences at Boulder Creek, which is a 2.11 acre lotto develop 117 congregate care units. The request includes exceptions to building heights to develop two new four story buildings with heights l0 55 feet, a side yard adjacent to a street setback of 2' for a Porte-cochere and a 97 % parking reduction. LOCATION: 2525 Taft Dr. CDOR: N02W04 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block ,Subdivision VILLAGE AT BOULDER CREEK City of Boulder, County of Boulder, State of Colorado OWNER: The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society APPLICATION: Site Review, LUR2006-00102 ZONING: RN-5 (Residential High - 5) CASE MANAGER: Brent Bean VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: NO; the owner has waived the opportunity to create such right under Section 9-4-12, B.R.C. 1981. This decision may be called up before the City Council on or before May 1, 2007. If no call-up occurs, the decision is deemed final thirty days after the Planning Board's decision. FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION. IN ORDER FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS PROJECT, A SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED MYLAR PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CONDITIONS AS APPROVED SHOWN ON THE MYLAR PLANS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED W (THIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRES. Pursuant to Section 9-4-8 of the Land Use Regulations (Boulder Revised Code, 1981), the applicant must begin and substantially complete the approved development within three years from the date of final approval [or m compliance with the phasing plan[. Failure to "substantially complete" (as defined in Section 9-4-8) the development within three years [or in compliance with the phasing plan) shall cause this development approval to expire. Ai its public hearing on April 5, 2007 the Planning Board Approved the reGuesl with the following motions: On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board approved Site Review LUR2006-00102 for the Village at Boulder Creek, more specifically referred to as the Residences at Boulder Creek, incorporating the staff memorandum and the Site Review Criteria as findinys of tact, and using the following recommended conditions of approval. Vote 6-0 (E. Jones absent) On a motion by B. Holicky, seconded by R. Sosa, the Planning Board approved amending the main motion to add the following condition as 3j. Final parking management plan that includes signage for the parking areas and designation of parking areas for residents, employees, and visitors of the propeny- Vote 4-2 (W. Johnson, A. Sopher, opposed, E. Jones absent) On a motion by B. Holicky, seconded by A. Sopher, the Planning Board approved amending the main motion to add the following condition as 3k. Final floor plans that include an exterior access-way through the building, if practical from the north side of the building to the south side of the building in a location that is east of the tower. If the exterior access-way through the building is not practical, the applicant shall provide a major access from the north side of the building. Vote 6-D (E. Jones absent) On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board approved amending the main motion to add a parking reduction of up to 20%. Vote 6-0 (E. Jones absent) On a second motion by A. Sopber, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board recommended that the transportation division look into either adding the Village at Boulder Creek area to the University Heights parking district or creasing a new parking district. Vote 7-0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 . The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated March 27, 2007 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 2170389 on July 6, 2007 and Development Agreement recorded at Film No. 16B5, Reception No. 01120322 for PUD kP-90-50, except as may be modified by This approval. 3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, and subject to the approval of the Planning and Development Services: a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval (and compatibility with the surrounding area). Openings ad}acent to the first floor parking structure shall include canopies over at least SO°/ of the openings/window facade. Final design of the openings shall include metal or wood trim creating the appearance of window fenestration within the actual opening, or a false window facade. Abase (plinth) shall be provided along bottom of the eastern building frontage to frame the false window openings at the bottom. b. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed, and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval oI the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in City right-of-way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester. On site walkways and hard surfaces shall be consVucted to minimize the number of transitions in materials and Type to provide a consistent pavement surface and smooth transitions between materials. c. Final transportation plans in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all transportation improvements. These plans must include, but are not limited to. the following: i} A signage and striping plan in accordance with the Manual for Undorm Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. ii) A plan for the northwest access to the site which shall be a shared driveway with the property owner to the north. If the Applicant and the property owner to the north are unable io reach an agreement reyarding said shared driveway, said plan shall incltMe a separate drive for the Residences at Boulder Creek which shall incorporate a 60' long nn ~ {~t.;a~al!f 7G~Y ~~u ~i~~ City of Boulder Vicinity Map _ HZ-E T B - E Arapahoe Av RB-E TB-D ,i .=~:x ry MR~Eu_~~ _ Subject Area 2525 Taft Dr ~ TB-D LR-E P _ E ~''-i R - E', H'R- E Tafi'Dr 11 11 ~ ~ ~ M R- E 1.n i University Heights Av „C - ~ ~~H R E L R- E Colorado Av _ ~ . xa Y _ HR1-x H _ _ - /1~%~%,~y,,~' Project NameSTaftf iDrive Senior Residences , i Review T e: Conce t Plan i ~ ~ Yp p ~ RurTldc'r ~ Review and Comment .~y~~°;,, R I ~~o ~eoK ~ ~ ~ as J aph ra reGrESEn at o r. 1 ..1 v _oC P j Review Number: LUR2006-00009 Fro+~e owj~r ;1 E [ c c~ a " Applicant: Mike Gerber 1 inch equals 400 feet I cor;ar~Jrerrri~,G ~~i~.:. r ~~ma ~ 2525 Taft 5treef Acquisition, LLC i _ I a _ N , - - - f Lant.•B~pio Arcnrtucts, P.C. ) ; _ 1 1 7 ! ~ ~ i£j, ~i t i - !~1 1 -rh ~ I`--' ~3.. ' rim ~ 1 y:<- '7 ~ j W t J.I. JJ rub i rw.~ 31 ~"~tf ,~.~.1~~i 1 ~ 3r..~ ~.rti `7-.. ~~y~"a`" ~ ~ -ar-r~i ~~w."s~tl~~ a~ ] ' _ ~ 'W+b~sry`-~a~s~ ~k`~F1 "c5l ..-J~uw7" u.s-t+'`.i -.~wr-' C - i-..t "7 "1...:.i#'~~ ''-l" '~~r'7~a1+1~'+<, --7 .Ird4y 7j~~~ Y~.~~ ~i~ i , ~t - ~ c-sr1 r r _ ..~-~-r--- .f----r- - e*~ f ~r; ~ ~ _ _ I - aur~`ap.} ~rsr ! ~y L r~.r~~ri 1 ~a ~ ~ ~ruur _ ~ i~ `.-!R~r Gi"'.jg,~ ±.71S~1-C-L.,gg C... •w rs S~i~L,.~~,G,,y~~~~ :,L i9+--c:.:JC"m~'~"'3',i~5 i5~ " "':b6 , ~.Cn~a~56~G"s !"rtr.i=~~..C.Yii+.~"~ , f f ~ ~ ~ f'! C r~-~' ;r`_.;~; -r°,~ H ~ 4 r..r r rr~ r r r t~ l ~ r r~~ r. r -I , I l r r ~-r ~r r~ . --~~r - i n- :xt t,E e & ~ ~ . ~ 'ss r~ j ~ ' - - . ~ A3.0 i; 1~. ji`s)irs?~~.1 ))i'!3 s.a?, ll,+i / CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES April 5, 2007 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/planningboard/agendas PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair, left at 6:50, rejoined at 8:40 Phil Shull Adrian Sopher Richard Sosa Willa Johnson Bill Holicky Andrew Shoemaker STAFF PRESENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Karl Guiler, Planner Brent Bean, Senior Planner Michelle Allen, Administrative Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, E. Jones, declared a quorum at 6:07 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION F. W. Williams, Boulder 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS None 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on an ordinance to permit the Trinity Commons project, located at 2200 Broadway, to proceed to Site Review with modifications to the allowable number of units and floor area of the BT-2, Transitional Business zoning district. Applicant/Property Owner: Trinity Lutheran Church r,~a SIB _ I=~'~#_~'---~_ Public Participation Pete List, 7496 Old Trail, Boulder On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by R. Sosa, the Planning Board recommended that City Council approve an ordinance allowing the Trinity Commons project, located at 2200 Broadway, to proceed to Site Review with modifications to the allowable number of units and floor area of the BT-2, Transitional Business zoning district and incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact. Vote 6-0 (P. Shull, recused) B. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review LUR2006-00102 for Village at Boulder Creek, more specifically referred to as the Residences at Boulder Creek, which is a 2.11 acre lot zoned RH-5 (Residential High - 5), to develop 1 l7 congregate care units at 2525 Taft Drive. The request includes exceptions to building heights to develop two new four story buildings with heights to 55 feet, a side yard adjacent to a street setback of 2' for a pone-cochere and a 17% parking reduction. Applicant: MGL partners Owner: The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society Public Participation Mark Bossert, 2605 University Heights, Boulder Maureen Spaid, 2505 University heights, Boulder Frank Spaid, 2505 University Heights, Boulder Lorma Devine, 2695 University Heights, Boulder Christopher Shears, 365 Quail Cir., Boulder Clark Davis, 2850 LaGrange Cir., Boulder On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board approved Site Review LUR2006-00102 for the Village at Boulder Creek, more specifically referred to as the Residences at Boulder Creek, incorporating the staff memorandum and the Site Review Criteria as findings of fact, and using the following recommended conditions of approval. Vote 6-0 (E. Jones absent) On a motion by B. Holicky, seconded by R. Sosa, the Planning Board approved amending the main motion to add the following condition as 3j. Final parking management plan that includes signage for the parking areas and designation of parking aeeas for residents, employees, and visitors of the property. Vote 6-0 (E. Jones absent) On a motion by B. Holicky, seconded by A. Sopher, the Planning Board approved amending the main motion to add the following condition as 3k. Final floor plans that include an exterior access-way through the building, if practical from the north side of the building to the south side of the building in a location that is east of the tower. If the exterior access-way through the building is not practical, the applicant shall provide a major access from the north side of the building. Vote 4-2 (W. Johnson, A. Sopher, opposed, E. Jones absent) On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board approved amending the main motion to add a parking reduction of up to 20%. Vote 6-0 (E. Jones absent) On a second motion by A. Sopher, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board recommended that the transportation division look into either adding the Village at Boulder Creek area to the University Heights parking district or creating a new parking , district. Vote 7-0 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated March 21, 2007 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 2170389 on July 6, 2001 and Development Agreement recorded at Film No. 1685, Reception No. 01120322 for PUD #P-90-50, except as may be modified by this approval. 3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, and subject to the approval of the Planning and Development Services: a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval (and compatibility with the surrounding azea). Openings adjacent to the first floor pazking structure shall include canopies over at least 50% of the openings/window facade. Final design of the openings shall include metal or wood trim creating the appeazance of window fenestration within the actual opening, or a false window facade. Abase (plinth) shall be provided along bottom of the eastern building frontage to frame the false window openings at the bottom. b. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed, and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in City tight-of-way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester. On site walkways and hard surfaces shall be constructed to minimize the number of transitions in materials and type to provide a consistent pavement surface and smooth transitions between materials. c. Final transportation plans in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all transportation improvements. These plans must include, but are not limited to, the following: i) A signage and striping plan in accordance with the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. ii) A plan for the northwest access to the site which shall be a shared driveway with the property owner to the north. If the Applicant and the property owner to the north are unable to reach an agreement regarding said shared driveway, said plan shall include a separate drive for the Residences at Boulder Creek which shall incorporate a 60' long north/south tum-around lane on site. The 60' turn-around lane may include the pedestrian walkway along the north property line, provided the walkway is constructed of a contrasting color or material. d. Final storm water plans and report in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all storm water improvements. e. Final utility plans in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standazds for all sewer, water, and street lighting improvements. These plans must include, but are not limited to, the installation of required fire hydrants and installation/upgrade/relocation of street lighting as detailed in the City development review comments dated February 23, 2007. f. A Floodplain Development Permit that meets the requirements of 9-3-6, B.R.C. 1981. g. A detailed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to the Public Works Department for review and approval that provides for a practical and beneficial shift away from single occupant vehicle use to alternate modes through the use of travel demand techniques. h. Public access easement dedication in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for the proposed CDOT Type 1 drive cut. i. Public utility easement dedication in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all proposed public utilities located outside the city right-of-way. j. Final parking management plan that includes signage for the parking areas and designation of parking areas for residents, employees, and visitors of the property. k. Final floor plans that include an exterior access-way through the building, if practical from the north side of the building to the south side of the building in a location that is east of the tower. If the exterior access-way through the building is not practical, the applicant shall provide a major access from the north side of the building. //i y~ ~y 4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall provide the City with a financial guarantee, in a form mutually acceptable to the Director of Public Works and the Applicant, for the eco-passes required in the approved Transportation Demand Management plan. 5. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall apply for a Revocable Permit for all existing private street lights located within the public right-of-way. 6. Rooftop mechanical shall not exceed a height of 4' above the final approved roofline. Mechanical rooms placed on the roof shall not exceed the 4' height above the rooftop. If taller mechanical equipment rooms are necessazy, they shall be incorporated into the fourth floor such that the 4' above roof height is not exceeded. The new mechanical equipment should limit noise and visual impacts through the site consistent with the existing Village at Boulder Creek Site Plan and Site Review criteria "Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area", 9-2-14(h)(2)(F), B.R.C. 1981. 7. A parking reduction of up to 20%. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY Discussed the agenda for the Planning Boazd retreat. Elected E. Jones Chair, moved by W. Johnson, seconded by A. Sopher. Vote 7-0 Elected P. Shull Vice Chair, moved by E. Jones seconded by A. Shoemaker. Vote 7-0 Made the following to committee/ liaisons assignments: • DDAB: P. Shull (primary) A. Sopher (alternate) • Landmarks: R. Sosa (1st 6 mo) W. Johnson (2nd 6 mo) • Greenways Advisory Committee: R. Sosa • Civic Pad Task Force: P. Shull 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair u 0 DA ' ATTACHMENT C THE RESIDENCES AT BOULDER CREEK SITE REVIEW SUBMITTAL WRITTEN STATEMENT-PROJECT OVERVIEW EXISTING PROPERTY The property is currently owned by the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society. MGL Partners is purchasing an existing senior housing facility (the Boulder Good Samaritan Village) located at 2525 Taft Drive, Boulder, Colorado. The property is 2.09 acres in size and is located on the north side of Taft Drive between Folsom Street and 28`h Street, just north and east of the University of Colorado and south of Boulder Creek. The site is currently zoned HR-E and is under an existing Site Review (see below). The existing buildings on-site include anine-story residential tower (originally constructed in 1966 as student housing) at the west portion of the site, aone-story pool/fitness facility at the center of the site and a vacant one-story building to the east. PROJECT GOAL The property's central location and proximity to the University of Colorado provide a wonderful opportunity to create a unique senior living place where residents will be able to remain active and engaged members of the Boulder Community. Most of Boulder's existing senior housing is older and situated in peripheral locations where it is relatively difficult for residents to maintain the active and engaged lifestyle so important for mental and physical well-being. In contrast, the Residences at Boulder Creek location and amenities will enable (and encourage) its senior residents to integrate their lives into the daily fabric of the larger Boulder community. PROJECT OVERVIEW The property is currently under an existing site review which allows up to 117 senior/congregate care residential units. The proposed project would not increase the total residential unit count above this limit. The existing nine-story tower will be renovated to include approximately 54 senior apartments, along with the necessary social spaces and lifestyle amenities. Also, new senior residential buildings (above on-grade parking) will be constructed to the east of the tower on ground currently occupied by the vacant building, and to the west of the tower on ground currently occupied by the dining wing (new dining facilities will be constructed on the ground floor of the existing tower). MGL is seeking to amend the Site Review to allow for the construction of the new senior residences and parking structures and is seeking a variance from the existing 35-foot HR- E height limit to 55 feet. Upon completion, the entire project will consist of 117 independent living senior housing dwelling units supported by 82 on-site (enclosed) parking spaces (as well as 52 parking spaces already secured via easement at the University Village at Boulder Creek across Taft Drive). The residences will include one bed/one bath apartments, two bed/one bath apartments and two bed/two bath apartments, and will range in size from approximately 810 SF to approximately 1, 425 SF. The on-grade parking areas are below the residential structures above, set back from property lines along the streets and will be screened from view by landscaping and the fully-enclosed garage system that will hide the automobiles inside. The project has been designed to be in compliance with the HR-E zoning ordinance criteria for setbacks, bulk planes and usable open space. DESIGN FEATURES AND CONSIDERATION Amenities• The design of the Residences at Boulder Creek will incorporate many features for the use and enjoyment of the residents. Indoor amenities will include living room, activities areas, fitness center, game and billiard rooms, multiple dining venues, library, computer room, meeting conference room and multiple lounge/gathering spaces. Outdoor amenities will include landscaping courtyards, waiting area at entrance with benches and shade structure, outdoor gardening and lounge space, outdoor dining patio, and on-site pedestrian paths to connect to sidewalks which in-turn connect to the University of Colorado, public bus transportation and the City of Boulder bike path network, specifically along Boulder Creek immediately north of the site. Individual outdoor spaces will be provided through the incorporation exterior balconies for the majority of the swelling units. In addition to these on-site amenities, residents will have easy access to the nearby Millennium Harvest House Hotel, which offers an array of social and recreational activities within the facility. Parkins' The proposed site plan will alleviate some of the current parking demand and congestion along Taft Drive by increasing the number of on-site parking spaces. There are currently approximately 21 on-site parking spaces to support the existing buildings, which will be replaced by 82 parking spaces upon completion of the improvements. Plus 52 off site spaces for a total of 134 spaces. For the senior residents of this project, this amount of parking is appropriate to accommodate the demand, especially given the immediate access to public bus transportation and the shuttle transportation program that will be offered by the building management group. Our management company (Leisure Care) has analyzed the parking requirements of other recently constructed senior communities in it portfolio: Community # of # of Parking # of Stalls per Age of Apartm Stalls Apartment Community ents Brittany Park 205 145 0.71 7 years Woodinville, WA Broadway Proper 232 155 0.67 17 years Tucson, AZ Fairwinds-Ivey Ranch 163 97 0.60 3 years Oceanside, CA Fairwinds-Northpointe 152 126 0.83 5 years Spokane, WA Fairwinds-Sand Creek 120 96 0.80 5 years Idaho Falls, ID Fairwinds-West Hills 115 70 0.61 4 years West Hills, CA Fairwinds-Woodward Park 200 149 0.75 4 years Fresno, CA Average of Existing Leisure Care Communities 170 120 0.71 Approved Plans 117 133 1.14 Amendment 117 134 1.15 Access points to the parking areas are limited to two locations; the far west end of the site and the far east end of the site where the existing curb cut that is shared with the property to the east will be maintained. Open Space and Streetscape: One result of the building and parking improvements to this site will be a dramatic enhancement of the street landscaping. All parking areas will be set back from the property lines and all landscaping within that area will be improved. Particular attention will be given to the property's "front yard", which will be renovated to include new P landscaping elements, pathways, gardening areas and sitting areas that will all be designed to integrate the first floor interior amenities with the streetscape of Taft Drive, and take advantage of the wonderful southern exposure. Location: The property's central location will enable residents to easily access is continuing education and cultural opportunities and events at the University of Colorado campus; ii) recreational activities and amenities (including swimming and tennis) at the Harvest House Sporting Association; iii) the Boulder Creek bike and walking path; iv) entertainment, shopping and other social activities at Arapahoe Village and the new 29`h Street redevelopment. Many of these amenities will be able to be accessed on foot, by bike or by shuttle service, as opposed to by individual automobiles, which will help to minimize vehicular traffic throughout the broader neighborhood. Floodplain• The property is situated in the 100-year floodplain. However, no buildings are in or will be constructed in either the Conveyance Zone or the High-Hazard Zone. Accordingly, the community will i) have all residential units situated at least one story above grade; ii) have no below-grade parking; iii) be designed and constructed with appropriate flood- resistant techniques (i.e., materials in accordance with FEMA Technical Document 2-93, appropriate location of utilities and other service equipment); iv) have aflood-warning system; and v) maintain a flood evacuation plan for all residents. HeiPht: The proposed new residential structures east and west of the existing tower will be taller than the 35 feet allowed by-right under the HR-E zoning, and will thus require a variance as part of Site Review approval. The existing nine-story tower is approximately 96 feet in height to the highest portion and is proposed to remain as such. Design and Materials: The exterior materials, forms and massing proposed for this project have been carefully designed to be compatible and cohesive with the surrounding community, as well as referencing traditional residential images and elements that reflect the use of the buildings. The facades and parapets of the residential buildings will vary in plane, height and fenestration to emphasize the individuality of the dwelling units. The exterior materials will consist of brick, stucco, metal railings and individual windows with non- reflective glass. The palette of exterior colors will range from earth tones to muted pastels, all of which will be sympathetic to and cohesive with the surrounding neighborhood. In particular, the proposed new building to the east of the tower will be designed to break up the long facade into a series of visual modules that appear to be separate buildings with common side walls. Due to technical reasons regarding the placement and spacing of the brick ties on the existing none-story building, all of the brick on that building must be removed. The new exterior elevations indicate the proposed facade treatment on that building, which encompasses the full height of all walls and incorporates windows, balconies and other architectural features (where allowed). The comprehensive exterior treatment maintains an aesthetic consistency between all buildings and upgrades the character of the entire campus and in so doing, enhances the neighborhood as a whole. Community Benefits: Development of the Residences at Boulder Creek will increase both the quantity and quality of senior housing in the City of Boulder, which is seeking to effectively meet the projected long-term growth of its senior population. The city's current stock of senior housing is largely old and characterized by i) extremely small (450-650 SF) and out-dated residential units; and ii) locations that make it difficult for residents to remain actively involved in the larger Boulder community. Conversely, this proposal would provide a wide range of unit types and sizes (one and two-bedroom apartments, from approximately 650-1,300 SF), all characterized by the inclusion of amenities geared towards the senior population of tomorrow as well as today. Providing a range of unit sizes and types will also mean a wide range of prices that will be within reach of a broad section of Boulder's senior population. Just as importantly (perhaps most importantly), the central location of the Taft Residences will provide residents with a unique opportunity to remain engaged in and contribute to the fabric of life in Boulder. Both residents and the larger Boulder community will benefit as a result. RESIDENT RELOCATION The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society ("Good Sam") decided to sell the property when it recognized that the scope and cost of the physical improvements required to keep the property functional were beyond its capacity. Built in the late 60's the property is fast approaching the end of its useful life (most of the building systems such as HVAC, elevators, ect. are on their last legs and prone to frequent malfunctions). Good Sam was intent on finding a buyer committed to maintaining senior housing on the site (since the current zoning also allows non-senior residential uses). MGL Partners is committed to doing so, and reached an agreement to purchase the property from Good Sam. Both Good Sam and MGL Partners recognize that a key aspect of the redevelopment would be the attention given to the needs of the existing resident base (as well as family members), including: Direct and consistent communication and project updates from MGL and Good Sam • Resident and family feedback and input Alternative housing and care during the renovation process • Financial and logistic assistance for relocation • Opportunity to return to the community once renovations are complete MGL Partners and Good Sam addressed each of these needs in the following ways: • Once the announcement of the sale was made to residents (early 2006), Good Sam and MGL conducted regular meetings with residents and family members in order to answer questions about the project and timing, and provide progress updates as they became available. The guiding principal was to communicate early and clearly • All skilled and nursing assisted living residents were successfully relocated to other communities in 2006. Good Sam provided assistance to these residents as needed. Within two days of each resident transfer, Good Sam contacted the new care provider to make sur3e the transition had gone well. In many cases, follow- up visits were made to these relocated residents. • A number of independent living residents expressed an interest in remaining on- site during construction. MGL Partners spent significant time exploring the viability of this concept, but also made it clear to residents that this option was by no means a certainty. Out thinking was, do not promise what we can't deliver for sure. At the same time, we committed to all residents and family members that they would be given no less than four months advance notice before any construction (and possible relocation) would begin. • For a number of reasons (including the physical danger of elderly residents living for 14-18 months in a very active, heavy construction zone, and proximity to major asbestos abatement), we determined that residents would not be able to remain on site during renovations. Once this determination was made (October 2006), MGL and Good Sam communicated this to residents and family members. At this time, there were approximately 40 residents still living on site. Subsequently (November 1, 2006) MGL and Good Sam offered a formal Resident Relocation Assistance Plan to these 40 residents, which includes: ° Commitment by Good Sam to keep the independent living community in operation through April 2007 (i.e., 6 months after the closure announcement) in order to give all residents time to secure other housing. This commitment will be honored even if only a small number of residents are still at the property. ° Good Sam has pledged to work with residents to identify other housing options, primarily in the Boulder area, but also in the surrounding communities. Information on vacancies, rent structure and any entrance fees will be made available as well as a point of contact to get the process started at the other community. ° When needed, Good Sam will provide short-term, solution-oriented counseling to assist in completing the relocation process. Also, counseling assistance will be available to assist with understanding and evaluating housing options in order to identify the best fit for residents. ° Good Sam has made available alist ofBoulder-area moving companies that are familiar with the Boulder Good Samaritan facility. ° MGL is giving each resident a $1,500 cash allowance, which maybe applied toward Persona] Care Provider and Care Management costs with Good Samaritan Connections, moving expenses, entry fees at a new community or in any other manner the resident determines. ° Good Sam will also give $250 to each resident who paid the $2,500 non- refundable entrance fee when moving into Boulder Good Samaritan Village. This will be payable when the resident moves out ofBoulder GSV. ° MGL is offering returning residents the first opportunity and priority to select new or remodeled apartments in the community. ° MGL will waive all application fees and entry fees for returning residents. ° MGL will offer a first year rental discount of at least 10 percent for returning residents. ° This Resident Relocation Assistance Plan was also made available to residents who had relocated from Boulder Good Samaritan Village since Sept. 1.2006. As of January 31, 2007, Good Sam and MGL have assisted 35 residents in finding new housing under this plan. A copy of the Plan is attached to this Written Statement. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Beginning of Tower Renovation: Fourth Quarter, 2007 Beginning of New Building Construction: Fourth Quarter, 2007 Completion of Tower Renovation: First Quarter, 2009 Completion of New Building Construction: First Quarter, 2008 Beginning of Project Lease-Up: Fourth Quarter, 2008 SUMMARY All of the replacements, improvements and enhancements to the existing site and buildings will make the Residences at Boulder Creek a source of pride for the City of Boulder. Parking congestion along Taft Drive will be reduced by increasing the on-site parking. The Taft Drive streetscape will be enhanced by decreasing pavement and increasing landscaping. The new design of pedestrian trials will encourage walking and utilization of the City's bike path network and public transportation system. The design of the project emphasizes the use of outdoor open space by both residents and visitors. The project helps to fill a need in housing the senior residents of Boulder, and it will comply with all accessibility codes. The entire Owner/Design teams look forward to a cooperative process with the City in order to make the Residences at Boulder Creek the best possible housing environment for the seniors of Boulder. PROJECT FACT SHEET -PARKING /UNIT THE RESIDENCES AT BOULDER CREEK Original Site "Proposed Review Site Plan Approval LUR Amendment" # 2006-00102. Standard Size 42 includes 9 41 includes 9 tandem tandem Compact /Small Car 36 24 Accessible 4 16 Standard Size -off -site at Village at Boulder 52 52 Creek across Taft Drive Total Spaces for Entire Project 134 133 Total Units 117 117 Ratio of Spaces Per Unit 1.15 (134/177) 1.14 (133/117) Residences at Boulder Creek Application for an Amendment to Approved Site Review Planning Board Packets December 13, 2007 d MGL Partners 518 17~' STREET, SUITE 1210 DENVER, CO 80202 303. 892. 6600 T Residences at Boulder Creek Written Statement: Project /Site Improvements: 1. This proposal now provides, in response to existing Planning Board conditions of approval, a strong visual and pedestrian walking connection through the building to and from the Boulder Creek located at the rear (north) of the building. 2. We expanded the azea of each floor plan to provide greater variety in the massing and bulk of the new buildings on the east and west sides of the existing tower. Specifically, we have provided larger building setbacks and more appealing and interesting elevations. By setting back the majority of the upper floors from the face of the lower floors, we have given the upper floor apenthouse-like appeazance. This mitigates the - - _ . appeazance of a 4 story wall extending from the bottom to the top of the building. 3. We improved automobile circulation in the gazage below the eastern building by eliminating blind spots and difficult turns for residents and visitors. w. 4. We added standard size parking spaces and reduced the number of small caz spaces by converting them into standazd size spaces. 5. We relocated the garage elevator (eastern building) to a more central location which results in reduced travel distances for the residents in the east wing and allows for residential units to be placed in corners of the building to provide more natural light to each residential unit. 6. We redesigned residential units to bring the units into ANSI compliance for accessibility, added floor space as necessary to accommodate mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, and improved the layout and size of rooms to improve the function and livability of each unit. 7. We captured existing deep exterior recesses at breezeways and inset bay windows in the existing tower building and added this area to units. 8. Note: No expansion outside of the orieina] tower footprint was or will be made above the 55' height limit. Site Review Amendment Revisions Requested: This Site Review Amendment Application is being submitted in order to slightly modify the azea of the first, second, third and fourth floors of the new buildings to the east and west of the existing nine-story tower. It is our understanding that expanding the floor azea of the first and second floors can be done via a Minor Modification or Minor Amendment, but since the third and fourth stories are above the 35-foot height limit, we need to seek a Site Review Amendment from the Planning Board (even though our approved Site Review ah-eady allows for a height variance up to 55 feet.) In total, we are seeking to expand the floor azea of the first, second, third and fourth stories of the east and west wing buildings by 8,984 SF or about 4.5% more than was originally approved at Site Review. This expansion will enable us to: • Improve the unit floor plans and make them more functional for our future senior residents. • Greatly improve the massing of the new buildings; specifically, by setting back the top floor of the new buildings, we create a penthouse effect and break up the somewhat "flat" look of the exterior walls from.bottom.to top. _ • Provide adequate space within the tower footprint for building operations and common spaces for residents and their guests. Improve the parking plan by eliminating blind spots and difficult turns. See attached plans for details of the minor increase in parking reduction requested. Other Minor Revisions: We revised the unit count in the Tower from 54 units to 52 units; revising the unit count in the new buildings from 63 units to 65 units, keeping the same total at 117 units. The azeas for proposed 1 BR units have been revised from the previous range of 650sf- 800sf to a range of 730sf -1100sf. The azeas for proposed 2 BR units have been revised from the previous range of 1000sf -1400sf to a range of 1200 -1600sf. Total useable open spaces squaze footage has been reduced by approximately 1,800 SF from the previous application; however we still substantially exceed the code required open space requirements. m. We have also slightly modified the unit mix to more accurately reflect the number of bedrooms (based on the BRC definition of bedroom) and to respond to mazket conditions. See attached pazking plans for additional information related to bedrooms and pazking. r r ,r ~RCHIiECiVRE NfwcallsmucnaN wsnncmRFRSwucn3Re NntccxslRUCnorl INCRF.ASEDSQUARF,FOOTAGESTIIDY F " THE RESIDENCES AT BOULDER CREEK 1820 Polsom Sveet "original Boulder, Colorado 80302 i Sitr reaivx ~ lppmral phone 303.449.8900 _ - - - - . . LLN "LYuPUSrJ Site llan:lniruJmenl" U2W6 UUIU: _ Cround P'Nar 94.672 wf - BUIID]NG BUInM'G r137d IXIT E14T AUFA a IN6E.IYD' ~PROPOYD Cp1CEI1SCR~ Ncx fhHtt Inlil 16. a119x( eeAACE ATiFA, TYPICAL MiHN LOCAnON ~ ~ , EAIRIWI BUL471E ~ ~ 5rrutd FNur 39.394 wl ARCH. TY%CIL MIIRI GARAGE ' BIX?INC EN7AA42 FNIA/rBCE * 3.594 sf BuB~E FlicN d1HM GAAAf£ IaruseJ Ncx' floor totil @. 9RA sf &IRIMNC ENnIANCE FRUR WIlW G/AACf 'fhudFlWr 3J.s4tisf Y * lan;ascd 1R sf G Ncu Ilrrortulal 3GJfl1 xl W l Fourth FlWr 74.546 sf V 1, 715 xf ~ ~ ~ I ~ *Incrnxe4 ~ 1 ~ Nzu noor lnlal 3:.WI sf 1 U U i -1- - W FiRh ihru~gh Vintp 4fi.62Ust r7Wr U *IncmuweJ \e lneraixc 7 J Ncrc ll~rlonl 9.121 s1 L ~J 'lnnl I'mjed Squac 199.718 sl' 2CR,762 sf W ~ Q 1 GRADE LEVEL (PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT) m }^°nR° Q ~ J NDRTH lonl laroaxc R.9R1 sr r~/~ *Refer to clouded areas on plans for location of v J V m revisions or increases in area. W Z W D (n W ` NEw~smucnoH [I4stHRmr~as ~waxstwucnaN INCREASEUSQLAREFOOTAGESTUUY ~ THE RESIDENCES AT BOULDER CREEK •'orlglnal Site rn ieu APPrarsl ^Ihoprwd Si[e 1'Rsn Amendmeel _ - ~ _ - - ~I _ - _ - . _ - _ _ - LCR N2VUG _ INIlu2, f.rarmd INxrr 1J.672 w1 EN1R111rE GMACE 'va,~lkwr~iolil 4Q JlMi.l - BIRIIMNG , BUII1NHC FNIR/NCE n0i fAW W11N cNtA4E [)aSnNG [QlCENSERS 5crnnd PMnr 39.3v1 st PROJ, ND. 11038.00 ~ ~r~aA¢ * 3.SVaer DRAWN: TIC EN1RlNCE Incrcnsal 5cx noon mtil 4L vRA s( CHECKED: JN rAa 1WXG4iME~ 0~1 ThirdFhxir 31.546sf CAOD Fllf: .dwg RJBnrlc uA>x *Inucsscd OAiE: 1203/2001 223P sl ~I EHtuv~ RE11S10NS: Fca~ floortotd 36.781 sf Fourth Floor 31, 516 sf ~ L i ~ Ncu Flcar tool 1`-, 961 ,t ©OZ ARCHITECTURE I I ~_L__-_ _ - - - FiOhlhruugB Vfolh m,,l2nsf r~lWr *mcrcaacd se Increase RES. AT BOULDER CREEK Ncx mxnr rMil 9.371 a( CITY REVIEW SHEET 11TLE: nGRADE LEVEL (EXISTING -APPROVED SITE REVIEW # LUR # 2006-00102) 199.77Rs1 >_OR.762xf IEVEL1coMRaRISON NOR1H * Titlal Ircrcanc 8.984 si * Refer to clouded areas on plans for location of SCAEE:,• = 3D'-D' SHEET NUMBER: revisions or increases uI area. A1.01 INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE STUDY IINtNIIE~TUNE 1asm,A:na Oosnic ram sirucnAE Ey; wxsi~cna THE RHfiIDENCES AT BOULDE@CBEEK 1820 Palsom Sncxt -G'~°r~ Bouldu, Cololvdo 80302 Fh rerkw AAPemw~ •preporea Aloe PYr Apsdmm4^ phoee 303.449.8900 LUR p1006 BB102' Grovld Floor u,6Ref *WreuM 1,'Ai tl' Nm ?wr1aW W 409 a( MEA TflG1 IHOIN erEA 11H8.LL IIIIN 6eawd Fbor 39,3W xf 6069E 91®[ *1moaN 3,594+f Naz~naorlow 4 9B8 sF I Tthd Fb9r 34. 346 of *1„<,e,~ 2,z36 u Y ` Nrw llorcaw 3aiaa W I FovA Fbor 34, 346 of C *hr~ued 1,4138 V / ~ New door low 35, 941 +f ''1`' LL F7M tln^uSt YhiM 4G620 of U Q O Floor ~ U Wirc~m•sd No Lrcrtax ~ O ^ sc.. nmclmm 9,324 rf LML ' Tdrl Mycu Squax 199,Trr il 208,]62 eF ~ tJJ Q n LEVEL 2 (PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT) T `°°"F` , I , Q J 1 scue i'.,W-0' NOWR *low Lwrw< 8,391 rf *Refer to clouded aeeas on plans for location of v J V m revisions or increases in area. W Z W D W INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE STUDY (r THE RESH)ENCES AT BOEILDER CREEK °onp6a 814e review ADO°'~ •PrepmN 6W Pbn A~eWmenr IEw FIl6111G IDEA 59UCIOIE IEd N161fN Ll'R N1006 00102' ~r Geo®d Floor 44,6T2 e( 1, "OI of T ' *]ncresee8 } 4m nem row 46. 409 of Y Srcgd Floor 39,391 rf 3,391 of PROJ. N0. 17038.00 *acrc"cd DRAWN: MC Nrn ?wrlulil 42, 988 s! T64d Floor 34.346 et CAOD FlLE: .tlwg *>Mti.rd z23r.r oAFE: 12/03/20?7 Ncw?99rlow 36,i811f AENSIONS: r4 Fov11h Fbor 34. 3M il *~rryy 1,413 et Yrn 11wr1oW 33,961 of t. MM Mmoth Nhdh 46,620 er ®OZ ARCHITECNRE Wwr *lncira~^ NOf1LCOL RES. AT BOULDER CREEK New nooelmil 9,3z1.f CITY REVIEW if 2 LEVEL 2 EXISTING -APPROVED SITE REVIEW # LUR # 2006-00102 ~ r°°'"°~'~ 399ii6Y 208,i62ef a'~T ""E° zdiL r - eo9nec LEVEL 2 COMPAflISON NORhI *rowlncrc.e 8,991 er *Refer to clouded areas on plans for location of scALr r = 30'-0' revisions or increases in area. sxEEr xu9BER: Al e02 RRENIiELiORE INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE STUDY THE AFSIDENCES AT BOULDER CREEK 1520 Poleom 5rrcxc ro=~°'l BouWc, Calondo 80302 Sloe ravkar NEN NNSO6IC?0,1 f)SIfIC l9RR 51MICIlIE IEN NNSIROCINX Age9ael .Pao~ya 551r PYe AmmOOeN" phone 303.449.89110 Lrm NxM6 00103• Cmm4l Floor 41,6'R of klecreaxd 1, ,3, of new M9aiw~ K. 409u nE1 Li M%A4D 4FA 11PIGL M11F1 P.I®If 9Keek Poor 39.394 of [r WRA4? klx~ux-0 3.591 C P> ~x~'~ ~ n'rn~ nmrlaY 4z 9ee ~ ' TAIrd FFwr 34.51641 •,e~.m x,73e rr Y new a9mlae w.)re il W FOeM Pror 31, SK zl ~ k,mmaud 1.415 C U n~aommw 3z 961r FlMtkawlh NkMk 446LIar V Q O Hror ~ U nm Swrldd 9,324 of O Fmf+ee 199,Trar xW,)6x of ~ ~ Q 1 LEVEL 3 (PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT) IrnI/I 0 ~ ~ srue = 3V-a' NOWRTH ktaa„rcmasc e,9e4u Q •Refer to clouded azeas on plans for location of v / U m revisions or increases in area. Z W D N W • - INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE STUDY ~ THE RESIDENCES AT BOULDER CREEK p "Or41u1 pg'~ SKe mke yy Appmd •PnPmd9ir Pb AeeeEmenl" Y ~ 5~~ LUR p300b a9,6r p (:mead Floor 4y6T_sf i \ew nom iwil 16, 109 sf Shoed Poor 39,391 of PROD. NO. 17039.°0 r^ k,mtiam 3,594 of ORAKN: MC ka new nwnldil 29ae ar CHECKED: li cADD TILE: .eey Tkkd Floor 14, 546 ar DALE: 12/OJ/2007 klnm9am ;z3se REN50NS N<w noorwia, 36,)04 of P9u~k Fbor l4, 516 of klmweed 1.415 of new nmr,del ss, 9m ar ©OZ PRCHI7ECNRE PNM mr°uPY hl01h 46,620N Floor PES. AT BOULDER CREEK kl"""a"d w5.,erae CITY REVIEW \ew nomaail 9,3x4 ar 91EET PILE: k LEVEL 3 (EXISTING -APPROVED SITE REVIEW # LUR # 2006-00102) ~ ,99,,)r~ mr.,6xrt LEVEL3 COMPARISON ~ r~4e r - 3dO Ngi1H klolil imrtnc 0,9Mw •Refer to clouded azeas on IaDS for location of 9CAI£1 = 3D-° P 91EET NUMBER: revisions or increases in area. ~ J e O~ INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE STUDY ~B~NITE~IDRE THE RESIDENCES AT BOULDER CREEK 1820 Folsom 5trter -OrWn•l ]lmildu, Colorado 80302 ~ ]DYfll SII81 S1RUC1N111 Silr revew UPRrmnl `Fr^Pemtl Snr PYn AmmtlmenE^ Pbone 303.449b900 818116 Doter Growd Fbor 64,6]1rt *IVCrG4<tl L ]37 rf New nlmrlMil 46, {89 of NEA 6 HOEA4D NEA 1h11'K YI1H1 ' Snnmd Fl9er 39,3944E 3, *IncrcmW Sol sf ' e.~ New namwm 4t 988 m' ' Th4d Moor 34, 346 rf *Incraa4td x2N rf W ' New floormW 3q]E4rf FamM Fbor 36, Sw eE *melrmw 1,sss a /U~ _ N<w OommW 35.961 rf L.L FIOh 9Yrw~1 tihtll 466111 L U Q O . ~ U New naorlM,l 9,314.! ` ~VO1 Foo~isge F~ S9me 199.1]9 d NI&]63 d' ~ W Q 1 LEVEL 4 PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT ~ Q = SrL C, 1'-W-V *TOlrl llemmc e•9N er NORTH r O *Refer to clouded areas on plans for location of ~ LJJ m revisions or increases in azea. w Z W W INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE STUDY ~ THE RESIDENCES AT BOULDER CREEK •urlpnni m• 9Ke review APPm'nl •PropmeE MM %rn AmaatlmenC 1EM CpI6T8MIr19 F]51r18 TTFR 58TX:8Ab: XEN CU5AUL8U1 LLT< p$006 118101' (:rvmed Poor 04.6]1 J t' *zM.wca 1,131 rE p Nca' flool lOml 4G, 489 J Second Fbor 39,394.E PROD. N0. 17038.00 r° *Increa+ed 3,394 eE DRAMN: MC Ym Newflwrlold 11,9Krf CHECKED: dl CARD FlLE: .dwg TBM Fbor 3s SwJ DAIS 12/03/2007 z,z38.E REM810N5: Nea~naorlMil 31]964E x. FowM Floor 36, Sw eE *zo<rrmm 441s.r Nea~flaanoml 35, 961J QOZ AACHITECNRE FIM WreoAl YY0 s66]n er Hover flES. AT BOULDER CREEK *1nL1J°etl Na lnmee.e CITY REVIEW New nmriMil 932{ef ${E[I IIIF: p° ~ TaW rmiem 889ere 199ne.r me,]6z eE LEVEL4 COMPARISON 2 LEVEL 4 EXISTING -APPROVED SITE REVIEW # LUR # 2006-00102 FMNege 9WE - lam *Toml lwcre®e &99{rr SCALE:1' = 30'-0' ~ _ *Refer to clouded areas on plans for location of 41EET NUNBER: NORhI revisions or increases in area. ~ ~ .04 INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE STUDY ~B~NIiE~TnBE THE RESIDENCES AT BOULDER CREEK ]820 Fdeom Smxc "~i1 Houldc, Colorado 80302 NTI IE11 COYS'INICIIW OA9111C 101NA 59epNN: AppwSw "24oPerm SMe ILn Amaodmerl' Phone 303.449.8900 LUR NSrP6. M19E' L'romiFbor 11,612 of I *IrcreaW I,T315 Newflmr mul M, 109 of N] Mfl6AY N fl?OP NSA ? O O ? NO OINKE ~ ~ p ~ 9ef9nd Fbor 39,39¢ 5 LHNNE ? O O ? ooo? ?oo? *Ircremm 3,3915 0 0 o Nwnoorw5 1z, 9eau ooo? ooo? TMrC Floor x.s165 z,va.r LY Ncw nmrlow 36,1N Of w Fewuh Floor l1, 5165 *hwre..ea J ~Uy~ New ibertnW 3s, 961 of ' 1 ' LL I W` ~1..~ F1116 M.aN~ WNt 146205 V Q O FlNrr ~ U *0wrtam No 10[xrc New fl99rwW 9,3215 OO ly PTA ~en 99vwe 199.T/Bef Xr8,f6E et ~ W Q ~ LEVEL 5-9 (PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT) ~ Q ~ ~ I SCNE1 dV0' NTH *TOWlarcme 8,9MOf Q *Refer to clouded areas on plans for location of ~ U m • revisions or increases in area. w Z W INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE STUDY LJJ r THE HESmENCES AT BOCLDER CREEK "(Nfpral icw msnlc Kw sne mrw ?w Appmei LUR "PmP~.d Pbn Ainammenl" w3046 Or102' Gromi*FMm J6.6225 (4 *LZ~m L 13t 5 Nex' n9o. W¢I 16,1095 N4R9SD 0000 86S TOP 5'MG o 0 0 o BuaM Rbor 39,3915 3Pre91m o 0 0 o run * PROJ. N0. 17038.00 . ? o o Boat ~ 0 0 0 ? mcwasm 3,596 of ORAYM: MC muoron newn9nrmw az, 9xs.f O f] f] ? iNY e . ? o o ? CHECKD): J1 ? o o ? ThN/ Floor 3¢. s16.r CADO FlLE: .dwg *Lw am +~su DATE: 12/03/2007 Ncwnoorrani 36,1865 RE`A90N5: Fondh FNwr 3q 516 5 +F~,~m 1,¢15 of New nmr iaW 35, 96] of FlRh NraW Nbxh ®OZ ARCHITECNRE Flmr ¢6'6205 *~~m Nn Owreve new nmrnw 9,P¢af RES. AT BOULDER CREEK CITY REVIEW LEVEL 5-9 EXISTING -APPROVED SITE REVIEW # LUR # 2006-00102 ~ TOtl1t 199,]1Bd 208,162 sf TIKE: FO°'eR" LEVEL S9 COMPARISON 2 BGVF.1 - Sf-0' NORTH *r9W lrcreaee A,9N of *Refer to clouded aeeas on plans for location of sca~:1. _ ~,_D. revisions or increases in area. 93EET NUMBER: A1.05 NEw DS!SIRUCADN - E70SiIND 1DAEA S1AJCiURE _ - ~ - - - NEwA~ ~R~NIIECiUUE ~ ~ ~ EOSllxC WiD00R 1820 Folsom 8¢oet CUIPSIFAS- IdkA-~ DDIX-, ffA1A1C : --pgaPLAtt t1A BoWder, Colorado 80302 'I 1\\!`' ~ phone 303.449.8900 1 ~I C9r~E]t5A5 ~ i wnI sa+mwc NEw / 510RT BALNC wxc wnI maAO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PAwdlL GAAAL4 Alq - RE9DOINL UXIIS ABDNE _ ~ E705iwC B SICRY BLIAAIG ~ p y~y ~ Z BNE AACKS wM R ~ (NwR) 10 ff REiIWEIID PUN?AIC wNG Z 9NE AAOfS wM 0 DACES wMN C1AA4E NEw 1 S10RY BUIpNC ~ SPACES wTNN GARAQ ~~_I• 4 ~ ~ wNG wAI WWND lFOFl PAAKNG GUTAf£ AND r 2 SINE AAIXS 1 BIAE AACNS - I RESAIFNIIAI IJpIA RACK I wM B M1H A SPACES Y ~ ~ W FN1AY _ _ /W/~~ AwdNG~~ L.L ' 'NY - - - - - _ _ _ ~ W - ~ 1..L W ~U zO~ Wmw 1 SITE PLAN PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT Q Q ~ NoRTr+ r ~ W ~ w U m Z W W tY f XEw CONSIPo1C1pN _ eCSI11C M[A SAAICII,IE ~ NEw CCNStAVCMN YTF]]fD COdIIC LMdwG OOCK ~PAOPEAtt V[ ~~I ,N E1G511NC CCNCEIRtRS~ ~~S PROJ. N0. 17W8.00 ORANN: IAG CHECKED: JN EXSwlC A smAr dR?NC NEN z smAr ~ 1 sroAr CADD FlLE: .dNg (lOYPA) m BF REIImE1ID gq~ ~ wNC wM wauo IE1P1 PARIWC CARAlE IIW ~''I uAts Am~c DATE: t2/O3/2007 ~y~_I• NEw 1 doer IwRnus ~ wM tADwlo IcvE1 REN90N5: PARRrC GWA¢ ANC Af9~01AH UA15 ABC1E i I QOI ARCHl1ECTURE - - - - - - - - - - J - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ - RES. AT BOULDER CREEK 1 CITY REVIEW - , . -_rT. _ T -7r - , SHEET DTLE: SITE PLAN SETBACK COMPARISON n SITE PLAN (EXISTING -APPROVED SITE REVIEW # LUR # 200fi-00102 L SCALE:I' = 3a'-o' , y~_p SHEET NUHBER: A1.06 lil - f x9pplp SPACE 9~'S If/ ~ ~ - ~_V~\ % v I MWG'E?9LNlrT V _ A91- C.~ ~(BI BM['PCR ~ ~ ~ ~~~nm ~nmm I A(5 ~ I I ~~I' H L~ ~ ~RCNIifCiVRE r--~ ~ ~ ~ Is I, ie ~~9a a~ s5 AJ OQiN1 5 5 I C I ''7 TA Z5 ffi 27 ift 75 b a ~ A- iIIlm Ol[f ~ pe r s, QI. (CFI lH7fl~lfi ~ / I ~ ~2 ~ n I 1 ~y Im.Y. 1Y1 NS C C 5 S l c 5 b I n_:i_ ¦ ¦ e e ~ A ,N 55 S6 Y 75 19 !0 tl 42 ~~der, ~o ~adc H.',„~: LL55. 5 5 S c 4 5 f I 5! C S ,^r~.~~~ 3`".~v'; 9'i;:~". m u 1Ill g' ~L mLl IIIIII _ 111! 81 C ~ S ~ ~ 6 !I ~ 8D ~ 79 7B '7 7fi ~ ]5 A ~7-9' 9'-0'~i-5'~ ~S'-0' ISL4. ~1.LS _ _ ~ I~ R ~ ~ 7] Y 71 70 bg 68 6] 66 &S 6A ~ D' 3' 0' 4 % - vAH ° I ~ ~ c s c ( s ; s s s s e~ ~ sa 56 s2 so ~ ~ As u I ~ ~ i i ~ 1 s•~s-,- ~ s s ~ s° c~ S S c s c s i s I; tl~f.E ~ c ~ ~ ~ lAY." 1 S 6 7 ~ P 'I A ~ j ~ 67 61 59 57 £ 53 A9 AT L 5 f n C~ 5 C S C 15 1350D g~aL ~ frl. +.a A "cA ~ cnRX 1 90.'i 'AIr~,1 _ ~ i ~ I ~ V ''~-e ;C T M.Y . N .,.1.,,_i sr~oA+, s~:ea NI` A F ' yAS BCCh REVS ~ ' IH;u",~_ (CLPA6~ ~ _ _ ~ FCNCIION, NE9GN AHD LVABHIY OF THE PROaCZ"S :f~aw°r AREAS AHD PARKING PARKING STL'Dl' '1 HF: NF.CI Df;\('F.ti 1 f tlI11.LDCH ('Nl:f:A Q „marl„ r J A rml.nn,,,l,,,,~.r~ Nl nxaumn~' m~ ~ O vrvrWnl x~>< rvrc ,e~ s~-Im~a,.,r,m~M O u.Vi,hP'u R>rld~r allimrv'ikrUp.Se M r irr v..... taP line Anrx iq luYiiv~ W LEVEL 1 -PARKING COMPARISONS wl.rMrR,,."~~ (PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT) I- ~ u~M1le Rn mn~k~dumii IS rl lsln.~~uNem +rw~xl SCALE: 1" = 20'-p I,~,rv~P,,Y~~„m In rr~l ~ O paiknip wxlrl M ut paikinp y~vr.In,.riArl I_a ~ 1 ~ ~ - ^ ; 63 62 61 60 59 V 1\ ! , _ rv; I ~ - a"oln al I{'' I 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 I ~ ~ W ~ 51 50 49 48 41 /6 45 44 43 42 41 40 _ i 81~ 80 79 78 77 76 75 ~_y.__,~ 1 ~ ..a t , ~ , ~ _ I 39 36 37 36 35 - I _ r--- I c c C c c ~y ~ - - ~ - I--_ _ ~ ~ ~esr ^ 1 , • i 34 33 32 31 3D 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 74 73 72 71 70 69 66 fi7 66 65 64 `I ~ :I = - 1' c c c c c c 14 15 i6 17 16 19 20 21 22 P:IRKING STCDI' 1210312007 1'llt: HF:~IDl ~'(fti 1'I'H01'I.IIf'.N fNEF:h LEVEL 1 -PARKING COMPARISONS ;''I~;°°r,; (EXISTING APPROVED SITE REVIEW # LVR # 2006-00102) 2 , r,w~,~,~,. a~~m,~~..~ SCALE: 1" = 20'-D" 4~t111o~N,I Nrul~.x iu rm.lofi llnrr rd ~ RES, AT 80ULOER CAEEK t<~~~`m~R.Aurahvlzoin is,,.,e CITYREYIEW mm,~, ra,., ""'""~"""1pg1"^'~"` LEVEL 1 -PARKING ~ ~ COMPARISON '~aPyFm;, yoces Pmai3J IU W '.nfPaYmF rdrlvm rMu.,iml Mmlu•II• ITrm'vl Iulnnli„v,r• ..,rv~~,l rv- _ _ A1.07 -T--- „m ~ nw ~HLHIlEE1Uflf e>® - nmm 2BE0 I m~ _ 1BED 16ED 1 BED oo¢ terms ~ 2 BED 2 BED pav ~ _ r~ 7as ~ ~ ' ~ t ~ ~ ii ~ 1BED ~ 2BED cr.! ndnH.~ , e 0 e 0 ° to ~ , _ 3 BED 3 BED # ~ ~ h gpt 2 BED 2 BED _y e e - i f]m - ~ - ~ ~ uar Z ~ - _ _ ~ ~ ~ i _ - - BED , ~ I ; ~ - ~~'4.-.,t n,!..ili 1 BED 1 BED , I mi¢ _ ~ _ ~ ~ °'r~ia 1 BED ~ i BED 1 BED ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ron W , ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~~C 2BED 2 BED 2 BED ~y sem.ws ~ 2 BED M 7 ~ 3 BED 3 BED U 3 BED 3 BED FM PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT • UNIT MATRIX Beeroeae px J aefmmon Lootbn Lenlt Ural? Lwel] Lwel/ LerNS levele lwNi urNe Leret9 Taal LEVEL 2 -UNIT COMPARISONS `Twer- I ~ o 'bee Teaer t 7 2 7 7 7 7 1a_ U Bea _ Tear 2'----s.J_ Z s z 7-_ ~ Z - 1e 1 (PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT) ~ ~ , ~ u m w SCALE: 1" = ZO'-0" Pro easy c v s ~ , itca Earl e d o la ~ J 7 Bae 6a 7 7 7 e ee0 Eaal 3 0 D 7 ~ ~J 7 BeE Eatl 7 7 2 e O i linl Fast / a Bee West ~-2 _ f-~T-- 7 6 28tl WeN L .7..__1__I t i ~ 7 Pea Vkri 7 _ 2 s~ V •.m ob nnb w U _ _ Z 1 BED . ~Ti^ 2 BEO 11 1 a f 16E ~ FXERCI~IBILLARDSRVlGl~IES ° STORAGE iJ : _ L.LI „ 2 BED ~ - 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 26ED S 1 BED ~ I > ~ CORRIDOR RESTR00 l ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ i ~ y ?wl _ 2 BED. 2 BED ~ BEAUTY ~ BEAUTY „ ; ~ ~ k C _ ~ t ~ w 28ED ~ rI - - i 2BED 2BED , ; ; ; r ~ti - , i . ~ ~s, r ~ ~ t I _ ; ~ T _ 1 RECREATION ~ 28ED ~ j ;LO ~ SPACE C 1 BED ~ 1 BED 2 BED ~ - i ~ If j 3 BED .a ~ ; ~ 2 BED 2 BED \ / Sloa ~ ti 7 ! °~Q ~..__~~_~r~ , 36ED 3 BED 3 BED ~ 3 BED --I - ' 12!03120D7 EXISITING APPROVED SITE REVIEW • UNIT MATRIX e.arooms l«abon Leven UrN7 Uvele Uwla LwNS Lwele LevN7 LevdA Uv°I9 T°al t Bed Taver 1 7 _ - 1 7 I - 2 2 _ Z 1S _ ' 2 Bee Tarr } Z Z Z 7 ! 1 1 M 2 Be0 Ten~e(_ 1 1___ 1 1 T 1 1_ _ T_ ' _ _ ~ f i~l RES. AT BOULDER GREEK 57 LEVEL 2 -UNIT COMPARISONS 2BeO .Tara- CITY REVIEW XISTING APPROVED SITE REVIEW # LVR # 2006-00102 ~~a E.~ e_ _ e , _ _ 8 COMPARISON SCALE: 1" = 2D' 0" 7 Bee E°N t I e LEVEL 2 -UNIT 2 Bee .._7...... s . ~ ! 1 3._ ,I- 1 / Wa E96! 1 I ~ ~ 1 3Bc4 F.es 2 2 2 ~ 6 iBea..__~ , i 2 a 7Bee wat 1 t 1 8 7 F4;A Wust 7 1 2 6 ° A1.08 ° ~ ~RCNIlfC1URf ~ 1 BED 1 BED 2 BED BED ~ Ic 26E0 ~ ~`~BED ~ _ _ 28ED ~n>H b''- " : ~ ~ ~ t~ , ~ icr, Colo-ado fl 311 - 1 BED EZlD - r. ~ c L ~ I., ~ I~ ~ 38ED 38ED 28ED ~ ,~L3„34.;h, nw _ - s 2 BED 2 BED - ^ ~ ' I' I ~ r , ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ s,~ i ~ ~ I n ~ 1 BED p _ i~ I ~ ~ I i - _ _ 1 BED 1 BED I _ - 1BED 16ED 1BED ~ ~ ~ ~ - w ~ ~ r ~ ~ a o ~ I~~ 26E0 " 28ED ~ 28ED 28ED 3 BED 3 BED f , 3 BED 3 BED V 11~ PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT • UNIT MATRIX i W Bedroom per 4ntl caw com tlefinieon Locatron Laval! Lerel2 Laval] Level/ Lenl5 LerelB Cavell fatale Levol9 Tolnl LEVEL 3 -UNIT COMPARISONS t~, ~ ~ ~ o 6ea Tuwe~ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 Bea :TOUet 2 Z 2 2 2 t 2 2 76 1 (PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT) tee Tel z _ _ ' ~ _ ~ m w SCALE: 1" = 2D'-0" t B,n Easy o c B e ? t Bea East B e a 16 ~ J 2Bad East 2 2 2 ~ - - E 7 &d Ew 2 0 B 2 ~ O Bea Easi 2 2 -7. B -Eec Gast / ~ 4 / 12 zees wxst z 2 2 t.. m t BeO ',weal _ Teae wes~ ~ ~ i-? A / : z z s v, ing ~ ota nas W U _ Z ~ _ ~ 1 BED ~ 2 BED { ~ - r 28ED ~ ~ _ ~ 28ED ~ } ~ i 28ED ~ ~ ~rfi ~,/1 L' r ~ ~ i ~ I _ Q r ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 BEO BED 1 BE B D E 1 B i-- ~ 1 D 1 E D J 2 BED rl r ~ ; - I ,_v.~~ \„1 t ~6~ ?T'~ - \ ~ / \".~pn ~ ~ ~o~~~ ~ a ~~26ED ~ / ( ,J - I 2 BED! 2 BED ~ _ Ty ~ ` h4 i c? pi, l L-_cr I~ ~ ~ sa p~ ` 1 -•.t V 1 8ED+'~ ED 2 BED 2 BED W - ~ ~ , ,e l u \ 2 BED 1 BED 1 BED ~ ~ ' ~ i ~ I ~ z - i t ~ED ; 2 8ED I ~ ~ - ~ ~ 3 BED f ~ va ; ^ll 36ED 1 .I ~ t. r ~D'v.. ~r.r ' - , 36ED ~ ~ 36ED I 13BED C 12+03!2007 EXISITING APPROVED SITE REVIEW -UNIT MATRIX Bedrooms Locallon Leve11 Lavalt Laval] Lavaca Levels Leval6 Levels Level6 revels .Deal 1 Bee Tower t ] 2 2 Z Z 2 2 15 - 2Bed Tawar P 7 2 2 2 Y 2 Y 18 LEVEL 3 -UNIT COMPARISONS z T~` ' RES. ATB°~`°ERCREEK 52 CITY REVIEW B 8 8 ~~XISTING APPROVED SITE REVIEW # LVR # 2006-00102) Ew 24 LE~E~3-NNIT ~ zees Eeal ~ 2 2 rl' g COMPARISON SCALE 1" = 20' 0" zees Eeel i i t _ _ _ a 3 Be! Eest 1 t 1 ~ 3 3 Batl East 2 2 2 B 2 Bed _ -_-a_. 2 2 ! 6 _ - _ 2 Ba0 YMt I 1 I 1 , _5.:..r ~ 7 3 Bee west 2 2 2 - B otz nits A1.09 ~flCNI1CCiUUE iBED iBED _ I 2 8ED 2 8ED ; 2 BED. 2 BED 1! BED sr~a I . ~ Ck~ 1 ~ ~ 1 BED _ ~ lR7l 3 BED 3 BED 2 8ED 3 I+ado 8 sup - i _ ° ' ,.,i ,,3.r , B~i i i 1 20ED 28ED I I ~i °a, - nu - '.~I~ - - CIID -1617 t pQj ~ - - C1m ~ ~ - _ - 1 L 1 BED ' iBED ~ 1 6ED 1 BED CFI ' . , L~iq ' CEa 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED L_ Cm 16(7 ®~i, " g~ - - _ 2 BED 2 BED 2 8ED 12 BED ~ _E 3 6ED - - 3 BED ~ 1 ~ ~'I ° - I c 3 BED 3 BED V 'I~ PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT • UNIT MATRIX Bpdroomp qr bntl use code definition Loulion Lovell LevN2 level? level/ Lrval3 Lavel6 Lwpl7 Laval9 Level9 Tell LEVEL 4 -UNIT COMPARISONS ,Bed T°xa , ~ , 7 ~ o T~a z z__ z z z O 2Betl iawCd 2 - T 1 2 _._B f ~ 1 ~ (PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT) ~ T~ , ~ _ ~ _ _ m w SCALEI"=20'-0° ;Bed Laa; o o B g ? Bat Last 8 M 0 _ 18- ZBed Eest 2 Z 2 2 Bed East Z 0 B ~ _ ; - 2Bed East 2 2 2 _ j-- - e O ?Bed Fas; a a d ~ 11 e.d waal 2 : ¢ ~ t_ a m 7 Boo Weu s _ 1 y 7- I r.- ' i 7 7 Bed Vlesl ~ 2 ~ 2 g V mp ota nns n W U _ Z 2 BED 1 ED 2 BED ~ i~ ~ 2 BED .T _ ~ ~ ~q'` ~ o - ~ 26ED ~ ;ra - I B D 1 E B _ E ED 2 BEq 2 QED _ a 7~, a ~ ,°-•.-1 ~ 4~ I ~ ' ' ~ I. ~S 1 E ! B D ¢e~. o~ i D iBED ~C~, ~ VL_L 2 6 1 BED _ _ P Pd ~ -.r7 ~ BED -1 I ~q ~ 7 ~ L` I ~ a . - ~ ~ 1 BED 1 BED -~J I: 2 BED 2 BED 1 26ED ` _ T ~ / ~a~V/ + T~ 2 BED 1 BED 1 BED 2 BED , ~ I 3 BED ~ i iL _ e- i 36ED _ ~ ~ 3 BED ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 8ED i~ 3 BED 1210312007 EXISITING APPROVED SITE REVIEW • UNIT MATRIX j Bedrooms L°cpli°n Leve11 Level2 Lpvpl~ Lwela LwaI3 Level6 Level? LevelB Level9 1°lal I Bed Towel 1 1 Z 2 2 Z 2 2 15 z ee° Twlar z z z ii i z z z ~e LEVEL 4 -UNIT COMPARISONS ~ T ~ I ~ _ ; ' ~ ~ _ RES. ATB0IJLDERCREEK r 1 CITY REUIEW Y 1 Bad Eas: e g e I_ ~ ' _ _ za LEUEL 4 -UNIT (EXISTING APPROVED SITE REVIEW # LVR # 2006-00102) e COMPARISON Z Be0 Eeet 1 2 Z SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" Bad EM z _r. z ~ ° E eee Eul 1 f t 3 u, , B Bed Eas! 2 2 2 ~ 6 Bad.... .Weal 2 __4 ~ 7 8 3 Betl west B 2 2 ° '°9 ° A1.10 ~.c ~RCNIIfCiURf 28ED 28ED r` „ ` 28ED o I ~ , ,ter, Cvlo ado h. YJ: - ~ li ~'~.une3 a J.89'-'": I I ~ 1 BED I 1 BED ~I - - W I ,'m7 ~1~ I n s i 2 8ED 2 QED - ~I BALCONIES ON THE TOWER OCCUR UP TO THE 5TH FLOOR ONLY (BELOW 55'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT), THERE ARE NO BALCONIES PROPOSEDABOVE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT • UNIT MATRIX 5TH FLOOR. SEE ELEVATIONS FORADDITIONAL IN- Q FORMATION-THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN THE Beem^me per BUILDING SIZE OR FLOOR AREA IN THE BUILDING 4^de..am, ABOVE THE 55'-0' HEIGHT LIMIT ~^~ne^ L«au^^ Level I La.el r Leve ~ Le.m d Le.m s Levu s Larel r v.el a Lavel a rael LEVEL 5 THRU 9 -UNIT COMPARISONS ,Bea r~w, ~ o I Bea iwre, 2 Z _3 Z 2 2 Z It O / 1 eea iasRr-- 7~,: t 7 P Y z s z _ le ~ ~J 2Bea Taw r t,_ _ I I T I t r ~ (PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT) ~B~ T~" ' - 1 2 ' ~ ~d m w SCALE: 1" = 20'-D° ~ Bea Ea,; o v e s I IWri ~Eas; B 8 a ~5 ~ J 2 Bea .Earl Z 2 2 8 I 2BM '.Ease 2 0 0- 2~ O 2 Bea East Z Z ! , E 'Httl F.aa' a d ~ Ij P BM h5ket 2 ~ 2. _ - ~ _ -r i ZBN N4~ J_+ s- - ' - a rn _B~ wael t ~ - s - v, inp cl eaV ^nRe w U I IZI T _ ~ iti J`~ 2 BED. ~ ~ ..r i _ - - W J - II 2 BED p BED SCREENED ¦ r' CONDENSING _Y..- SCREENED -~~~,I ~ ~ `T C ~ ' tires UNITB I CONOENSItiC~ ` 1 BED ~ W O uNiTS 1 BED P 2 BED ~ 2 BED _ - / : j I I _ il~ 12!0312007 ~l EXISITING APPROVED SITE REVIEW -UNIT MATRIX Bedrooms Locaslo^ Lovell Lerel2 Level3 Lereld Leve15 Level6 Level? larelE Lerel9 Tosal I Bea Taver ~ 1 2 Z Z 2 2 2 2 15 - 2 Boa Tower ~ 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1~ 1 ] IB i ~ - LEVEL 5 THRU 9 -UNIT COMPARISONS T~; 1 ' ' ? AES.ATBOULDERCREEK CITY REVIEW ~ (EXISTING APPROVED SITE REVIEW # LVR # 2006-00102) ,Bea Edel B a 8_ I___ _ _z4 LEVEL5-9-UNIT Z - ~ ~ ~ 2 8 _ COMPARISON SCALE: 1" = 2D' D" s acd ~ r . - _ _x - a- 18eC Easl 1 I 1 - 3 Bea Eesl 2 Z 1 ~ 6 _ ~ ZBea Wns 1 1 2 Z Bea Wnt I 1 1 i I .~I--~r 1 3 Bea West 2 2 2 6 my ~ Dial oils A1.11 ~RCHIifCfURf r.~~~„~._ _ _ Y ~ n ~ ;mot e ~ c. ~ zb J ~'t '1 l ~1 ~.a~rfkt~, 1 it . ( ~ ~l ~z;;. _ i , r ~ c W ° ~ , Mid W ~ ~.I 1y _ ~ ti. _ / PHOTO MONTAGE (PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT) I ,z,a3;Z~o, 1 RES. AT BOULDER CREEK CfTY REVIEW PHDTD MONTAGE CDb1PARISON A1.12 ~RtN11NtIURf lezo Pol~sFnxr soWatt, colmwdn ea3oz - "-~uruaE a mwrn ~~unrr[ a roweW r•"" gLyp~p gtYpb phone 303.449.6900 _~u ~ u aaa _ - WN_".~ 91E.UXG Mr. _ _ _ _ _ _ W% 6~.I1?HIC Hi. _ _ ft: SSPW.O~D - - DNW15 i 6 . / ASpW(Y ~ _ LOMESf LOAIEW 25' AWAY _ lOW3T CQWwA 15' AWAY -GAmI WAll ~~AEEEtII SCWEfli Will Y W W 4 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 3 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION ~ ~ scAlE r . sa'-o' ~ r - m'-a' Voo U zO~ w m W p ° ¢ ~ WW,,,S ' ^ W Q --Anu wuL v J m sn>~ ~ y ~ Z T, -+cra AooF ~rcru PooF ~ U CCWa/ELM F T - wM saM~+~ Mum PAxis-, ~ _ - L aWOPWSOM Fra+ - _ © - ~ ~ i ~ ~ WM 5G9EFN r , 1 ~ ~ SNCm .m ~ W 1 ~ MOOD PAW15 . ~ S uau - L'. - - r r--w _ _ - - - _ - - '-iIASJIFY - - - - L ASOWRr ~'~~-SNCm wAmNMY \~YASWFY 5nio.Xi= aWpi SCRERA wAll 2 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION . >a~• PxsMC sraucrowP ro a m>tcusxEO FmiWC iaWPW ro a rw>,amm a sraHr wW[aaw oastxc s>wuonWM m a ooiaism WFN s>RUCnWe m W[1LOE U+aasto PAraaxc [W (WO nunx) (wa KW smucnWrc m WnLOP aaosco PAROWO aH PAOJ. ND. 17038.00 cxAO¢ w s LExiS a PE9DE1M1 wrs AEOYE ~ 6RAa ~ s axis a rasoanu uN11~AB01E ~xo wAU¢) ~ ) DRAVM: BB ~u aaa CHECKED: ~ u wi CAOC FlLE: .dwg a - _ Mum,rm„s DATE: 14/D7/zom hums P~W~ -Er ~ ~ ~ 0 ~j-, \ woad Purrs-~ icru aoa AE~s~oNS: lOl ~ - saxi+ ~ mimo ~ ~ , mua ~ ~ ~ E ~ G ~ [3 ~ ~ sruaa i` wz akuPw Hr. e E ~ 7 ~ Ed C ~ - ~ ~ r` ' 0 Ll r~,r sNma E ~ HH ~ C ~ C [ L _ _ r Q ~ ~ ~MOmnmus ©OZARCHITECNRE uA~wr BOWLOERCREEK „ RES AT r IOMESI COAIWI ZS' AWAY CITY RE41E ~ASam `-WASaNRr i y~qr Asorar ~A~pr SHEET TITLE: ELE4ATIDNS i SCALE:SFE ORANING IN' SHEET NUMBER. 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION A4.00 ~ ,o• ~NCNIifC1URf a:,. Y `„,r.-. 1820 Folsom Sccet - - ' - - - Baildtt, Colorado 80302 1''-~.. x a"2'' _ ~ '~yy~„n~,~--- phonc303.M9.B900 t i - _ ~ _ d ~ ~ X+ _ ~ 7 i l --z~ w ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~,'l,Nn- ~k ~ YTS, i i. ; '+i~ o- `~;~-r _ - , } ~ r ~ _ -yam; iRti_ _y ~ µ ~t a ~ irr f~{~ n ~ ~T~ - ' ~ r - ~ II _ t 'c-7 ~ - ~ - • ~ , - T_ - r -F . _ I , I. ~^.Nw - n auu ice: 1~ - - ~ - ! i ~w ~ _ r... ~Nr• U a~ic. rr I rtl t ' , ti:s. ~ ~ Y - i h ; i~ T r _ eurt -t` - mss. a F_. ~ / ~ 2 r ~ - 3~. ~..:i- ~ Il - o-n c f ~ ' x Uo EXISTING AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NORTH EXISTING VIEW LOOKING EAST EXISTING VIEW LOOKING WEST z O ~ V SCAIE Nis J SChIL NR Y SCNE N15 Q ~ J A I" I" I m D Q ~ U m w z ~ w 0 w _ _ - - . ~ 14 p ~ _ -g"-_ 1~ 4i _ ~ ~ t ~ , t ~ si .w'-_ - . ~s a r . _ ..rc ? ~ ~ I J _ _ y., - - ~ .C~- ~ Rey-. ~ ~ ~ I ~ Ott r,. . , - - y - - ~r ~ 4~ _ y,. "R'.. ~ ~ ~ ,~~ia E ~ , { 'ia.iY ~tl ^A PRDJ. N0. 17038.00 r, _ , r we. ~ .,,h ~ C- ~ ~ J ~ J ~ ~ ~ .a~~ . ,y~}~ ~9 ~ ORAYM: BB - CHECHED JN j i -.w ~ .>a .F a; r~ * DATE .fi J .T. . _ - -T - ~ ' . i - # h ~ `y. 5- ~ s -'M1~ . ; r 'w. / QOZ ARCHITECTURE RESIDENCE AT BOULDER CITY REVIEW PROPOSED AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NORTH n PROPOSED VIEW LOOKING EAST n PROPOSED VIEW LOOKING WEST BEET °i~~ ~ ~ i 3D PERSPECTIVES ~ SLhIL w1S 9GaF: NR SCALE SEE DRAINNG SHEET NUMBER: A4.05 APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH CHANGES IN BLACK ~ PATHSTRAIGHTENEDANDTREESSHIFTEDTOSOUTH 1 PATIO/OUTDOOR DINING AND RAMP SIDE OF BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE RE{ONFIGURED ~SHIFTEDTOTHEWESTTOALIGN W EROUALITYIMPROVEMENTSANDCONDENSERS ~~CHIiECiU~E J 4 4 \ M 1 2U Y olsom Soul B 8 2 _ oulJv, Colorado SB30 _ _ _ o ~ ~ nc3034498900 ~~~~a ,X/,- _ ~4~ ~ ,_._s- . _ - - _ /j , \ ` " ~II~ n i s I ~ - _ _ ~b„ _ - - I ~ i~l! X3126 _ ~Q7 'i 1~ a LANDSCAPE AR - ~ ~ - "'E- I ~SUGHTLY REDU _ \ =c NEW BUILDING f PR _ 1 ~ ~ ~ - ~ _ rL ~ ti - d ~ l i ~ '~~%/I!llllO ~i~~- r ij - ~ ! ~ 6 /o.~ - F r ~ ~ ~ ~ i', E7/lrrrrr~p' - ~'!1!/.~ ,yy . a %n/~771D ~ ~~ti~- - t: Y - r. - . _ ) _ ~'bhETae f ~ J _ U~o o E. _E._ _ ~ EN~ANLE7 a.7,L ~ - _vI_ I.~_,_~_~__.. ~ EE ar V.A~_ EJ_eSCEEv°_ G4h.vE\'._SRa~ 7E\-v_r:.,, 'c"_ ~C. E\,,,-.-. SIX ADDITIONAL "U' BIKE ~E~`\\ ~ NEW LANDSCAPE ADDED ^ kid AIONGBUiLDING ~ORNAMENTALTREESADDEDHERE• RACKS ADDED AT FRONTENTRY• ~i LANDSCAPE ALONG SOUTHERN FACADE SHIFTED FROM NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING MODIFIED SLIGHTLY TO ACCOMMODATE ~ ONLYAPPROVED TOTAIBIKEPARKINGATENTRY• W W W STREET TREES WILL 16 BIKES ~ OUTDOOR DINING MOVED TO NORTH SIDE OF Q Q fR FOOTPRINT CHANGES BE PLANTED IN THE (SEE PLAN DATED OCTOBER 1, 200 BUILDING. PATIO ENLARGED HERE AND OUTDOOR 0 J J ROW SEATING REMAINS. ] ] m m CURRENT SUBMITTAL LANDSCAPE PLAN W ~ ~Q EIKE FARKIVG ENaANLE7 GONNEL'ION g SPAGE° EVERGREEN SLREEN - _ - - - = ~ ~ - i_~']:.L2_Y ~Y-f7~r~~F#-Yi-ta'-~1"-lct ~e~;#~f° -r s LOAOMG SERVILE? IVE Cu'70CR I N i 'DINING C,~ ' - ~ . - 1 I . GAR E LOLLING ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ENT TOrvER I ~ ~ J - - Ra15C7 PLANTER'_ GaRAGE ~ - - ` - °OR GaR7ENING (5J CNTR" ITRA :y4 PRQI. N0. r ( _ C ~ J ~ ORAWN. CA SEA' WAL - BIKE RALK5 ~ BIKE RACK v Y - ~ CHECKED. CA ANNJALE IN oE75 A7 g PALES ~ ~\IFATiO ~~"J~~~-~~~~ ~ IN PA-10 BSPaLES ~ ~ ~r GaR7EN STORAGE I ONT 70CR ~ C7 ~ 0 CADD FILE. i~~ , K , DATE oalzmzoo~ ' J~A'i i I~//j ~ ~ ORha hA' RE 5 LJRBLEE= x~ ~ ~ - \ ~ 1 f` T -4?cy4 REVISIONS PA VGA k7 Ex DROP-c P ~ I i I ji~.. T• 1D1012007 ~ 51Ie Revew "+A ~ ~ ~ _ y ~ a0. ~ 7 ' I ~ 1 111D512D07 ~ Sile Review 7T I- ~ ~ ~ Re~SUDmiltal ~ ~z_ ~ ~j j r ~ - :1 1 51GhrvA~_ ON-ETREETP G ~ ,~~1±~ ? v - _ Oh-E'REET PARKING ~ CSTUDIO TERRA, INC. SIGN WAL./ Ex15TIVG ENHANLE7 LAN75LAPE lTYP,I SEAT WALL IN PATIC SEAT WALL EVERGR_ENE ORNAMENTAL GRa55E°_ ExIETING EVERGREENS OggAMENTAL TREES IN OPENINGS _ SlUDIOTERRA ENTRY LIGHTS 7C 9E FERENNIA~5 ' ' RELOLaTE7 TC GRDUNOLOVERS RES AT BOULDER GREEK AGGOMMC7ATE TREES "`°"11Of°~°° SITE REVIEW SHEET TITLE. COMPARISON LANDSCAPE PLAN ' APPROVED PLAN AND SCALE: I"= 30'A" NEW SUBMITTAL o t~ ~ NDRTH SCALE: As Holed SHEET NUMBER. ,s LO W ~I~NI1f~iUlf 162o Rdaom s~« BoWatt, colmra0 ao392 ~ ~ .~~~~"~Toy''f'...~ w~ b4 _ _ _ phonc303.449.8900 r+} - 14,0 sf ~ , - ~ i .J _ _ _ ~ ,I _ ~ i , rl i i ~ ~ -L..~ i L.-.... i~ ~ l ~ _ • ~ _ _ Ham,. ~ ' Cn Y ~ , 113,213 of ~ ~ - ~ 4~ > f r~: ~ - ~ r~"" ~ . . , . , ~ " - - . ` - W` w VU z rY rr ~ W~0 J J Open Space Calculation - ~ ] m m Lot Ane W 91,773 sf UwWe Open Spea - - - e - - - ~inr - pu 37,577 sF 36,267 sf 40.90% 39.5% 10.20% Open ~e per Dwelllnp Unlt Niw VTin - - - Rpu 963 sf/unit 930 sf(unit 600 sfJunR PROJ N0. DRAWN; CA CHECKED: CA CADD FILE: DATE: 08/20/2007 REVISIONS: tON11Z007- Site Review Rasubmitlal ©STUDIO TERRA, INC. RES. AT BOULDER CREEK ~ SNDIOIERM SITE REVIEW Woos ~o a" SHEET T1TlE: LANDSCAPE PLAN cua ~snaonw"n SCALE: AS Notetl SCALE: 1"~30'-0" SHEET NUMBER. ~ I 1 N ` 1 ~ 30 60 R lii ATTACHMENT D D. L. ADAMS ASSOCIATES, INC. A Consultants in Acoustics and Performing Arts Technologies A November 19, 2007 Mr. Mike Gerber MGL Partners, LLC 2563 15'i' Street, Suite 103 Denver, Colorado 8021 1 RE: Residences at Boulder Creek - 2525 Taft Drive (DLAA Protect No. 7962) Dear Mr. Gerber: We have completed our analysis of the roof top condensing unit noise for the Residences at Boulder Creek project. Our analysis was based on the provided drawings and condensing unit literature, sound level measurements taken by David Tucker of T & H Engineering, as well as observations made during our site visit. Design Criteria & Comments It is our understanding that the project is zoned RH-5. The Boulder Code limits noise levels at the adjacent residential property line for to 55 dBA (7:00 AM through 11:00 PM) and 50 dBA (11:00 PM through 7:00 AM). Additionally, we understand that there is notable concern from neighboring homeowners regarding the noise levels that could result from the placement of residential condensing units at the roof of the new building. We have considered all of these factors in our analysis. While the code defines allowable limits at the property line, our analysis indicates that the `worst-cast' areas to be impacted by the noise will be the upper level balconies of the buildings to the east, south, and west. The noise levels at the property line at ground level should be lower than the levels at the balconies. Analysis East Properties For the properties to the east, our calculations indicate that if the east wing condensing unit farm is located in the east location as shown on the drawings and all condensing units are on simultaneously, that the noise level at the upper balcony will be approximately 34 dBA. 1701 BOULDER STREET DENVER. COLORADO 8021 I 303/455-1900 FAX 303/455-9187 www.dlaa.com denver@dlaa.com >a~na~l~~~.l~-" r_ Mr. Mike Gerber November 19, 2007 Page 2 West Properties Assuming that all I S of the condensing units on the roof of the west wing are operating simultaneously, the noise level at the upper level balcony of the property to the west will be approximately 47 dBA. North Property Line Considering the worst-case location for the condensing unit farm on the roof of the east wing, our calculations indicate that the noise level at the north property line at ground level will be approximately 39 dBA. South Properties Our calculations indicate that with all of the condensing units at the east wing farm and the west wing farm operating simultaneously, the noise Icvel at the upper level balconies of the buildings directly to the south, which we understand are student housing, should not exceed 48 dBA. We understand that the residential neighborhood further to the south is also a concern as those homes are at a higher elevation and would have a direct line of sight to the equipment located on the roof top. Our calculations indicate that if all of the condensing units at-each of the two roof top farms were operating simultaneously, the noise levels observed at the closest homes would not exceed 40 dBA. One concern that was discussed was noise reflecting off of the building surfaces and propagating up the hillside in the area of the neighboring homes. While this would be true for noise sources at the ground (street) level, particularly sources such as buses and trucks, the location of the condensing units is such that the noise emanating from them will not reflect in this manner. Comments & Recommendations Please note that these are conservative estimates and would likely represent the loudest condition that would be observed. In the event you were interested in reducing the noise levels even further, the we would recommend that absorptive panels be installed on the inside of the screen walls surrounding the condensing units. Treating the inside surface of the screen wall should reduce the noise levels an additional 2-3 dBA. We recommend a product such as the Kinetics Noise Control Model KNP panels, or equivalent. a~tlda ~ ~ S~} - a Mr. Mike Gerber November 19, 2007 Page 3 Please let me know if you have any additional questions or comments. Sincerely, Kelly Waldrep Project Consultant A~~~~ 5~~~ 3 _ ATTACHMENT E 9-2-14(h), B.R.C., 1981 Criteria for 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 site is in the RH-5 (high density residential -5) with a density of up to 27.2 units per acre possible within this zone. Based on the standard number of units that can be developed on this site, a density of 18.6 units per acre has been proposed. The following BVCP policies also apply to the development of this site: 1.04; Principles of Social Sustainability 2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern 2.13; Support for Residential Neighborhoods 2.14 Preservation of Community Character 2.16 Preservation of Existing Residential Uses 2.18 Mixture of Complementary Land Uses 2.19 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses 2.26 Mixed Use and High Density Housing 2.29 Urban Open Lands 2.30 Boulder Creek and it Tributaries as Important Urban Design Features 2.31 Commitment to a Walkable City 2.32 Trail Corridor/Linkages 2.39 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment 2.40 Physical Design for People 2.42 Enhanced Excellence for the Built Environment 6.10 Multimodal Development 6.11 Managing Parking Supply 7.04 Populations with Special Needs 7.06 Mixture of Housing Types 7.07 Preservation of Existing Housing Stock Ar~nda NISI t N®ge A C- 1 7.09 Balancing Housing Supply with Employment Base 7.15 Minimizing Displacement (B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within athree-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, As noted above, the site is in the RH-5 (high density residential -5) with a density of up to 27.2 units per acre possible within this zone. Based on the standard number of units that can be developed on this site, a density of 18.6 units per acre has been proposed. _ (ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-3.2, "Bulk and Density Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitatiori, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: ~ (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; The minimum amount of required open space is 20% of the site. The applicant is proposing to provide approximately 40% percent of the site as open space. Open space will include gardens, outdoor sitting areas, outdoor dining areas, walkways and plaza's. ~ (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; The open space provided is primarily along the south side of the site along Taft Drive. Access to the Boulder Creek trails will be provided through the Millennium Hotel property. All units below 55' will have private decks. ~ (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; This development will be a senior housing development. Plaza, walkways, sitting areas, outdoor dining areas and gardens will be safe, functional, and easily accessible for residents. ~ (vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas; and There are no environmentally sensitive areas present on this site. ~ (vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. Access to the Boulder Creek path through the Millennium Hotel site will be available and easily accessible. Aganda Neat ~ S /-I' ~ # (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. All residential units below 55' will have patio or deck areas. Because the existing building is over 55' tall the general exterior of the existing building can not be changed to construct new decks above 55'. Ground level outdoor areas will be developed for use of all residents. Additionally, the proposed development will have indoor fitness areas as well. ~ (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. The needs of seniors will be met with the plazas, walkways, outdoor sitting and dining areas and gardens to be developed on site. (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; Proposed landscape plans will meet or exceed this criteria. ~ (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; There are no threatened or endangered species present on this site. ~ (iii) The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2, "General Landscaping and Screening Requirements" and 9-3.3-3, "Streetscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and General landscape plans proposed will exceed city standards. The needs of senior residents will be met on site. ~ (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 plan. The landscaping proposed will enhance the general area to and provide a variety of materials for residents. (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; Taft has been narrowed as a condition of the original site plan approval for the surrounding mufti-family developments. Curb extensions at walkway crossing have been added to assist pedestrian crossing movements and slow traffic. Curb cuts have been minimized to reduce impacts with on street traffic. ~ (ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized; Driveways along Taft Drive must be aligned with existing driveways along the south side of Taft Drive. The drive should be relocated to the southeastern corner of the parking lot, or a combined driveway developed with the Millennium Hotel if possible. §~enda~# S(-I-~ ~ 3 ~ (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; Connections to the Boulder Creek trail are present as a part of the Taft Village Site Review. Another connection from this site through the Millennium Hotel property has also been proposed. ~ (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; Sidewalk and trail connections will be enhanced as a part of this plan, improving connections to the Boulder Creek trail and the Boulder Valley Regional Center area (29`" Street). A shuttle service and 50% Eco Pass subsidy will be services provided by the housing complex. ~ (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; See comments for (iv) above. ~ (vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; The housing complex will provide a shuttle service and 50% Eco Pass subsidy. In addition, walkways have been proposed that will connect the site with all pedestrian and bikeways adjacent to the site. ~ (vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; No new streets will be developed as a part of this review. ~ (viii) The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust; and Primary access to the site were developed as a part of the original Taft Village site review. The new development will enhance existing traffic flows and pedestrian movements within the area. ~ (ix) City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated. The redevelopment of this site has been planned to improve access to the site. (E) Pa? rking: ~ (i) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; Parking will be placed within parking garages to meet the needs of residents. Additional parking is available through and existing shared parking arrangement immediately south of Taft Drive. Curb extensions have been provided at crosswalks to improve pedestrian movements and slow traffic. ~ (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; A parking reduction of 24% percent has been requested. Parking lots have been designed to meet minimum city standards. Tandem parking has also been proposed in the eastern parking lot to reduce parking lot area and more efficiently provide for the needs of residents. On-street parking is also available along Taft. Amanda lip ~ _~_L~._- ~ (iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and Parking areas will be located within garages and all lighting will conform to city standards. ~ (iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981. New parking areas will be within garages. (F) Building Design Livability and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area: ~ (i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; The Taft Village site plan acknowledges that the existing Good Samaritan structure is a 96' tall 10 story tower. The applicant is requesting to change the structure from an assisted living facility to a congregate care senior housing project. The change will result in 117 Senior housing units being developed on site. The new units are to be housed within the existing structure and two new additions to the east and west of the existing tower. The RH-5 zone permits buildings to 35' and building with heights to 55' by Planning Board approval. Existing buildings within Taft Village have significant movements north /south. These movements help to reduce the impacts of building height and facade length on the adjacent neighborhoods. The photo montage provided by the applicant shows that new building heights wilt be below the tree line along Boulder creek and views to the mountains from the residential properties to the south of this site will not be blocked. Views to the Boulder Creek corridor will be blocked. The proposed Site Review amendment will result in better articulated facades with a considerable amount of additional detailing to help create a better street appearance for the size and shape of the proposed buildings. Previous designs were static in movements north to south and were minimally detailed at the first floor level. ~ {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; Buildings with heights to 55' are present within the Taft Village Site review area. Breaks in the building elevations were provided to assure view corridors were available through the site from the University Heights neighborhood. Mechanical equipment has been screened within the roofline of existing buildings within Taft Village. Only limited condensing units will be placed on the roofs and the amount of condenser units will not be increased over what was originally approved. Maximum height of the mechanical units should not exceed 4' in height above the roofline, and should be screened to reduce visibility and noise for properties south of the site. ~ (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; Building connections are minimal and the only height reductions are occurring at the two connections to the existing senior tower. Roof top elevations will primarily be 55' tall, but the buildings have been redesigned to have significantly more movement north to south, creating the appearance of height changes along the Taft Drive frontage. ~ (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; The original Taft a~~rni~ Items f ~fl ~ ' 5 Village structures are primarily stucco exteriors with limited color coordination. The new design proposes a mixture of similar color combinations that will complement the area. Additionally, the proposed material types will be higher quality than what was originally proposed in the initial Site Review application. ~ (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 proposed building architecture will provide a variety of materials and features to create an improved street frontage over what was originally proposed. Building locations have been adjusted to have considerably more movement north to south than previous plans reviewed, and hip roof elements have also been added to help add additional visual interest and movement to the expansive rooflines. Pedestrian movements in and around the site have been significantly improved to encourage senior movements around and through the site. ~ (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; Access to public trails and bike trails is an important aspect of this site. There are no other public amenities or facilities planned in this area. The intent of this policy is being met with onsite trails and plazas being proposed for use of residents. ~ (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; Redevelopment of this site to a senior housing project will provide additional senior housing units. However, the loss of the care facility will reduce the opportunities for Boulder area senior residents' needs. There is a clear demand for senior residential units that can be shown to exist within the city. Facilities such as the Presbyterian Manor and Golden West Manor have waiting list that require prospective tenants to wait a year or more for similar apartments. Redevelopment of this site will help to fill the need for additional senior housing. ~ (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; Mechanical equipment placed on the roof will be limited to 4' heights above the roofline, or the mechanical equipment will be required to be placed below the roofline. Cars will be stored within covered parking garages at the first floor level. ~ (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; City of Boulder lighting standards are required to be met. Technical Document Review submittals will be required indicating how the planned lighting will conform to city standards. ~ (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; This site is in the Boulder Creek flood plain. Final development plans will have to show that the existing flood plain will not be impacted. Placement of the building within the 100 year flood plain will require flood plain mitigation plans. The new parking garages have been designed to meet flood plain constraints far the site. ~ (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, A~itda Ite~I R _ tie # ~ mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards. Existing grade will be maintained to the extent possible. (G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: ~ (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 Boulder Creek high hazard zone runs along the north edge of this site. New building construction between Boulder Creek and this site is limited by flood plain development constraints. Development of new buildings within this area is not likely. ~ (ii) Lot Layout and Building Siting: Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north lot Ilne to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading. The east west orientation of this site limits the ability to reduce solar impacts. Additional breaks in the building have been proposed to reduce the overall shading impacts of the new development on the adjacent properties to the north. ~ (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 Chapter 9-8, "Solar Access;' B.R.C. 1981. The southern half of the buildings will have maximum solar utilization available to them. Roof top mechanical solar equipment should be used in the development of this site. ~ (iv) Landscaoinq: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. The proposed landscape plan incorporates the use of compatible landscape materials. Judy, Site Review criteria insert that we need to replace current criteria. I had do adjust it for a current request, thought you might be able to use it. Brent (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: NA (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 NA (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. ~!oenda Ite~ # # ~ G I ~ A ~ $ _ I 'N ~ a _-~~.Zw tSViolNxtlYd9NY9 Mild L69NWIYd IY$IIJ31opUf ~ ~ m ~ - sa~edg 6u}~Iapd aTgeP~oJdY 09 v Sa~edS BupNed •.,-.nom::-.7.-..--- , ,---:a:e.:~ = w~ i T1TFTf1T1Ti'1'I~'r`ti7l`f4lilrliall-••~I I' li`.fii" ~ ~I• lei ~ ~'1 F - - _ _ , ~_r.. ...a ~ .wawa ~ ~ ~~P I O ' i-°M.ie.nw j ~l ~ ~ _ S t ..r.'= 't°.. ~3y.'~I~"! i -F jI ' ~ ~ aroiwiMaun W __-'~`l0'I`-~ 1' a, a. '9j ;ir~: I O ~I 5W~ Sd7Fd5 Wt~ed .J ~ eN•1anmPlre+n, ~ ZZ ~ - ~ Q e... nr.n N ~ a~I.wvnN WM1NIINS MUWOOaNI r ~ °m y M - _ _ _ ~L-... lr y _ tmslsorNVmnruoan~u t4aaunv m4~ 111 ,,1yy'' r•+ N 513S11H)UV _ . a ~tx ~i I r E tdON,7AYtX7 oarmro.,...,.» '..~,..Z ' IS' ~ (I is o (y -~p~y- :ice. ~ to o_ ~ r : ~ r W ~ J4~-J"YIC^~1~ 1 ! 1C.[L, ^:i~ Wi't' 1i • ' yJ r : x m f Charles Ferro -Proposed amendment to Taft plan ATTACHMENT G From: Maureen Spaid To: <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 11, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: Proposed amendment to Taft plan Dear Mr. Ferro: I am traveling, and was contacted by a neighbor who had received a notice from the city concerning a proposed change to the plan for the senior center on Taft, identified by a Site Review Amendment LUR2007-00053. Could you please contact me via a-mail and describe the primary features of this proposed change as soon as possible, so I can respond by the September 19 deadline. As you are undoubtedly aware, most of the University Heights Residents opposed the original plan as being too large for the site, and a very poor design for a senior center. These sentiments were shared by most members of two separate planning boards during the prior review process. Sincerely, Maureen Spaid, President University Heights Citizen's Group Maureen Spaid Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. ilrwnrla Itasu N 7 ~ ` j - Charles Ferro - Re: Proposed amendment to Taft plan J From: Maureen Spaid To: Charles Ferro <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Sun, Sep 16, 2007 9:51 PM Subject: Re: Proposed amendment to Taft plan Dear Mr. Ferro: This is in response to the proposed change to the plan for the senior center on Taft, identified by a Site Review Amendment LUR2007-00053. The only mitigation of negative impact that the University Heights neighborhood received from the proposed Taft project was that the mechanicals would not be located on the roof. I hope that the city will decide that a neighborhood that is thriving after 50 years deserves one compensation reduce the noise impact to our neighborhood and make the buildings that are already too tall more visually appealing by keeping the mechanicals off the roof. Maureen Spaid, President University Heights Citizen's Group Charles Ferro <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> wrote: Dear Maureen: Attached is a copy of a portion of the application submittal outlining the details of the recent submittal as well as a site plan which depicts the increase in building sizes. According to the application, the applicant has retained a new architect (Oz Architecture) to expand the portions of the buildings to provide a bit more architectural interest and movement in the building facades. Additionally, the applicant feels that the slightly larger floor plans will result in more functional senior units. The applicant also proposes to relocate some condenser units to the roof top (which will be screened) and to relocate elevator shafts to be more accessible for residents. The entire file is available for review and I am happy to meet with you at your convenience to answer any questions. Please feel free to contact me directly should you require additional information. Thanks, Charles Ferro, AICP Senior Planner City of Boulder -Planning and Development Services Department 303.441.4012 -Direct 303.441.3241 -Fax ferroc@ bou Idercolorad o. gov www. bouldercolorado.gov Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. Charles Ferro -Tuesday meeting, Taft Project From: Maureen Spaid < _ _ To: Charles Ferro <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Wed, Oct 24, 2007 2:16 PM Subject: Tuesday meeting, Taft Project Hi Charles: I am sure that you were as disappointed as we were with the meeting last night. Our committee met this morning, and it was unanimously agreed that that meeting did not meet the requirements for a public review of the proposed changes to the project. Mr. Gerber and his associates were totally unprepared to make an informative presentation. Our neighborhood is requesting a complete, detailed presentation of the proposed changes, with adequate time for a review, prior to the next meeting of the Planning Board. Since one of the proposed changes is to relocate some condensers from the north side of the building to the roof, as a result of the increased volume of the building, and since this project has been in the planning stages for such a long time, we feel strongly that results of a quantitative engineering study of the noise impact on the neighbors be available before the public review is scheduled. Maureen Spaid, President University Heights Citizen's Group Phone: 720-565-8563 Do You Yahoo!? Tired of Spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://m ail.yahoo.com S?~ ~r G-3 ' Charles Ferro - Re: Tuesday meeting, Taft Project From: Maureen Spaid ~ _ To: Charles Ferro <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Wed, Oct 24, 2007 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Tuesday meeting, Taft Project Hi Charles, Thanks for the quick response. It's our understanding that the public disclosure prior to the planning board meeting is a requirement of the city approval process. Does the applicant get to decide whether or not the public disclosure last night fullfilled this requirement? Maureen Spaid, President University Heights Citizen's Group Phone: 720-565-8563 On Wed, 10/24/07, Charles Ferro <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> wrote: > From: Charles Ferro <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> > SubjPCt Re Tuesday meeting, Taft Project > To: r > Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 3:25 PM > Hi Maureen: > I will forward this to the applicant. > Thanks, > Charles > > Charles Ferro, AICP > Senior Planner > City of Boulder -Planning and Development Services > Department > 303.441.4012 -Direct > 303.441.3241 -Fax > ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov > www.bouldercolorado.gov Do You Yahoo!? Tired of Spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best Spam protection around http://ma il.yahoo.com .~agendait~~__.~_~'ageN 04/23/2007 10:45 3034423821 MILLEt~VIUM FlARUEF.i J` J ~~I~i~ MILL~I~lf~1UM HARVE57' HOUSE Boutoea April 20, 200 7 City Council Municipal Building 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO. E0302 Re: proposed redevelopment. Mike Gerber of MGL Partners, LLC has met with the Millennium TIarvest Ilouse,l3oulder a number of times ovcr the past ] 0 months to discuss the proposed cede?eiopme?.iC of the Good Samaritan House that is located adjacent to our property Based on the conversations with Mike, it is out understanding that the general scope of work for this project included the following components: m Complete renovation of the existing nine story-tower fo include re-skinning of the exterior without expansion of the current foot print. • Construction of tlu~ee story residential buildings above an of-g ade p~~rL:irig stnicture in place of the current nursing wing, Construction of a three story residential tower above an at-grade parking structure. in place of the current dining hall The Millennium Harvest House, boulder is in full support of this project and believes itwill be a very positive addition to the neighborhood. Sincerel/ ~ C~ ~Dan,e] t1. Pirra to General Manager Millennium Harvest house, Boulder. ll<5 >n,h Sva49oulder. Cclando Bmnb6R99 VSM T .mt nd) 9050 + r Jn3 ti19 IdBO • F. t,mildcrPmh m~+i!s~m ww,m~i Imniumhoali.wm/hoWdcr AMEN.OCR OF MJOEE~MIIM HO,RLS ANp RES01YtS _ - ,(12l7%2007)Juliet Bohnell - Re: 2525 Taft From: Maureen Spaid < _ To: Charles Ferro <FerrocC~bouldercolorado.gov> Date: 12/6/2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: 2525 Taft Hi Charles, Please include this communication in your packet to the Planning Board. An independent study is ongoing to determine if noise from the condensers on the roofs of 2525 will violate the city ordinances. Since the study done by the acoustical consultants that Mr. Gerber hired was not reported to us in much detail, and the estimated levels were, in some cases, very close to the allowable limits, the possibility exists that an independent study pertormed at a greater lever of detail and with slightly different assumptions would give different predictions, perhaps in some instances predicting noise levels that exceed allowable limits at one or more regions along the common property lines. We are opposed to the increase in size of this project. The original proposal was too large for the site, and this increase makes it even worse. W e have asked the architect for details about the placement of the rooftop condensers, and for the manufacturer's specifications of their near-field acoustic output. Regardless of the outcome of either attempt to predict the noise impact on the neighbors, we are confident that that the city will enforce their strict noise ordinances. Maureen Spaid, President University Heights Citizen's Group On Wed, 12/5/07, Charles Ferro <FerrocC~bouldercolorado.gov> wrote: > From: Charles Ferro <Ferroc~bouldercolorado.gov> > Subject: 2525 Taft > To: "Maureen Spaid" > Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2007, 2:11 PM > Hi Maureen: > I wanted to see if you had any results back from your > independent acoustical analysis yet. > Thanks, > Charles Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sRSH DtDypaoBW cj9tAcJ Agendaltw!t#~'~P~e# r