Loading...
5B - Concept Plan Review and Comment application LUR2007-00059 for 5675 Arapahoe Storage Facility subdivision of property into two parcelsCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 6, 2007 ([tem Preparation Date: November 15, 2007) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment application #LUR2007-00059, 5675 Arapahoe Storage Facility. The proposal is for subdivision of property into two parcels and construction of a 100,000 square foot climate controlled storage warehouse and 66,000 square foot mini-storage facility on Lot l, and a 5,000 square foot retail building on Lot 2 within the IG (Industrial General) zone district. Applicant: Jeffrey Wingert REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director RobeR Ray, Land Use Review Manager Elaine McLaughlin, Case Manager OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion of Concept Plan. No action is required by Planning Board. SUMMARY: ProposaL• Request for public, staff and Planning Board comment on a proposal for a 9.8-acre self storage facility and retail building on the former Granville-Phillips propeRy. The proposal includes subdivision of the property into two parcels and construction of a 100,000 square foot climate controlled storage warehouse, along with a 66,000 square foot mini-storage facility on Lot l; and a 5,000 square foot retail building on Lot 2. Project Name: 5675 Arapahoe Storage Facility Location: 5675 Arapahoe Avenue Size of Lot: 9.8 acres Zoning: [G (Industrial - General) Comp. Plan: Light Industrial r KEY ISSUES: 1. Is the proposed plan compatible with the goals and objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? 2. Does the proposed layout optimize site and context conditions? 3. Is a parking reduction appropriate for this use and location? BACKGROUND: Existing Context. This subject property is located less than one-quarter mile east of the 55'x' Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection, on the north side of Arapahoe, near the eastern edge of the city and within the IG (Industrial-General) zone district. Much of the surrounding development on the north side of Arapahoe Avenue is characteristic of lndustrial- General land uses and includes a variety of warehouse, manufacturing, and auto- service oriented uses. Land uses immediately surrounding the subject property include ScienTech [nc. research and manufacturing to the west. Burning Tree office warehouses to the east, the Union Pacific Railroad to the north, and across Arapahoe Avenue from the site is the Flatirons Municipal Golf Course. The entry to the Golf Course aligns with the existing east entry to the subject property. At the intersection of ~5'~' and Arapahoe are the Boulder Dinner Theater, offices, and gasoline stations. ,lust to the west of the intersection of and Arapahoe, there is a commercial area that includes a car rental ottice, sandwich and coffee shops, a liquor store, insurance agency, copy shop and other retail uses. There is no identifiable architectural character to the area, with parcels developing over time. ~ ~ ~ " GS' t n . i I~ A' , ti ; _ f r ~ ~ ~ r ? f, • ~ KS' r~1 ,L.jg~ r } ~ _t ,l A~_CNIIA ITCM +l CR PAf_G' ~t ~ Existing Site. The 9.8-acre site was formerly Granville-Phillips, a research and development facility with one main building of approximately 20,000 square feet and two other small detached storage buildings on the site. The essentially flat site slopes gently from south to north with a 13-foot grade difference over the 1,174-foot deep site. A signit7cant site feature is the existing, approximately one-half acre, man-made pond. The pond and Dry Creek No. 2 Ditch are designated wetlands as set forth in the city's Wetland Regulations. The pond is considered the origin of Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 that flows from the pond off the property toward the northwest. The ditch eventually flows below the railroad bridge west of the site. Several prairie dogs are located on the north end of the site that could impact the concept plan. One criterion that will be considered at Site Review is that the plans protects prairie dog habitat. At the time of Site Review, the applicant will be required to provide a plan for the management of the prairie dogs on the site. There are a number of large, mature trees on the south side of the pond between the Arapahoe Avenue right-of-wav. ^ ~ Existing Trees Existing Wetland Former Granville-Phillips Building x, ~ ~ ' f yew • t ~~.r- , y Existing Trees Former _ ~ Granville-Phillips .l % Building , ~ fir' ,.a ~ s ' „Pond and Weiland Area- ' ~c. i.q ~t~t i!~'.. ? ,a "~;~.^tw' . = rs 'Et _ ..r max'"' ~."~'r r ~ ~ _ ..g- s ~ Images of E.Xisting Site as Viewed from Arapahoe Avenue AGENDA ITEti1 # ,Q PAGE # 3 _ - ~1 1I, I~l: H r C ' ~~ti. , - A GD moTO~~ . - _ _ j Bcn•~ti~ig T~^ee Office ~i~'arc~lrucrse Develo~~nierrt to the East of Subject P~•apei~t~~ _ _ _ - . ~8 G4.Q~Qa 0 - ~~a~G~- .r - ' 6=" "w: q ".1-; ~ ~ ~ !L t' rs~.dr. n1' 6....e%Si Go Motors Auto Sulc~.ti st of ~S~ibject Property A(:FNI)A ITEM # ~R PArF # J ~ M L4 ~ ~ Y ' `z~;, s~ ~ ~`rti -mot . . ~ i.:V ~ _ i .a ~~^'T'.. - _ f.3 i Research acrd De~~elup~uenf Office/~~'u~•ehnuse Nest of Suhject Pr~opertl~ 1 ' ~ Fj _ ~ r 7,,~, ,N. , - a=~ , t ~ ~ ~ ~ ? m'e'n ~ F ~ . - Y r - ~ +.kaPr. ,i+-a-~ Boulder Dinner T/realer: Corner of S.S" rrnd Arapn/roe (tlrree doors west of Subject Propert~~) AGENDA ITEM # ~B PAGE # 5 Existing Flood Boundaries. The city's existing flood mapping illustrates the regulatory floodplain zones affecting the property including the 100-year floodplain, the conveyance zone and the high hazard zone. The property formerly had been mapped ~ti~ith the front one-quarter of the site constrained by the High Hazard zone as well. However, on April 17. 2007. City Council authorized submittal of the South Boulder Creek Flood Mapping Study to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review and adoption. "City Council authorized regulation of annexation and development using the new study during the FEMA review process as allowed by the B.R.C., 1981. The entire property is within the 100-year tloodplain and conveyance zone. Only the front (southern) portion of the property is located in the high hazard zone. Floodplain regulations prohibit obstructions or encroachments into a conveyance zone that ~yould result in any rise (or increase) in tlood elevations. The placement of structures or till within the conveyance zone ~yould create an obstruction to the passage of floodwaters that would require mitigation to offset the impacts of these obstructions. Proposed development activities must comply with the standards as set forth in Chapter 9-3. Boulder Revised Code 1981. Flood protection elevations applied for regulatory purposes are two feet higher than 100-year flood elevations. South Boulder Creek flood mitigation planning is proposed to begin following the completion of the Flood Mapping Study (anticipated in 2008). r-- ~ r _ J ~ ~ "17 N~.~h Ha ar ~ - _ ~!~~~r Creek I ~ i ~ ~~-rrJevar~-~ - ~~u!h Eoulder Creek J~ ~ a i _ ' 9 . o Q° ~ O o V ~ 0 b 1~ • ~j R 6 Q o~ 24 G] Current Flood a1al~pirr Af:FNI)A 1TE'~1 # 5R PA~:F # f, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Designation and Policies. Within the BVCP, the land use of the subject property is identified as "Light Industrial.'' On page 64 of the BVCP it notes, "They industrial uses considered crs 'Light' and 'Performance • Indtrstricrl on the comprehensive plan are prirnurily research crud development, light munufcrc•trn~ing, large scale printing and ptrhlishing, electronics, or other ir~tehs•ive employment arses. These t.tses ar°e corrcenh^ated primarily in 'industrial park' located ~nithin the Ut.rnhurrel Hill area along the Longmont Diagonal. crud along Arapahoe Avenue benreen 33'~`r and JJ'h streets. " A discussion regarding the projects consistency with BVCP policies is found in Key Issue #1 below and within Attachment B. The subject property is zoned [-G, Industrial General. Self=service storage facilities require a Use Review within the I-G zone district. r _ Q ~ y'~ _ Q h:6 ~~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ P fl ' a - _ light Industrial ~d a~ ~ ~ Hiah Density Residential r F. ~Ofl~~ ~ ,mmunity BUSInP55 _ G' ~ O~ ~ ©080x0 _r ~ ra a Oe Venue C3 P' ~~~a~Density Residential ? ~ • Park, Urban and Other ~_,r' ~ a ~ ~ q Very Low Density Resident fl D ~ pa Medium Density Resnl~ntial ~ Q v ~ n _ 6 ~ I¢ a ~a IJ ao• 0 Flatirons O ~ ~ ~5 : a ~olf Course ~ a ~ o ~ $ m~ Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Lruad Use Map AGENDA {TEM # SB PAC:E # 7 Project Description. The proposed project is planned to be subdivided and developed as two separate lots with the lots planned to be built by separate partnership. Lot 1 is proposed as self storage, and Lot 2 on the southwest portion of the subject property is planned as retail. There are two existing accesses into the subject property that the applicant plans to maintain: one on the east, and one on the west. Lot 1: Self Storage Facilities. According to the applicant, the main portion of the project would be located on Lot l within which two different storage facilities are proposed. The ultimate buildout for Lot 1 would include an approximately 100,000 square foot warehouse as a climate controlled storage space utilizing the existing 20,000 square foot building. The applicant is considering building a second story addition on the south side of the existing building, to total approximately 30,000 to 40,000 square feet as an initial phase. The applicant indicated a desire to "test" the market for this type of climate controlled storage and potentially build out the full 100,000 square foot building in a later phase. As noted by the applicant, [he addition to the south side of the existing building would screen the mechanical equipment on the existing roof that is currently visible from Arapahoe Avenue. Finish materials for the exterior of this building are proposed to include concrete masonry units (CMU), glass window panels, metal panel system, and a standing seam mansard roof. The applicant also notes that an office/sales area would be located within the building addition at the southeast corner of the new construction. The intent is to provide moving and storage supplies, such as packing materials and locking devices, for sale as a convenience. Also anticipated is a caretakers unit to be located above the office/sales space to provide for 24-hour security to the facility. Metal gating would secure access to the facility during non-operational hours. Also proposed on Lot 1, on the rear half of the subject property, is a 66,000 square toot self storage facility with approximately 33 or more individual storage units of varying sizes. The applicant notes that fire containment walls would be constructed such that the total 66,000 square foot floor area would be constructed as 2,000 square foot individual traits. These units are proposed as prefabricated metal building systems with some masonry construction. Metal roll-up doors would provide access to the individual storage units. Lot 2: Retail Structure. Lot 2 is proposed to be subdivided from the original property to form an approximately 0.40 acre site on the southwest corner of the subject property. Within the site a 5,000 square foot building is proposed for service or convenience retail uses such as a coffee shop, deli, copy center, small vehicular sales, or home improvement center. Ahead-in parking lot is planned off of the western access road to accommodate approximately l 1 parking spaces. The building is currently shown as a simple box structure of CMU, with accent bands of color and texture. Storefront windows are proposed for 80 percent of the south elevation. The west elevation is illustrated in the concept elevations with one window toward the front of the structure. AGENDA ITEM # 56 PACE # 8 Flood Mitigations and Wetlands. A 35-foot wide flood channel is proposed along the western edge of the property, as well as a 60-foot wide channel along the north side of the property, just south of the railroad right-of--way. As proposed by the applicant, 100-year flood waters flowing from South Boulder Creek would approach _ the site from the southeast but be diverted primarily to the flood channel on the west. Flood waters would also be heavier along the northern edge where the 60-foot wide channel is proposed to accept those tlows. The existing pond is proposed to remain with the required 50-foot wetland buffer proposed. A small area of this existing wetland would be disturbed by the provision of an east-west connector road, and a small area on the southwest to accommodate the proposed commercial building's parking lot. For this, the applicant is proposing enhanced wetland development on the south side of the existing pond nearest Arapahoe Avenue, as well as along the out flowing ditch from the pond. ANALYSIS: Key Issues: The following key issues have been identified by staff to help guide Planning Board discussion of this application. Planning Board may add to this list or provide additional comments on the Key Issues listed. 1. Is the proposed plan compatible with the goals and objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? As noted, the BVCP designates the site as "Light Industrial" with uses such as, "primarily research and development, light manufacturing, large scale printing and publishing, electronics, or other intensive employment uses. "Staff notes that the planned uses of the site for self storage facilities and commercial are not among the uses indicated as appropriate for "Light Industrial" areas. The BVCP envisions more employment-oriented uses. However, the BVCP also indicates that most of the development envisioned for this use would occur within industrial parks "along Arapahoe Avenue between 33rd and 55'h streets" and other locations within the city. Similarly, staff notes that in the existing context of the north side of Arapahoe Avenue there are other self storage facilities including the Securcare Self Storage located 600 feet to the east and three others located approximately three-quarters of a mile further to the east near the intersection oY'Arapahoe Avenue and 63`d Street: U-Store-It Self Storage, A-A-A Store-N-Lock, and Boulder Self Storage. Similarly, for the 5,000 square foot building proposed at the southeast corner of the subject property along Arapahoe Avenue the types of retail uses proposed by the applicant are not envisioned within the "Light Industrial" areas of the Comprehensive Plan. BVCP Policies: Staff finds that the development would be consistent with a number of BVCP policies and currently inconsistent with several others. An analysis of the BVCP Policies is provided in Attachment B. Staff finds the proposed Concept Plan consistent with the following BVCP policies: AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 9 • 5.01 Economic Vitality • .i.06 Industrial Zoning • .i.09 Vital and Productive Retail base Additional information would be required to determine project consistency with the following policies: • 2.39 Sensitive Inftll and Redevelopment • 2.40 Physical Design for People • 2.42 Enhanced Design for the built Environment • .i.07 Upgrade Existing Commercial and Industrial Areas Use Review Criteria: Regarding the potential approval of the commercial or retail for the proposed new lot, the Use Review Criteria that would apply require that the use either provides direct service to the neighborhood or is necessary to foster BVCP Policy. Staff notes that the retail use is not needed to provide direct service to the neighborhood because approximately one-quarter mile west of the subject property and just west of 55`x' Street along Arapahoe Avenue, there is already a BC-2 zoned Neighborhood Center with retail uses that serve the surrounding residential and industrial/business neighborhood including a coffee shop, sandwich shops and other retail uses. Staff notes that adding convenience retail could have a negative impact on the existing center. Further, staff notes that the retail use would not foster BVCP policy. On page l3 of the BVCP the four elements that define Boulder's City Structure are defined and address commercial area locations. Within the chapter titled, "Activity Cenler.c Define Areas o/~tligh Activity and /ntensity"the BVCP notes, "The second element that sets Boulder apart is Ihe,/brm and distribution gfits commercial and entertainment areas. Rather than being spread out along maor streets in strip centers or shopping malls, they are focused in concentrnted nodes gf'ac/ivities at a variety ofscales distributed throughout Ihe community. Because the 5,000 square foot commercial/retail building proposed would not be part of a larger "concentrated node' of activity, staff finds that it would be more characteristic of "being spread out along major streets" and thus inconsistent with the BVCP intent for commercial. er.FNnerrFn~a:w ve~GUrn ~ r~~.i ~i G~ , ' LJ ~ G I G r 53 ~ ~ i _ . _ ? 't ~ r-i RH-4 ~ ~ J ~ E~~-I ~i~~~ ~ ~ ~1 IG ISM s ~ ~irr emu' ~ eif ,:n 6 - ~I _ 0~ o R~-^I~. s ~RM~ ~ R' x.. Existing Retail Area, - _ -G ~ of ~ Centralized in BC-1 district within Y< mile , ^ ~ j - of subiect property ° p . ap ,~~°~a <s~„ ~a~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~..e.. 4 ° l; a' ~ , Eristi~t,~ Retail.=1 reu witlrin BC-l "Lone District (above) and Image of Curter (below). - a _ - - - "Coning Consistency and Use Review. As indicated, retail uses and the self storage t~icilities proposed by the applicant require Use Review within the [ndustrial General zone district. Section 9-f -1, B.R.C. 1981 identifies a number of uses that would require Use Review or Conditional Use Review including: • f3r.rsiness sarpport .Services • Convenience retail < Z, DOO syuare• feet • Non-vehicular repair crud rental services without outdoor stor•uge Self-service storu~e.fucilities [t is important to note that restaurants (which the planned '`coffee shop" would be i~ualified under) are not allowed within the I-G zone district when located along_a "Maior Street'' as noted in Section 9-6-5(b)(3)(B), B.R.C.. 1981. Similarly, in a Use Review, staff would indicate that a convenience retail use for Lot 2 of the subject property would not meet BVCP community design goals of establishing commercial areas within centers, and avoiding strip development. AGENUA ITEM iB PACE # I I 2. Does the proposed layout optimize site and context conditions? There are several site and context conditions staff considered in the review of the Concept Plan including the flood mapping, the wetlands from the existing pond, the existing mature trees, and access to the site from Arapahoe Avenue. Flood Mapping. As was recommended in Pre-Application and Concept Review staff comments, the applicant must analyze and determine feasible site grading and developable area options prior to filing a site plan application given the conveyance zone that is shown to remain within the subject property. A technical hydraulic analysis will be required to demonstrate that proposed development would not cause any rise in flood elevations, divert flood waters in an adverse manner to adjacent properties, or result in any increase in flood hazard to structures or lives. Previous discussions regarding development of this property included the possibility of creating a conveyance drainageway from Arapahoe to the north end of the property with a future option for the city to install a flood culvert/pedestrian underpass across Arapahoe between this site and the Flatirons Golf Course. This option could reduce flood waters overtopping Arapahoe in a major flood, preserve emergency transportation access along the primary roadway, and offer a grade separated crossing for pedestrians. The applicant may want to discuss such options with the city before tinalizing a site design application. Staff further noted to the applicant, that aself-storage facility covering the northern two-thirds of the property is not feasible within the conveyance zone. It obstructs and creates a full encroachment of the entire width of the property and provides no mechanism to offset the blockage to Hood water conveyance. Additionally, the tight spacing of storage units would require tilling the entire site to elevate the buildings and access drives to Hood protection elevation since there is no transition space to retain a much lower grade for the drives. Floodplain regulations would also require orientation of the buildings to be north-south instead of east-west as shown to maintain flood water conveyance and reduce loading on the buildings. Parking in other areas outside of the conveyance zone may be prohibited based on depths of flooding. Per Section 9-3-3(a)(8) of the BRC, no person shall establish an area for automobile parking in any portion of the floodplain where flood depths exceed eighteen inches. The proposed structures shall be flood-proofed in a manner requiring no human intervention, or the lowest floor elevated to or above the flood protection elevation (2 feet above the elevation of the predicted 100-year flood event). Trees and shrubs are conceptually shown within the drainage channel. Heavy stands of trees that would impede water flow should be avoided. Existing Trees. The project site contains a number of large, long-lived trees that appear to include willow, honeylocust, and cottonwood. These trees create a significant landscape presence along with the existing pond and wetland for the Arapahoe Avenue streetscape. The Concept Plan labels several trees on the plan as AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 12 ' ! '`E. Trees" however, there is no distinction between existing-to-remain; and existing- to-be-removed trees. [n addition, there was no indication from the applicant as to whether or not the trees had been evaluated by a certified arborist to determine the health of the trees. As the project moves forward, greater clarity must he provided regarding the many existing trees on the project site. The exhibit below presents an aerial of the existing condition compared with the Concept Plan superimposed over the aerial As is evident within the red circled areas, the proposed 5,000 square foot commercial building appears to be placed in a location of existing trees. t ~ ~ r S V~ 9 t - _ a t ~ i~l zq°; -i ~ , ~ T ~ r _ ~ ~ ` ! 1 E.t-isti?ig Aerial of Fro~tt of Site Existing Aerial witle Concept Overlay The applicant should provide greater detail on existing trees, and if impacts are created to long-lived, healthy trees as appears above, the 5,000 square foot building should be redesigned or relocated away from the existing trees. As described further in Attachment B, BVCP policies require "sensitive intill." Staff views such sensitivity as that which carefully integrates buildings into the existing setting. Further, access to Lot 2 and the x,000 square foot lot would not be allowed due to restrictions of 250- foot separation between access points on a major arterial as described below. Therefore, relocation of the 5,000 square foot building would be required for access purposes as well. Proximity to Public Golf Course. With the Flatirons Municipal Golf Course located directly across Arapahoe Avenue from the project site, staff is concerned that visual impacts could occur trom tree removals on the site and construction of the new buildings. Staff recommends further visual analysis of the proposed project and how it could impact visual quality from the Golf Course. Wetlands. As noted, the existing pond qualifies as a regulatory wetland. The applicant noted that the pond was created when the Granville-Phillips building was constructed, and over time wetland vegetation was established. The pond was noted as being the source of the Dry Creek No. 2 ditch. Both features within the Concept Plan for the most part have been retained. There are exceptions that include areas where the applicant is proposing a connector road and parking for the 5,000 square foot building proposed on Lot 2. Staff notes that the applicant is proposing adequate AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # l3 mitigation for areas of wetland disturbance on the south side of the pond between the pond and the 5,000 square Foot building. Access to Site from Arapahoe Avenue. As noted in Pre-Application notes and in the staff comment letter, Arapahoe Avenue is considered a major arterial As such, per Table 2-1 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, a minimum separation of 250 feet is required between site accesses along an arterial roadway (Arapahoe). The two existing access drives planned to remain on the Concept Plan do not have adequate separation from the adjacent properties. Shared access with the adjacent properties should be pursued. In the event that shared accesses cannot be obtained, the westernmost Arapahoe access is required to be restricted to emergency access only and Lot 2 will not be permitted to be served from Arapahoe. However, Lot 2 could be served by an access easement through Lot 1. Clarification must be made by the applicant, on how the westernmost access would function. As shown on the Concept Plan, the westernmost access is shown to serve as an emergency access from the bridge over the ditch toward the west, yet access into the parking area for Lot 2 is also indicated to occur from this access point. As noted, there is not adequate separation of access points from the principal arterial. 3. Is a parking reduction appropriate for this location? The proposed Concept Plan illustrates 25 dedicated parking spaces for a site within the IG-zone that, under Section 9-9-6, B.R.C. 1981, requires one parking space per 400 square feet of floor area or 440 parking spaces for the total 171,000 square feet of development proposed on the project site. If there is greater clarification provided by the applicant resulting in additional parking spaces adjacent to each unit, the number of spaces provided would increase. For purposes of discussion, staff is estimating 33 individual storage units with one parallel space adjacent to the unit, added to the dedicated 25 spaces, for a total of 58 parking spaces. This results in an approximately 87 percent reduction. The applicant has indicated that the nature of self storage units is such that there is not a need for a significant amount of parking. As noted by the applicant, "Regarding the small amoarnt of parking provided on Lot ! jor the storage operation, typically a small amount of parking is required for employees and customers with this type of operation. Once a customer has signed up to rent storage space there is little need to visit the office area again unless for instance, packing and moving material must to be purchased. Otherwise customers would go directly to their storage space during the hours of operation and park adjacent to the space. Therefore providing 1 space per =100 sf offloor area, where the floor area is comprised of storage space, does not make sense in practical terms. ! do not have statistical data on hand to understand the,frequency with which an average customer visits their storage space. Some customers may be required to make daily visits others may have household items stored such that months might pass without a visit. Should there be a resident caretaker at the facility for 2~1 hour security purposes there will need to be several parking spaces for the caretaker and visiting guests. So the twelve to thirteen spaces provided adjacent to the office on the east side should be ample. " AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 14 For Planning Board to grant a Parking Reduction Criteria at the concur-ent Site and Use Reviews, the application would have to meet one of the following criteria: A. The parking needs of the use will be adequately served through on-street parking oroft-street parking; B. A mix of residential uses with either oftice or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; C. [f joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; or D. The applicant provides an acceptable proposal for alternative modes for a transportation program, including a description of existing and proposed facilities, proximity [o existing transit lines and assurances that the use of alternate modes of transportation will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an on-going basis. In addition, at the time of Site and Use reviews, staff may require that a parking study be completed to demonstrate that adequate parking would be provided per Section 9- 9-6(d)(4)(G)(6), B.R.C. 1981. Within that study, the applicant must demonstrate that the use has an "unusual parking demand" based on factors including ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) parking generation estimates. Parking Demand for Self Storage Warehouses. Staf'F notes that ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) data does suggest that peak period parking demand for "Mini-Warehouse" storage units averages much lower than the requirements for the Gzone: 0.16 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area. This translates to a requirement for 16 parking spaces for the 100,000 square foot climate controlled storage facility; and (0 parking spaces for the 66,000 square foot mini-storage facility. Therefore, for both the storage uses on the site, a total of 26 parking spaces would be required based on ITE standards. The applicant notes that parking spaces would be accommodated parallel to each individual mini-storage units within the 66,000 square foot self storage area's 24-foot wide drive aisles. Staff notes that For the 24-foot drive aisle lanes, two l0-foot travel lanes would not allow for parking. It is assumed that each drive aisle would require one-way travel. This is not evident on the Concept Plan and additional information would be required to clarify this assumption and concept. In addition, the applicant would need to clarify the number of parking spaces to be provided if they would occur in front of each unit. If parking were feasible in front of each unit, 33 spaces could be provided. StafF notes that a total of 42 parking spaces would be required based on ITE standards for parking at Mini-Warehouse facilities combined with retail requirements; but that the city's standard for industrial combined with retail, would require 465 parking spaces. This still equates to a 90 percent parking reduction. Staff reviewed the parking approved for other self-storage units approved within the city and found the AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # t5 following parking reductions that were approved: 1. Securcare Self Storage, 5815 Arapahoe: nine spaces provided, 69 spaces required (87 percent parking reduction) approval in 2003. 2. Storage Containers Ltd., 2505 49`x', 106 parking spaces provided, 136 spaces required (20 percent parking reduction) approved in 1993. 3. Diagonal Self-Storage -Securcare, 6405 Odell, l I l parking spaces provided, 136 spaces required (20 percent parking reduction) approved in 1983. Parking Demand for Proposed Retail Use. For the convenience retail uses that may occur a higher parking ratio of l parking space per 300 square feet of floor area would be required which would equate to l6 parking spaces to serve that space rather than the l l currently shown. However, access to the parking for the 5,000 square toot building is uncertain. The Concept Plan illustrates access to retail building's eleven spaces via the existing-to-remain access on the west side of the site and labeled as "emergency access." The Concept Plan illustrates that, "emergency access to begin at bridge" further into the site from the 5,000 square toot single story building. Staff notes that such a technique is not acceptable, as the requirement for 250-foot separation between access points is for an allowance of emergency access only and not access into the parking lot for the planned retail building. Therefore, the access to the 5,000 square foot building is constrained by the requirement ofjust one access point into the site. Conclusion. The existing site has a number of environmental features that must be preserved or mitigated. The existing mature trees appear impacted by the proposed Lot 2 development; the wetlands would be impacted in two places but adequate mitigation is proposed; and the Hood constraints appear to require additional analysis to ensure impacts are minimized. Some restudy and redesign of the proposed project is necessary in this regard. Because of the environmental constraints, along with the limit of one access point on the site and that the proposed retail uses that would not meet use review criteria, staff would not support the subdivision and creation of the 5,000 square toot retail building. Further, staff does not see alternative locations for this type of building within this I-G zoned environmentally constrained site. Analysis of visual impacts of the planned buildout of the (00,000 square foot, two- storyclimate controlled structure would be necessary. In addition, future buildout of the subject property should take into consideration the planned passenger FasTracks rail corridor adjacent to the north. The applicant could propose recommended future phasing of the subject property that is transit oriented as FasTracks becomes functional over the next seven to ten years. GUIDELINES FOR CONCEPT REVIEW AND COMMENT: The following guidelines are to be used to guide Planning Boards' discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the Concept Plan review and comment process. The AGENDA ITEM # 5B PACE # 16 Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing continents on a Concept Plan. i) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; "this subject property is located less than one-quarter mile east of the Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection near the eastern edge of the city, within an IG (Industrial General) zoned area. Much of the surrounding development on the north side of Arapahoe Avenue is characteristic of [ndustrial-General land uses and includes a variety of warehouse, manufacturing, auto repair, and mini storage uses. Act•oss Arapahoe Avenue from the site is the Flatirons Municipal Golf Course. The entry to the Golf Course aligns with the existing entry to the subject property. There is no identifiable architectural character to the area, with individual industrial parcels developing over time. The 9.8-acre site was formerly Granville-Phillips, a research and development facility with one main building of approximately ?0,000 square feet and other small, detached storage buildings on the site. The essentially tlat site gently slopes from south to north withal 3-foot grade difference over the l ,17~-foot deep site. A significant site feature is the existing, approximately one-half acre, man-made pond that has overtime developed wetland vegetation and become a regulatory wetland. The site also is located within the 100-year, conveyance and hi~~h hazards Hood boundaries under the city's current regulations. There are a number of large, long-lived h•ees on the south side of the pond between the Arapahoe Avenue right-of-way and the pond as well as along the Drv Creek 1`l0. 2 Ditch as shown below. r ' t .rte ~-p~ ~ ~ t ~ I y.. -{p!-{ Y~t1I t ~ ~S a ry, yr ti 1.1 ~ ~ , ~ 15 ~ ^~rl' y~ y ~ ,f i 1~ - IL~~ •e ~ ~ "~`5r~ f 4~ " 1. t e~'+c'i~ View Looking Toward the North Along the West Edge of the Sccbject Property AGENDA 1TEM # jB PAGE # 17 2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; The subject property is designated within the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as `'Light Industrial" with example uses noted as, "research and development, light mans facturing, large scale printing and publishing, electronics, or other intensive employment uses." The proposed use ofmini-storage and commercial is not entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation example uses. The BVCP appears to anticipate more employment-oriented land uses within this category. Consistency with Site Review criteria within the Land Use Code Section 9- 2-14, B.R.C., 1981 will be evaluated in greater detail with a Site Review submittal. 3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; At the time of Site Review, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with Site Review criteria fowid in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C., the Use Review criteria found in Section 9-2-15(e) as well as all applicable BVCP goals and policies (especially those noted above). 4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; The applicant wilt be required to complete Site Review, Use Review for drive-thru functions, and Technical Document Review prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; Per Table 2-1 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, a minimum separation of 250 feet is required between site accesses along an arterial roadway (Arapahoe). The two existing access drives do not have adequate separation from the adjacent properties. Shared access with the adjacent properties should be pursued. In the event that shared accesses cannot be obtained, the westernmost Arapahoe access is required to be restricted to emergency access only and Lot 2 will not be permitted to be served from Arapahoe. Regarding transit, the site is served by access to RTD along both Arapahoe and 55th Street. Trip Generation will be required prior to the time of Site Review to determine if a traffic study will be required. Further, the site is located adjacent to the future alignment of the Regional Transportation District's (RTD) FasTracks Rail Corridor that will connect Denver to Boulder and Longmont beginning in 2014. The RTD proposed that a passenger AGENDA ITEM # 56 PAGE # 18 station be located along the section of this corridor between 55th and 63rd Streets in Boulder. Currently, there is no public funding to build this station and other related facilities. RTD has proposed that interested private developers work with RTD, local jurisdictions and other property owners to construct a passenger platfoi~rn and related facilities at this proposed station location. The City's position on this issue at this time is neutral, and thus, it can not offer a commitment to support zoning changes or any other public resource investments that may be required to approve a transit oriented development at this location. A multi-use path exists along Arapahoe Avenue. At the time of Site Review, survey documents are required that clearly show and dimension the existing multi-use path, landscape buffer, and any associated access easements. In the event that the existing multi-use path is not 12 feet wide with an 8 foot wide landscape buffer, the path will not be required to be reconstructed, however, a public access easement will be required to dedicate an area 21 feet oft the back of the existing curb (to cover the future sidewalk width plus one toot beyond the back of walk). 6) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; Regulatory wetlands have been identited on subject property. As noted above, any proposed development or improvements within the regulatory wetland or butter will require a wetlands permit. Further, the applicant would be required to demonstrate minimization of impact and that the project is in the public interest given functional values and the public need for the proposed regulated activity. [n addition, using the existing pond as the stormwater outfall would negatively impact the wetland area and is not an acceptable drainage solution. [n addition, there are a number of large, long-lived trees on the south side of the pond between the Arapahoe Avenue right-of-way and the pond. The site also is located within the 100-year, conveyance and high hazard flood boundaries under the city's current regulations. 7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; and The proposed land uses of self storage facilities and commercial both require different levels of Use Review. While the uses are not specifically defined within the BVCP for Light Industrial, staff notes that contextually, the proposed uses may be appropriate for this location. 8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. The subject area is zoned I-G (Industrial General) and Light Industrial within the BVCP. Housing is not an identified use for this location, although it is an approved use. AGENDA ITEM # 56 PACE # l9 PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject site and a sign posted on the property for at least l0 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-10(g), B.R.C. 1981 have been met. There were no comment letters received on this Concept Plan Review application. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: No action is required on behalf of the Planning Board. The public, staff, and Planning Board comments will be documented for the applicant's use. Concept Plan Review and comment is intended to give the applicant feedback on the proposed development plan and provide the applicant direction on submittal of the site review plans. Approved By: ~uth McHeyser, Acting irector 111111 Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Applicable BVCP policies to the proposal C. Development Review Comments D. Applicant's Written Statement and Concept Plan AGENDA ITEM # ~B PAGE # 20 ATTACHMENT A i City of Boulder Vicinity Map _ _ - _ 1 1 _ i li { j 1 ~ t_-, i ~ i ~ Subject I I~ ~ j ~ _ Yii$ M Wit- _ - I'i ~ t . - ~ - i i i ~i~ ` _ - - E ; _ - _ - - E _ - - - - -_-1 G- - w---- - - - - ~ - - - Ii I ~ ~ * I 1 !9 ~ -Subject Area t i i 5675 Ara - ' , . ~ i i' ~ _ RH-4 ~ g~C ~ j ~ ~ ~ - - --~~-1 Arapahoe Av - i y RR-1 I~'i i - _ E I ~ ~ ! Y-.-~-.~~ i P ~ , Tr-i .L~ R.~M":~ ~ ~ ~ t~- = t _ r i ~I ~ a L.- ~ - r k 1 _ ~ i ~ l R L.' Zr ~ r - Legend ~ ~ - L, ~ f i i F ~ City Limit _J TyT l-.~ ~ ~k i Location: 5675 Arapahoe Rd ,~~r Project Name: 5675 Arapahoe Crry c~~~ ~i~~i Storage 8 lndustnal ~ Boulder Review Type: Concept Plan Review N 0 RTH The iMormation depicted on thia map is provided 8 Comment as graphical representation only. The Ciry of Boulder i provWes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to Review Number: LUR2OO7-00059 1 inch equals 500 feet the accuracy arM7ormmpleteness of the information ~ Applicant: Jeffrey Wingert `°"`~i"~°"°`°°" ~i AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 21 ATTACHMENT B Aaalicable Boulder Vallev Comarehensive Plan (BVCPI aolicies to the aroaosal The proposed project would be considered consistent with following BVCP goals and policies: .i.01 Economic Vitnlity. Economic vitality in Boulder will he pursued through a partnership among the public, private and nonprofU sectors. The city's primary contrifiution is through the provision of effrcient processes and procedures required for site development, the investment in rnunicipa[ infrastr•uctau•e, and consideration of other initiatives on u case-by-case basis. The city will adopt economic vitality programs and strategies that foster innovation, enhance competitiveness and erpund markets. The city and county will support a diversified employment base within the Boadder Palley. reflecting labor, force capcrhilities and recognizing amenities for emphasizing scientific, technological and related industries. Inclusion of elements in the economic vitality program should enhance the community's role in the global and domestic marketplace. As noted, the BVCP designates the site "tight Industrial" with the anticipation that there would be "employment generating" uses on the site. In 2000, the applicant provided an altogether different Concept PVan on the site that included employment generating uses with several office buildings planned. While the applicant notes that the market for such a use is no longer viable, that use more closely resembles those envisioned within the BVCP for this site. it is important to note that nearby approved uses along Arapahoe including a small auto dealership, auto repair, selti-serve car washes, and other storage warehouse uses similarly do not specifically meet the intent of "employment generating uses." 5.06 [ndnstricd Zoning. [ruhrcn•ial coning under the comprehensive plan wilt provide the opportunity for the location of industries ofvarious types and uses, including those uses considered essential ro the Boulder Pidley population from a service standpoint The zoning ordinance will he updated periodically to assure it is adequately accommodating the existing and future needs of a rapidly changing and technologically-oriented global industrial and services employment base. The city will identify areas that should be protected for industrial and office uses. Where appropriate, mixed use development will be encouraged incorporating residential uses and szrpport services, for the employment base. The subject property is zoned [-G (Industrial -General) and the planned uses of self- storage and commercial all require Use Review under that zoning designation. 5.09 Vidnl and Productive Retnil Base. With Boulder's retail role in. the region changing, the city and coamry recognize the need, for the city to actively support its retail base. The planned addition of 5,000 square feet commercial use to this site would support the retail base of the city. However, staff is concerned that an isolated commercial use, not AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 22 developed within a mixed use context would establish more of a 'strip commercial" development along Arapahoe Avenue, considered inconsistent with the BVCP. The proposed project would currently be considered inconsistent with following BVCP goals and policies and/or the Concept Plan requires additional information to determine consistency: 2.39 Sensitive lnfill and Redevelopment. Overall, injill and redevelopment will be expected to provide significant benefits to the community and the neighborhoods. The city will develop tools such as neighborhood design guidelines to promote sensitive infill and redevelopment. The city will work rovith neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood character and livability. "Chere are no neighborhood design guidelines for this area of east Arapahoe Avenue. Similarly, there is no defined architectural character for the area. Staff views "sensitive intill" in this case to be development that respects the existing environmental setting, in particular, careful integration of the buildings around the existing mature trees, the wetlands, and the Hood constrained areas. As currently planned, the proposed 5,000 square toot building of Lot 2 appears to be built into the area where existing mature trees are located. As designed, staff is concerned that the concept plan does not sensitively infill into the unique setting with the pond and mature trees. 2.40 Playsical Design for People. The city anti county will take all recrsonahle steps to ensure that new development and redevelopment, public as rovell as private, be designed in a manner that is sensitive to social, physical and emotional needs. Broadly defined. this will include factors such as accessihihty to those with limited mobility: provision of coordinated,facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders: provision ojfimctiona[ landscaping ctnd open space; and the appropriate scale and massing ~f buildings related to neighborhood context. Similar to Poficy 2.39 above, staff views the placement of the 5,000 square foot building to be inappropriate within the existing vegetated context. In addition, the two- story massing of the 100,000 square toot climate controlled building would be one of the largest buildings in the east Arapahoe Avenue context. While this building is setback from the street by approximately 250 feet, it would still create a formidable presence along the roadway requiring additional visual impact analysis by the applicant. 1.42 Enhanced Design for fife Built Environment. Through its policies and progrczms, the city will encourage or require quality architecture and urban design in private sector development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, provides a livable environment and addresses the elements listed below. a) The context. Projects should become a coherent part of the neighborhood in which they are placed. They should be preserved and enhanced where the surroundings have a distinctive character. Where there is a desire to improve the character of the AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 23 surroundings, a new character and positive identity as established through area planning or a community involvement process should be created for the area. Special attention vrill be giren to protecting and enhancing the quality of established residential areas that are adjacent to business at•eas. The distinctive character of the existing site is the large mature trees and the pond. Staff notes that greater sensitivity and definition must be provided to the mature trees in this setting, to better integrate the proposed buildings around the mature trees and pond. b) T{re pub{ic realm. Projects should relate positively to public• streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths. buildings and landscaped areas--not parking lots--should present a well-designed, face to the public realm, should not block access to sunlight, and slzotdd be sensitive to important public view corridors. Staff notes that the x,000 square Foot building of Lot 2 would provide street presence as it is planned closer to Arapahoe Avenue than the larger storage facilities to the rear of the property. However, the landscape areas established by the mature trees would be compromised by the building. e) Hatmnn scn{e. Projects should provide pedestrian interest along sheets, paths and public spnces. As noted, the x,000 square foot building would provide pedestrian interest along Arapahoe Avenue; however, the landscape character would be compromised by the planned location of the building. "the large storage buildings toward the rear do not face the street and thus would not require the. pedestrian scaling. However, staff notes the opportunity that the future rail corridor presents to the northern boundary of the property. While a 60-toot drainage corridor is proposed, the northern portion of the property could ultimately be within the public corridor of the rail While the Concept Plan establishes storage facilities on the site that would not be out of character of the existing, surrounding development future transit, and a future transit stop as programmed by RTD within close proximity to the site could provide pedestrian and public space opportunities that the current Concept Plan does not anticipate. d) Permeability. Projects should provide multiple opportunities to walk from the street into projects, thus presenting a street face that is permeable. Where appropriate, they should provide opportunities for visual permeability into a site to create pedestrian interest. A multi-use path exists along Arapahoe Avenue. While the Concept Plan indicates roadway accesses into the site, the uses themselves along with the security gating that would occur with the proposed use does not encourage permeability or pedestrian access into the site. e) On-site open spnces. Projects should incorporate well-designed functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably. Where public parks or open spaces are not within close proximity, shared open spaces for a variety of activities should also be provided within developments. AGE[YDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 24 The existing pond that is proposed to remain, along with the existing trees, present a open space character that could be enhanced with amenities such as benches or sensitively designed plaza spaces. However, the Concept Plan requires redesign to maintain the existing trees. [n the redesign, care should be given to enhancing the existing open space character to benefit site users as well as the public. ~ Buiidings. Buildings should be designed with a cohesive design that is comfortable to the pedestrian, with inviting entries that are visible from public rights of way. The x,000 square foot building is in closer proximity to the planned multi-use path along Arapahoe. With better integration of this building into the existing context and mature trees, a greater pedestrian environment could be created. 5.07 Upgrade Existir:g Commercial and lndetstrinl Areas. The city will cooperate with the private sector to.foster the revitalization of commercial and industrial areas in order to create greuter vitality. Where appropriate, the city will enhance retail and .cervices desired by employees, add housing and create transit, friendly developments. The city will work with property owners to irnpr•ove the guctlity gjBoulder's office and industrial buildings through rehabilitation or redevelopment. A variety of tools should he considered to create public/private partnerships that lend to st~ccessjul redevelopment These tools may include, but are not limited to, area planning, infrusir•trcture improvements, changes to zoning or development standards and financial incentives The Concept Plan would redevelop the existing, vacant Granville-Phillips site. While redevelopment enhances commercial/industrial viability, the gated two thirds of the site would not contribute to employment generating uses envisioned by the `Light [ndustrial" designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, staff questions the ``vitality" of large storage facilities. Further, as noted, the planned FasTracks passenger rail corridor is planned directly adjacent to the subject property. The applicant could propose future phasing and redevelopment of the site to accommodate the proximity to the rail. In addition with greater analysis of the conveyance zone, the 60-foot channel proposed on the northern portion of the site could be reconfigured to provide greater access to the future rail platform envisioned between 55`h and 63`d streets. AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 25 ATTACHN[ENT C: Development Review Comments CITY OF BOULDER _J/~ Planning and Development Services ~ ~ 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 fax 303-441-3241 web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: October 19, 2007 CASE MANAGER: Elaine McLaughlin PROJECT NAME: 5675 ARAPAHOE ROAD STORAGE FACILITY LOCATION: 5675 ARAPAHOE RD COORDINATES: N03E01 REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review & Comment REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2007-00059 APPLICANT: Jeffrey Wingert- Reynolds and Company DESCRIPTION. CONCEPT REVIEW AND COMMENT: Proposed subdivision into two parcels and construct a 100,000 s.f. climate controlled storage facility along with 66,000 s.f. of self-storage (mini- storage~ on lot 1; and a 5,000 s.f. retail building on Lot 2. REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Parking Reduction I. REVIEW FINDINGS The following comments reflect a review of the submitted Concept Plan for the redevelopment of the site. The Concept Plan will not be approved or denied, but will be used to provide the applicant with preliminary staff, Planning Board, and public feedback and input to be used in the formulation of a Site Review application. Refinements to the proposed site plan and architecture should address public, staff and Planning Board comments as well as Site Review criteria found in the Land Use Code Section 9-2-14, B.R.C.1981. A Planning Board hearing has been scheduled for December 6, 2007 to discuss the proposed Concept Pian Review application. It is highly recommended that the applicant review the comments herein and be prepared to address the following issues and comments at the Concept Plan hearing. Key issues to be discussed at the Concept Review hearing will include (but are not limited to): 1. Is the proposed plan compatible with the goals and objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? 2. Does the proposed layout optimize pedestrian and vehicular access, safety, and circulation? 3. Is the request for a parking reduction appropriate for the use and context? 4. Does the proposed layout optimize site and context conditions? II. CITY REQUIREMENTS AccesslCirculation (Michelle Mahan, 303-441-4417) 1. Prior to Site Review submittal, trip generation and trip distribution is required to be performed and the results submitted per sections 2.03(J) and 2.03(K) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. A traffic impact study is'required for any nonresidential development that is expected to generate 100 vehicle trips or greater during any single hour. A traffic impact study will be a requirement of the Site Review if trip generation is shown to exceed the threshold. If a traffic impact study is warranted by the trip generation, the transportation consultant or engineer preparing the study must contact Michelle Mahan (303-441-4417) to discuss the study parameters prior to initiating the study. 2. The draft East Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan shows a primary road along the east property line (which would require a 30 foot dedication on the west side of the property line). Although the East Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan has not yet been adopted, this roadway connection should be considered in the design of the site and used as a guide to meet the Slte AGENDA fTEM # 56 PAGE # 26 Review criteria for circulations through the site. Ultimately, the easternmost access will be replaced with this primary road connection and should be designed with this future connection in mind. This drive currently does not meet the requirements of section 2.04(C)(2) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, which requires the access to be in alignment with the golf course access drive on the south side of Arapahoe. Turning restrictions may be required if this drive cannot be brought into alignment at this time. At the time of Site Review, the plans must clearly show the sites alignment relative to the golf course access drive and any proposed turning restrictions. 3. Per Table 2-1 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, a minimum separation of 250 feet is required between site accesses along an arterial roadway (Arapahoe). The two existing access drives do not have adequate separation from the adjacent properties. Shared access with the adjacent properties should be pursued. In the event that shared accesses cannot be obtained, the westernmost Arapahoe access is required to be restricted to emergency access only and Lot 2 will not be permitted to be served from Arapahoe. However, Lot 2 could be served by an access easement through Lot 1. This information was provided to the applicant at the Pre- Application phase as well. 4. The draft East Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan shows a secondary road along the north property line (which would require a 60 foot dedication on the south side of the property line). The drainage channel shown on the plans is not compatible with this plan. Although the East Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan has not yet been adopted, this roadway connection should be considered in the design of the site and used as a guide to meet the Site Review criteria for circulations through the site. 5. A CDOT access permit will be required for the proposed alterations to the Arapahoe Avenue accesses. The CDOT access permit must be applied for concurrently with Site Review submittal and must have final approval prior to final engineering plan approval. A CDOT access permit must be reviewed and approved through a separate Technical Document Review process. Application materials and requirements are located on the 3ftl Floor of the Park Central Building, and can also be found on the city's web-site at: www.bouldercolorado.gov 6. A 12 foot wide emergency access lane contained within a minimum, continuous 20 foot wide emergency access easement is required to be provided for all structures located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access. The emergency access lane must have minimum turning radii of 25 feet, or the radii required to accommodate an SU-30 vehicle. Vertical clearance from the surface of the emergency access lane shall be at least 13.5'. The access lane and easement must be clearly shown, dimensioned, and labeled on the plans at the time of Site Review. An access easement is required to be dedicated concurrently with the final engineering submittal and prior to the time of building permit. 7. A multi-use path exists along Arapahoe Avenue. At the time of Site Review, survey documents are required to be submitted which clearly show and dimension the existing multi-use path, landscape buffer, and any associated access easements. In the event that the existing multi-use path is not 12 feet wide with an 8 foot wide landscape buffer, the path will not be required to be reconstructed, however, a public access easement will be required to be dedicated to include the area 21 feet off the back of existing curb (to cover the future sidewalk width plus one foot beyond the back of walk). 8. At the time of Site Review, a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan is required to be submitted which outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development and implementable measures for promoting alternate modes of travel. The applicant should contact Andrea Robbins (303-441-4139) with GO Boulder, to discuss TDM options. The TDM plan must be submitted as a separate document with Site Review resubmittal. 9. The subject property is adjacent to the Northwest Rail FasTracks Corridor that will connect Denver to Boulder and Longmont in 2014. RTD has proposed that a passenger station be located along the section of this corridor between 55th and 63rd Streets in Boulder. Currently, there is no public funding to build this station and other related facilities. RTD has proposed that interested private developers work with RTD, local jurisdictions and other property owners to construct a passenger platform and related facilities at this proposed station location. Currently, the City's AGENDA ITEM # 56 PAGE # 27 position on this issue is neutral, and thus, it can not offer a commitment to support zoning changes or any other public resource investments that may be required to approve a transit oriented development at this location. The City does wish to make area property owners aware of this potential opportunity and plans to work productively with area property owners regardless of the types of developments they propose. For additional information, contact Cris Jones with GO Boulder (303-441-3217). Building Design 1. The east and west elevations of the 5,000 square foot retail building would both be highly visible from Arapahoe Road. Given that, greater definition should be provided to the west elevation in the project plans through use of additional windows and building articulation. Similarly, despite the industrial location, greater building articulation could be provided on the commercial building's south facing elevation that would front onto Arapahoe Avenue. 2. Recent passage of the Climate Action Plan by City Council requires that projects within the City of Boulder seek techniques to reduce greenhouse gases in ways both large and small. Given the large expanse of roof top on the climate controlled storage building, the applicant should explore the use of solar photovoltaics as a means to generate or supplement power for the facility. Drainage 1. Storm water quality treatment and detention ponding are issues that must be addressed during the Site Review Process. A Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) must be provided by the applicant at time of Site Review application. Additional items that must be considered when developing a drainage plan include but are not limited to: • Water quality for surface runoff using "Best Management Practices' Use of existing wetland (pond) for drainage and water quality • Offsite drainage infrastructure improvements • Evaluation of impacts to downstream properties • Storm sewer construction • Groundwater discharge • Erosicn control during construction activities • Floodplain constraints on the property 2. The applicant's written statement states "Roof drains serving the climate controlled facility... will outflow into the existing pond or into the ditch between the existing pond and west property line". It also states "Storm water drainage from self storage roof surfaces as well as aisle roadways between storage units will flow to the north drainage channel at the north side of the site'. Direct discharge of storm water runoff to a wetland area and/or pond is prohibited. Discharge to a proposed drainage channel may provide some water quality treatment, but detention ponding and Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) is still required. This may require that a significant portion of the northwest corner of the property be used for adetention/water quality pond. 3. The project appears to be disturbing more than one (1) acre of land. A construction storm water discharge permit (CDPS) is required from the State of Colorado for projects disturbing greater than one (1) acre. In addition, the requirements of Section 7.13 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) (revised Jan 5, 2005) apply. Flood Control (Katie Knapp 303-441-3273) 1. Floodplain regulations prohibit obstructions or encroachments into a conveyance zone that would result in any rise (or increase) in flood elevations. The placement of structures or fill in the conveyance zone will create an obstruction to the passage of floodwaters that would require mitigation to offset the impacts of these obstructions. Proposed development activities must comply with the standards as set forth in Chapter 9-3, Boulder Revised Code 1981. Flood protection elevations applied for regulatory purposes are lwo feet higher than 100-year flood elevations. 2. It is important and recommended that the applicant analyze and determine feasible site grading and developable area options prior to filing a site plan application. A technical hydraulic analysis will be required to demonstrate that proposed development would not cause any rise in Flood AGENDA ITEM # 56 PAGE # 28 elevations, divert flood waters in an adverse manner to adjacent properties, or result in any increase in flood hazard to structures or lives. The South Boulder Creek Flood Mapping Study is a complex one-dimensional and two-dimensional linked analysis that was completed with the proprietary MIKE FLOOD hydraulic model developed by DHI, Inc. A technical analysis will be necessary to address the impact of improvements proposed in the conveyance zorie. If the applicant is able to develop an acceptable, equivalent, one-dimensional hydraulic model using HEC-RAS, then MIKE FLOOD would not be required for the analysis. 3. The application shows proposed flood channels along the west and north sides of the property. Previous discussions about site development of this property included creating a conveyance drainageway from Arapahoe to the north end of the property with a future option for the city to install a flood culvert/pedestrian underpass across Arapahoe between this site and the Flatirons Golf Course. This option could reduce flood waters overtopping Arapahoe in a major flood, preserve emergency transportation access along the primary roadway, and offer a grade separated crossing for pedestrians. The applicant should discuss such options with the city before finalizing a site design application. 4. Parking in other areas outside of the conveyance zone may be prohibited based on depths of flooding. Per Section 9-3-3(a)(8) of the BRC, no person shall establish an area for automobile parking in any portion of the floodplain where Flood depths exceed eighteen inches. 5. The proposed structures shall be flood-proofed in a manner requiring no human intervention or the lowest floor elevated to or above the flood protection elevation (2 feet above the elevation of the predicted i00-year flood event). 6. Trees and shrubs are conceptually shown within the drainage channel. Heavy stands of trees that would impede water flow should be avoided. Fire Protection Fire has no issues with the concept review. Applicants have met with fire regarding requirements. They are aware of what will be required to be sprinklered. The site must be accessible for fire apparatus including widths and turning radius. Fire Hydrants will also be required throughout the site. No additional comments at this time. David Lowrey 303.441.4356 Land Uses The applicant has acknowledged that the self-storage facilities within the I-G zone district require a Use Permit review that could be submitted concurrent with the Site Review application. The smaller building proposed for convenience retail along Arapahoe Avenue would require approval of a Conditional Use permit for the I-G zone. Landscaping The project site contains a number of large, long-lived trees that. appear to include willow and cottonwood. These trees create a significant landscape presence along with the existing pond and wetland for the Arapahoe Avenue streetscape. The Concept Plan labels several trees on the plan as "E. Trees' however, there is no distinction between existing-to-remain; and existing-to-be-removed trees. As the project plans move forward, greater clarity must be provided regarding the many existing trees on the project site. The exhibit below presents an aerial of the existing condition compared with an aerial of the Concept Plan superimposed over the aerial. As is evident within the circled areas, the proposed 5,000 square foot commercial building appears to be placed in a location of existing trees. The applicant should provide greater detail on existing trees, and if impacts are created as demonstrated below, the 5,000 square foot building should be redesigned or relocated away from the existing trees. As noted in condition #3 of Access/Circulation above, the access to Lot 2 and the 5,000 square foot lot would not be allowed due to restrictions of 250-foot separation between access points on a major arterial. Therefore, relocation of the 5,000 square foot building would be required for access purposes as well. AGENDA ITEM # SB PACE # 29 a J) S t - «h ' •sf E ~4 • l s t ,s~; Existing Aerial Existing Aeriat with Concept Superimposed Lot Layout (Elaine McLaughlin, Case Manager, 303.441.4130) The applicant notes that a subdivision is requested to separately develop the 5,000 square foot commercial space near Arapahoe Avenue. The Concept Plan indicates provision of Parking (Elaine McLaughlin, Case Manager, 303.441 4130) The proposed Concept Plan illustrates 25 parking spaces for an IG-zoned site that, under Section 9-9- 6, B.R.C. 1981 requires one parking space per 400 square feet of floor area or 440 parking spaces for the total 171,000 square feet of developr~ierit proposed on the project site. This results in an approximately 94 percent reduction. The applicant has indicated that the nature of self storage units is such that there is not a need for a sign+ficant ai7~ount of parking. As noted by the applicant, "Regarding the small amount of parking i~rwidad on art 1 for the storage operation, typically a srnall amount of parking is required for employaes and customers with this type of operation. Once a customer has signed up to rent storage space them is lrtt;e need to visit the office area again unless for instance, packrng and moving material must to be purchased. Otherwise cestomers would go directly to their storage space during the hours of operation and park adjacent to the space. Therefore providing 1 space per 400 sf of floor area, where the floor area is comprised of storage space, does not make sense in practical terms." 1 do not have statistical data on nand to understand the frequency with which an a'~~erage customer visits their storage space. Some customers maybe required to make daily visits others may have household items stored such that months might pass without a visit. Should there be a resident caretaker at the facility for 24 hour security purposes there wi!! need to be several parking spaces for' the caretaker and visifing guests. So the twelve to thirteen spaces provided adjacent to the office on the east side should be ample. " Staff notes that ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) data suggests that peak period parking demand for "Mini-Warehouse" storage units averages much lower than the requirements for the I-G zone: 0.16 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area. This translates to a requirement for 16 parking spaces for the 100,000 square foot climate controlled storage facility; and 10 parking spaces for the 66,000 square foot mini-storage facility. Therefore, for both the storage uses on the site, a total of 26 parking spaces wouid be required based on ITE standards. The applicant notes that parking spaces would be accommodated parallel to each individual mini storage units within the 66,000 square foot self storage area's 24-foot wide drive aisles. Staff notes that for the 24-foot drive aisle lanes, two 10-foot travel lanes would not allow for parking. It is assumed that each drive aisle would require one-way travel. This is not evident on the Concept Plan. For the convenience retail/coffee shop or other commercial uses that may occur within the 5,000 square foot building, staff would recommend a higher parking ratio of 1 parking space per 300 square feet of floor area, consistent with a retail use; which would equate to 16 parking spaces to serve that AGENDA ITEM # 5B PACE # 30 space. Bicvcle Parking Bicycle parking is required to be provided in accordance with sections 9-9-6(b) and 9-9-5(g) of the Boulder Revised Code and section 2.11(E) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. The proposed bicycle parking locations and number of parking spaces must be shown on the landscape plans at the time of Site Review. Site Design As described above under "Landscaping" the 5,000 square foot building appears to encroach, or be built over, several existing trees. As noted, the trees have a significant presence within the Arapahoe Avenue corridor and the applicant must demonstrate that there is no impact to existing long-lived trees or redesign the location of the 5,000 square foot building. Utilities 1. All proposed public utilities for this project shall be designed in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS). A Utility Report per Sections 5.02 and 6.02 of the DCS will be required at time of Site Review application to establish the impacts of this project on the City of Boulder utility systems. 2. Fire hydrants will need to be installed to meet the coverage requirements outlined in Section 5.10 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Per the standards, no portion of any building shall be over 175 feet of fire access distance from the nearest hydrant. Fire access distance is measured along public or private (fire accessible) roadways or fire lanes, as would be traveled by motorized fire equipment. Looped water main construction throughout the development will be required and all fire hydrants and public water lines must be located within public utility easements (25 feet wide minimum). Twenty-four hour (24 hr) access through locked gates is required for the fire department (Knox Box, etc.). Utility maintenance personnel must also have 24-hour access for flushing, repair, etc. and Knox Boxes may not be an option. 3. Each principal structure (requiring a wastewater service connection) shall be served by a separate wastewater service line connected to the collection main. This may require the construction wastewater mains within the proposed development. All public wastewater lines must be located within public utility easements. Wetlands (Katie Knapp 303-441-3273) 1. The existing pond and Dry Creek No. 2 Ditch are designated wetlands as set forth in the city's Wetland Regulations. Any proposed development or improvements within the regulatory wetland or buffer will require a wetlands permit. The applicant would be required to demonstrate minimization of impact and that the project is in the public interest given functional values and the public need for the proposed regulated activity. 2. Using the existing pond as the stormwater outfall would negatively impact the wetland area and is not an acceptable drainage solution. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Engineering At time of building permit application, a separate Fence/Retaining Wall Permit will be required for any proposed retaining walls and/or fences on the property. Flood Control (Katie Knapp 303-441-3273 Trees and shrubs are conceptually shown within the drainage channel. Heavy stands of trees that would impede water flow should be avoided. Miscellaneous 1. No portion of any structure, including footings and eaves, may encroach into any public right-of- way or easement. 2. A construction storm water discharge permit is required from the State of Colorado for projects AGENDA ITEM # 56 PAGE # 31 disturbing greater than 1-acre. The applicant is advised to contact the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 3. All permitted structures and landscaping proposed in the right-of-way or public utility easements shall comply with the standards as set forth in Chapter 8-5, "Work in the Public right-of-way and Public Easements," and Chapter 8-(i, "Public right-of-way and Easement Encroachments, Revocable Permits, Leases, and Vacations," Boulder Revised Code 1981. Public Safety (Larry Gibson, Boulder Police Department, 303.441-4485) Issues important to the police department and to public safety at a site such as this include: exterior and parking lot lighting, shrubbery in close proximity to doors, traffic flow with regard to parking spaces allotted and driveway entry-ways, and access and egress from the driveways onto Arapahoe Avenue. Prominent placement and lighting of building address numbers and company name in proximity to the roadway and driveway accesses. Utilities 1. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along the property frontage may conflict with existing utilities, including without limitation: gas, electric, and telecommunications, within and adjacent to the development site. It is the applicant's responsibility to resolve such conflicts with appropriate methods conforming to the Boulder Revised Code 1981, the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and any private/franchise utility specifications. 2. The landscape irrigation system requires a separate water service and meter. A separate water Plant Investment Fee must be paid at time of building permit. Service, meter and tap sizes will be required at time of building permit submittal. 3. The proposed project includes work within the public right-of-way or public easements. Aright-of- way permit is required prior to initiating this construction. 4. The applicant is advised that at the time of building permit application the following requirements will apply: a. The applicant will be required to provide accurate proposed plumbing Fixture count Forms to determine if the meters and services are adequate for the proposed use. b. Water and wastewater Plant Investment Fees and service line sizing will be evaluated. c. If the buildings will be sprinklered, the approved fire line plans must accompany the fire sprinkler service line connection permit application. 5. All water meters are to be placed in city R.O.W. or a public utility easement, but meters are not to be placed in driveways, sidewalks or behind fences. 6. Floor drains internal to covered parking structures, that collect drainage from rain and ice drippings from parked cars or water used to wash-down internal floors, shall be connected to the wastewater service using appropriate grease and sediment traps. IV. NEXT STEPS The Concept Plan review is scheduled before Planning Board for the December 6, 2007 hearing. V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Guidelines for Review and Comment The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan. 9) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of AGENDA [TEM # 56 PAGE # 32 the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; This subject property is located less than one-quarter mile east of the 55~" Street and Arapahoe Avenue intersection near the eastern edge of the city, within an IG (Industrial General) zoned area. Much of the surrounding development on the north side of Arapahoe Avenue is characteristic of Industrial-General land uses and include a variety of warehouse, manufacturing, auto repair, and mini storage uses. Across Arapahoe Avenue from the site is the Flatirons Municipal Golf Course. The entry to the Golf Course aligns with the existing entry to the subject property. There is no identifiable architectural character to the area, with individual industrial parcels developing over time. The 9.8-acre site was formerly Granville-Phillips, a research and development facility with one main building of approximately 20,000 square feet and other small detached storage buildings on the site. The essentially flat site is gently slopes from south to north with a 13-foot grade difference over the 1,174-foot deep site. A significant site feature is the existing, approximately one-half acre, man-made pond that has become a wetland. There are a number of large, long-lived trees on the south side of the pond between the Arapahoe Avenue right-of-way and the pond. 10) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; The subject property is designated within the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as "Light Industrial" with example uses noted as, "research and development, light manufacturing, large scale printing and publishing, electronics, or other intensive employment uses." The proposed use of mini-storage and commercial is not entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation example uses. The BVCP appears to anticipate more employment-oriented land uses within this category. Consistency with Site Review criteria within the Land Use Code Section 9-2-14, B.R.C., 1981 will be evaluated in greater detail at the Site Review submittal, additionally, the proposed project would be considered consistent with following BVCP goals and policies: 2.39 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment. Overall, Infill and redevelopment will be expected to provide significant benefits to the community and the neighborhoods. The city will develop tools such as neighborhood design guidelines to promote sensitive Infill and redevelopment. The city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood character and livability. 2.40 Physical Design for People. The city and county will take all reasonable steps to ensure that new development and redevelopment, public as well as private, be designed in a manner that is sensitive to social, physical and emotional needs. Broadly defined, this will include factors such as accessibility to those with limited mobility; provision of coordinated facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders; provision of functional landscaping and open space; and the appropriate scale and massing of buildings related to neighborhood context. 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment. Through its policies and programs, the city will encourage or require quality architecture and urban design in private sector development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, provides a livable environment and addresses the elements listed below. a) The context. Projects should become a coherent part of the neighborhood in which they are placed. They should be preserved and enhanced where the surroundings have a distinctive character. Where there is a desire to improve the character of the surroundings, a new character and positive identity as established through area planning or a community involvement process should be created for the area. Special attention will be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of established residential areas that are adjacent AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 33 to business areas. b) The public realm. Projects should relate positively to public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths. Buildings and landscaped areas--not parking lots--should present awell-designed face to the public realm, should not block access to sunlight, and should be sensitive to important public view corridors. cJ Human scale. Projects should provide pedestrian interest along streets, paths and public spaces. d) Permeability. Projects should provide multiple opportunities to walk from the street into projects, thus presenting a street face that is permeable. Where appropriate, they should provide opportunities for visual permeability into a site to create pedestrian interest. e) On-site open spaces. Projects should incorporate well-designed functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably. Where public parks or open spaces are not within close proximity, shared open spaces for a variety of activities should also be provided within developments. fJ Buildings. Buildings should be designed with a cohesive design that is comfortable to the pedestrian, with inviting entries that are visible from public rights of way. 5.07 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment. The city will cooperate with the private sector to foster the revitalization of commercial and industrial areas in order to create greater vitality. 5.01 Economic Vitality Economic vitality in Boulder will be pursued through a partnership among the public, private and nonprofit sectors. The city's primary contribution is through the provision of efficient processes and procedures required for site development, the investment in municipal infrastructure, and consideration of other initiatives on a case-by-case basis. The city will adopt economic vitality programs and strategies that foster innovation, enhance competitiveness and expand markets. The city and county will support a diversified employment base within the Boulder Valley, reflecting labor force capabilities and recognizing amenities for emphasizing scientific, technological and related industries. Inclusion of elements in the economic vitality program should enhance the community's role in the global and domestic marketplace. 5.06 Industrial Zoning Industrial zoning under the comprehensive plan will provide the opportunity for the location of industries of various types and uses, including those uses considered essential to the Boulder Valley population from a service standpoint. The zoning ordinance will be updated periodically to assure it is adequately accommodating the existing and future needs of a rapidly changing and technologically-oriented global industrial and services employment base. The city will identify areas that should be protected for industrial and office uses. Where appropriate, mixed use development will be encouraged incorporating residential uses and support services for the employment base. 5.09 Vital and Productive Retail Base With Boulder's retail role in the region changing, the city and county recognize the need for the city to actively support its retail base. 11) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; AGENDA ITEM # 56 PAGE # 34 At the time of Site Review, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with Site Review criteria found in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C., 1981, as well as all applicable BVCP goals and policies (especially those noted above). 12) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; The applicant will be required to complete Site Review and Technical Document Review prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; The site is served by access to RTD along both Arapahoe and 55'". A traffic study will be required at the time of Site Review to determine traffic impacts on-site. 14) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; Regulatory wetlands have been identified on subject property. As noted above, any proposed development or improvements within the regulatory wetland or buffer will require a wetlands permit. Further, the applicant would be required to demonstrate minimization of impact and that the project is in the public interest given functional values and the public need for the proposed regulated activity. In addition, using the existing pond as the stormwater outfall would negatively impact the wetland area and is not an acceptable drainage solution. 15) Appropriate ranges of land uses; and The proposed land uses of self storage facilities and commercial both require different levels of use review. While the uses are not specifically defined within the BVCP for Light Industrial, staff notes that contextually, the proposed uses would be appropriate for this location. 16) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. The subject area is zoned I-G (Industrial General) and Light Industrial within the BVCP. Housing is not an identified use for this location, although it is an approved use. AGENDA ITEM # 56 PAGE # 35 ATTACHMENT D Applicant's Written Statements Charles L. Deane Architecture 8c Planning, P.C. 625 Pleasant Sfreet Boulder. Cdorado 80302 Phone: 303-444-9234 FAX: 303-444-9231 E-mail: cl-deaneQirxJ;a.com September 4, 2007 City of Boulder Planning & Development Services P. O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 Atm: Elaine McLaughlin RE: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW & COMMENT - 5675 ARAPAHOE AVE. Dear Elaine: Included is a completed application for the Concept Plan Review and Comment process with fifteen copies of required and supplemental information explaining the proposed site development. As you know this project was reviewed, specific questions provided and responded to by staff, as part of aPre-Application Review. The proposed project cornprises a combination of climate controlled storage, non-climate controlled warehousing along with self storage unit space a[l on a large 9.4 acre lot, subdivided from the present 9.8 acre lo[. Also included is a small light industrial building on a separate, second lot at the southwest comer of the site with a building se[ back of 20 ft from the property line adjacent to Arapahoe Avenue. HISTORY OF SITE Formerly owned byGranville-Phillips as a research and development facility with one main building of approximately 20,000 sf with other small detached storage buildings on site and a total land area of approximately 9.8 acres. The rear or north half of [he narrow site was not developed by Granville-Phillips, remained vacant. Two vehicular access drives served the facility at the southeast and southwest comers of the site. The property was purchased by Lou Della Cava seven or eight years ago and has no[ redeveloped since that time. The original site development included aman-made water feature between the headquarters building and Arapahoe Avenue. The water source for the pond consists of diverted and detained flows from the Dry Creek Ditch #Z, at this Location fed by tail-waters from Flatirons Golf Course runoff. Inflow enters the pond via a culvert below Arapahoe Avenue located slightly west of the middle of the south property line. Outflow departs from the site across the west property line flowing through adjacent properties [o [he west. A light industrial.projecttyas previously proposed for this IG zoned land years ago, was taken through Concept Plan Review and Comment. Present market conditions favor this proposed project, being a mix of a storage facility types on the large lot with some allowed lighf industrial uses to operate in a s.:tall building on the smaller lot adjacent to Arapahoe Ave. DESCRIPTION OF STORAGE FACILITY The main portion of the project [o be located on Lot l would consist of approximately 100,000 sf of warehouse, a major portion being climate controlled storage space. The existing structure of approximately 20,000 sf would be adapted for climate controlled storage and combined with a two storey addition on the south side of the building providing consolidated floor area of approximately 30,000 sf to 40,000 sf as the initial phase development. Climate controlled storage is expected to be popular in the Boulder azea. This initial stage of providing the local market place with a sampling of this storage type wilt allow the developer to assess the amount to be constructed in the next phase. The initial addition to the south side of the existing building would be two floors in height screening the AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 36 Page 2 of 4 mechanical equipment on the existing roof now visible from Arapahoe. A wal(sign on the south elevation would identify the storage operation. Exterior construction materials used on this portion of the building would include masonry, glass and some amount of the metal exterior panel system that would be used heavily during the following construction to the north. The most economical and durable construction and system for [his type of storage is comprised of some form of insulated and prefabricated metal building panels used on wall and roof surfaces over a metal building frame. This construction Type would predominate the more industrial areas of construction in the north areas of construction. An emergency fire sprinkling system will serve the entire warehouse space. At this time in the plamting process an office/sales area would be located in the building addition at the southeast comer of new construction. Adequate parking would be provided a[ this location. Convenience items for sale such as locking devices, packing material and moving/storage supplies would be available in the office area. [t is likely that a caremkers unit would be located above the office space in order to provide for 24 hour security to the facility. Metal gating would secure access to [he facility during non-operational hours. A limited portion of what might be approximately 66,000 sf of self storage units would be provided early-on to satisfy [he need for an economical storage alternative, and to assess the market demand for this aspect of the storage operation. This use will require a Use Review in order to operate in [his IG zoned area Typical self storage construction would be predominantly mewl building system fabrication with some masonry construction. Metal roll-up doors will provide access to the storage units of varied sizes. These self storage units will not be provided with a fire sprinkling system. Fire containment walls would be constructed so as to separate the total floor area constructed into 2,000 sfunits. DESCRIPTION -SMALL BUfl,DING ON ARAPAHOE The included site plan proposes a small single storey building of approximately 5,000 sf at the southwest comer of the site on a separate lot of approximately .40 acres. The building would provide some screening of the more utilitarian storage operation. Uses to be located in [he building fronting on Ampahc ~ could include convenience retail businesses such as a coffee shop, deli and copy center, possibly some form of small vehicular sales or service use or a small home improvement service. EXTERIOR BUILDMG ELEVATIONS Conceptual building elevations have been included representing [he present direction of arohi[ecmral design. With respect to [he large climate controlled building, construction materials would include masonry wall construction, glass at office and caretaker units and metal wall panels. Masonry construction would be employed in the southerly, more visible areas of the project with metal building system construction being utilized in the northern and more utilitarian section of the project. Floor levels of new buildings would be constmcted 2 ft above the 100 year flood elevation orflood-proofed by some mechanical means. Regarding the small building on Lot 2, southwest comer of site, the building construction would include masonry welt construction with possibly a metal roof surface. PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION Construction of the entire project depicted on the site plan would be phased over approximately five to six years. The first phase would include construction of a portion of the climate controlled store a atmcmre, a portion of self storage floor area and all landscaping, wetland mitigation and infrastructure installation on the south portion of the site. As mentioned, product popularity in the first phase would "test the market', provide an assessment as to which of stomge service should be emphasized further. A second phase might complete the climate controlled structure. A third phase could include additional self storage unit construction with the final phase completing the self storage unit constme[ion along with all channel construction, landscaping and remaining infrastructure insmllation. A phasing plan has been included that explains possible phasing of the project. The small building on Arapahoe would be constructed during the second or third development phases AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 37 Page 3 of 4 depending on mazket demand for such light industrial space. VEHICULAR ACCESS Both lots included in this proposed project would retain and utilize the existing access drives at [he two comers on Arapahoe in they present condition. The existing east access drive would serve Lot 1 with the stornge/warehouse operations. Emergency access for Lot I would be satisfied via the west entrance. At this time it is not anticipated that use generated traffic would necessitate a different internal road configuration or improvement over the existing road surface condition. Lot 2 would utilize the existing west access drive, which would also provide emergency access to Lot 1 with an access restriction a[ the existing bridge crossing the ditch. An east-west connecting road has been proposed on the south side of the climate controlled building, north of [ha pond to allow cross-access between each side of the site. This would improve emergency acress between the two sides of the site as well as provide future options for the sharing of Arapahoe access Nith neighbors. In the distant future, should the project change in use or intensity or should there be some sharing of drive access points with neighbors, [he entrance drive configurntionldesign may be required to be modified. Should the Eas[ Arapahoe Transportation Network Platt ever be adopted and acted upon, a reserved access easement that might be time-activated at some future date could address any issues relative to through-site access along [he east property line. At the present time the contemplated network plan would, if implemented, displace numerous existing buildings and wetlands in the area. Decades are likely to pass before possible implementation of any such transportation plan. SOUTH BOULDER CREEK FLOOD MAPPING The most recent flood plain study effecting this area has been approved by the Boulder City Council and has been submitted to FEMA. This mapping that was part of the study depicts the severity of a 100 year flood event impacting this site to be less in comparison to the presently approved mapping. Schedule wise final approval by FEMA should be within a short period of time. The included conceptual site plan being proposed is based on the new flood plain mapping. The presently proposed flood plain mitigation design incorporates a 35 ft wide flood channel along the west edge, north half of the property as well as a 60 ft wide channel along the north side of the property, south of the railroad rightof--way. A 12.5 ft side yard setback is proposed for dte east side of the site, north half. 100 year flood-water flows approach the site from the southeast and would be diverted primarily to the west flood channel. Flood-water flows would also be heavy approaching [he site along the noRh edge of the property where the 60 ft wide channel is being proposed to accept those Bows. WETLAND BUFFER ENCROACHMENT/ENI-IANCEMENT As mentioned above, the marrmade pond visible from Arapahoe Avenue was constructed during the development of the Granville-Phillips headquarters as a water feature fed by diverted tail-waters from the Flatirons Golf Course on the opposite side of Arapahoe Avenue. This is the origin of Dry Creek Ditch #2 drainage water flowing from the pond system through a ditch that exits the site at the west property line and continues through the adjacent property to the west and north. The ditch eventually Bows below a railroad bridge west of this site. Originally during dry periods of inflow, supplemental water was probably provided by an irritation well. While no existing wetlands on the site would be disturbed as part of the proposed development, in reviewing the latest wetland mapping, i[ is clear that existing access roads and paved improvements technically have been within the 50 ft buffer area of the existing pond, ditches and associated wetlands. The applicant proposes to minimally disturb the existing access drives until some future circumstance necessitates this. While disturbance of most wetland buffet areas has been avoided, the newly proposed east-west connecting drive is one exception and the parking area for the small building, southwest comer is another. As an offset [o buffer AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 38 „ + Page 4 of 4 intrusion we propose to provide enhanced wetland development on the south side of the exis~ing pond nearest Arapahoe Avenue as well as along the outflowing ditch from the pond as depicted on the landscape plan. This would take place during the first construction phase under the direction of a local wetland resource consultuu. A 25 ft width of the 50 ft wide buffer would still be maintained on the north side of the pond. The areas of wetland buffer that road construction would intrude upon are no[ of a high quality as per standard wetland identification. The area between the south side of the existing building and the man-made pond has historically consisted of mowed non-native sod with mowing extending to the very edge of the pond itself. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Roof drains serving the climate controlled facility and other warehousing associated with this building will outflow into the existing pond or into the ditch between [he existing pond and west property line. Roads and other impermeable surfaces south of the rear wall of the climate controlled building will drain storm water flows into the existing pond or ditch as well. Storm water drainage from self storage roof surfaces as welt as aisle roadways betwcen storage units will flow to the north drainage channel a[ the north side of the site. Storm flows will exit the site at the northwest comer at the historical rate of Flow in the historical direction [o the west along the south side of the ;x:sting railroad track system. SITE LANDSCAPING There is a large amount of mature tree growth flourishing at the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the pond and ditch system. Tree species are primarily cottonwood and willow varieties. Historically maintained landscaping was emphasized on the south side of the main headquarters building with the mowing of sod groundcover to the ponds edge. Cattails have recently increased in quantity around the ponds wet-edge. Proposed new landscaping would be concentrated on the south side of the building addition and along the east and west property tines of the southerly half of the site. Adjacent development to the rear half of the site is notably industrial with a warehouse character and minimal landscaping (1 tree, 5 shrubs per 1,500 st). The included Conceptual Landscape Plan depicts proposed site landscaping in conceptual form with street trees along road systems without existing trees and adjacent to parking areas. Screening of parked vehicles would be accomplished with shrubs, earth berms and decorative walls. CONCLUSION The applicant believes this is an appropriate project to be proposed in this area of the City of Boulder. I will hope for a Planning Board hearing to be scheduled in October. Please advise me of the schedule. Contact me should you have questions, require additional information regarding this review request. Sincerely, Charles L. Deane encL Conceptual Site Plan Bldg. Elev. Landscape Plan Context Map Application Material & Application Fee Phasing Plan for Construction AGENDA ITEM # 56 PAGE # 39 ChoAes L. Deane Architecture 8. Planning, P.C. 625 Pleasant Street Boulder, Coloratlo BC 302 Pfrone: 303-444.9234 FAX 303-444.9231 E-mall: ci•deane477ndracom October 16, 2007 Elaine McLaughlin City of Boulder Planning Dept. P. O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 RE: 5675 ARAPAFIOGAVENUE-CONCEPT RF.VIE~V & COMMENT , Dear Elaine: The purpose of this letter is to clazify several aspects of [he development proposal for 5675 Arapahoe Avenue, now in a Concept Review & Comment process. As proposed, two lots would be formed through a subdivision process. Lot 1 would be the larger serving the climate controlled and self storage operations. The second smaller Lot 2 would be .38 acres in size and located at the southwest comer of the site. A small 5,000 sf industrial building is proposed for this lot. The primary reason for the subdivision is to allow two different partnerships to own and operate different types of business. The storage operation will include a different partner mix such that, being on its own lot would allow for the sale of the storage facility without affecting the business associated with the smaller lot. Regarding the small amount of parking provided on Lo[ 1 for the storage operation, typically a small amount of parking is requred for employees and customers with this type of operation. Once a customer has signed up [o rent storage space there is little need to visit the office area again unless for instance, packing and moving material must to be purchased. Otherwise customers would go directly to their storage space during the hours of operation and park adjacent to the space. Therefore providing 1 space per 400 sf of floor area, where the floor area is comprised of storage space, does not make sense in practical terms. T do no[ have statistical data on hand to understand the frequency with which an average customer visits their storage space. Some customers may be required to make daily visits others may have househo'd items stored such that months might pass without a visit. Should there be a resident caretaker at the facility for 24 hoar security purposes there will need to be several parking spaces for the caretaker and visiting guests. So the twelve to thirteen spaces provided adjacent to the office on [he east side should be ample. I have included photographs of a typical storage facility that provides a large amount of self storage and a smaller portion of controlled climate storage. Most of the structures shown utilize metal building construction with the controlled climate stmcture being insulated for energy conservation purposes. Elaine, let me know what more I should provide for the review process to be completed. Should there be a requirement that I make a more formal request for a parking reduction variance let me know. Sincerely, Chl/ar/le)lsp~L. Deane erFNnet'rr:n4u:a nercw,rn ~ - ~ Efl ~ - ~ - - .l as VIEWED FROM STREET TOWARD INTERIOR LOT CARETAKERS UNIT ON SECOND FLOOR, LINE SIDE OF FACILITY, WALL SIGN, OFFICE 8~ SECURITY FENCE W/ LANDSCAPING, VIEWED CARETAKER UNIT BEYOND. FROM STREET. S T r '1 ° , 1,~---~` - f'~ f ? ~,rK k -i ~ - 1c 3-PARKING SPACES FOR OFFICE/CARETAKER VIEWED FROM STREET, END-WALL OF AREA. CONTROLLED CLIMATE BUILDING, EMERGECY EGRESS DOOR. 5 - I~ ~;-I_t i i ! ~ i : i ~.l - _ END-WALL OF CLIMATE CONTROLLED STORAGE BUILDING, SELF STORAGE ACCESS DOORS ON RIGHT SIDE OF PHOTOGRAPH, VIEWED DOWN DRIVE AISLE. ArchiCeciure 8 Planning, P.C. 5675 ARAPAH~E AVENUE -EXAMPLE, TYPICAL FAC{CITY cfiar+.sL Deana J03-444-9234 ncFn~u,~ rrE:Nt ~s;Ei hncr #-~i AISLE OF SELF-STORAGE UNIT AREA, ROLL-UP DOOR FACES W/ RAISED THRESHOLD. i 3 . M ' i ~ >J ti~ ROLL-UP DOOR FACES, RAISED THRESHOLD. TYPICAL ACCESS PARKING IN SELF-STORAGE AREA. s _.E_~ ~ " ~ I^ ) ~ ,,,w:' ? jars t.~ a a 4th a ','3' ~ - " ~ t _ SELF-STORAGE AREA, RESERVED AREA FOR RV ~ STORAGE. - - - _ 1'~ _ -K~ ~ ~ L SvM~'~o~.''~: . :...hC ,.Ty~^ K.w..- .h~a'F~.~.~~~._....21~..i~T'Z.Lt 5675 ARAPAHOEAVENUE -EXAMPLE, TYPICAL FACILITY ~,~~6w~ ~.P.~. 303.444924 ;AGE':~ti'1).~1 I"f F.~7 # il3 PAGE # a2 J g ~ A ~ ~ ` 1 Y~ . k .;.sC ~ ~ '~e.°''°. ~ y4 ro ~~cm C'w ' ~a ' s~ ~ ~ ' s` fio~ ~ ~ „ ~ ~ ~ .Sfl E ~~.'k ~ fSS~s.' ~ A ~ a. 'ice' ~ a ~ - ~ ~ ~ -3 l.a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c to c g tsC 7A'3 F , A ~ d qtr `E S x ~ x~'+~ ~s i"'~~~ ~ ~ ~~;~.z,~''~i~s sl'~e,~~~~` ~ ~ ~y ~ . F f ,i u: 3° S~ ~ E6 S k~~"a ~ .kN sH k ~ffi ~ fss ~ "R ~ ~ ~ S E ~ z R Q 6~ R~ E ~?~,7S~u~°">~° r e A~ ~r3 a~'& F w~ex pp ~ °'3 ~ ij _ xi , ~v.~ a a~ :x` ` ~ ~ ~ M ~ i~fi a ~ ~ ~ i « r i ~ r 3 P C yg ~ ~ a 4 a S - 1ir ~a*~ 4 a~ ~ ~ A$ ~ R Sit A ~ ~ t s P _ `~°'o~° ? ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ t :Y, A x ~ g ~ 0 j far ~ , ~ s: ~ ~ i ~ .t~~~~ ,~~>ts i p °t ~E~° er> a .~+c~ >.n s e > ~ } ~ r~ ~ a~, ' , a ~@ } ~ ' ~ H . 3 33 ~ I 3~ ~ ~ ~ p j ~ ,~.5 ~ J ~ X \ i i ~ ~~'~'ap ~ t,`t ~Rv. ~ YE FS~ z~4 ~ A {§p Y3l ~ g 3~> ' 4 ,3R ~ "3 ? r~i$' Y ~ y~ ~ Pp ~ ~ '~i ffi s ~R ~ yam; 1 5 1 ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~a ~4~, T v+y! : G ~ 'jAa" ~ 1 s ~ ~ >v' ~ ~eE ~a ~ ~~ts: e:,r%t. ~ 4~ ~ 2 ~ ~ S Aa - ai > i .m, ~ & ~ 1 t ~ i~ i. yg 14 R ~ ~ r,~ F 0R. - o'y.'~ t .1 ~ ~ s, „nor ~`o. x .e. ~ ~ ~ a w : e a ~ - A', r s t r ~ ~a~' ~ ~ r~ ~ tea' i~fi~ - ~ ~ r ~ ~ 3 ~ k,oe :w .aa ~:v 'Y .a a. ice[ a W ¦ ~ ~ ~ 6i ~>-``F L ® ~ k ® ' 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ qn ~ .R ~ ~ $ ~ p.~ p .mot ~ ~ !"°S P m s ~ e e ~ R ~ ~ ~ y1 ~ ~ ~ ~T~ _y~yAy~,.~(J~~~f{may/ (//~j W._'t - K-F V_ _fy. --~Qa~.~ / ZNn P~~~ DNS ~ ~ ~ L.vvr i~ 1 ' • • ~ ~ l.r1r' Z - eb,~pt,e'y{~ ~-tt~t~ _ >.~t~ i~111=1? Gd,p~NN~+.- d?~#~N _ 7~tTfC-~P=1"5~ tit' ~k1'~~ ~ i9 _ --e a N 5 T i~t1 trlr ~ o N P~ x.51 N ~ 1P l.~ CHARLES L. DEANE o ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING, P.C. 625 PIEA$!WI STREET, BOWDER, COLORADO 80302 PHONE: 303-444-923d o FNC: 303-4d4-9231 '~~C7 S+JG(~IY ISIt~N "fi1~E-~y/~~x~ tel. ~'I~PIW{tJC~ Nil ~T f~l't`f Cs1k1~ . T. ~,ct~.'fi?.. ~ ~1-~' stb~C-~ tJNt~ i G~~ GAF ~CI~"`G r ~-VSI I ~Z4++NE~- - - - I.-o fi I - I c~ zoN~ ~ z ._.1 ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ : / - -5 Sao Q' A - - . . ~ _ _ _ ~J'G~.1Z~ • ~ 1 ~r?~~ .I?j' - ~&~j7a{ lN6 Wiess,.d_. ~ 5~ti'Vi'e,~ 8 " ~~~'.(~~`''i.~ STI'EDEVEI,OPMENTDATA ~X~b._.. ~(i }j0 .~~yy~~ ro IG _ MiNTUI~" - ~~J~ Total Area of Site: 9.80 acres Area of Lot 1: 9.40 acres ~ N ~z~G~~ Area of Lot 2: .40 acres ~y~~~ Floor Area of Climate Controlled Storage 66,000 sf Floor Area of Self Storage Units 100,000 sf ,~11~~I~7 ~.~1-~'~~ ~ Total Floor Area -Lot 1 166,000 sf ~4~~ 0~ F.A.R. -Lot 1 .40 5675 ARAPAHdE AVENUE Total Floor Area -Lot 2 5,000 sf CdNCEPT PLAN VIEW & CdIvIIy1ENT - t ~p F.A.R.-Lot2 .30 Parking - Lot l (Office Area) 1 l spaces SCALE: 1" = l00' 9 - 4 - 01 Parking -Lot 2 13 spaces (1 sp?400sf, . F'~~.- 2.bsp/I,000sf) 9$S~1 ! Diu ~~dd~ _ _ ~t.~~N. - i - - - _ ~ _ _ _ _ ~2~#~:`i~t"j'l~l'~ 1!~-_G4J'~ GOI~T'f?,~1~.~Le~~"~? tz~:_ tµ~~~- 5~~.~~. _ - - - - tl~c r'f-~1:~'vsi~v I1~ I ~ t 't ~ ! ,t - #1~~'~'° ~~.~~~U-4T.~_D-N... _~.l.~~s~Rc?'~ GQNT~1,~1,~~r1~ €s'f~t?.A~fll~ '~o ~ _ _ _ _ _ . ~T_ x max; _ - - i _ - _ , ~ i ~ i - ~ _ t't5'~~ _._~l - ~ ~ ~ r . . war ~ ~Y!_~ri'~yl~ !u : 20' _ ~o~r. _~-~~t~~,.~N _--_.~~g~ ~t s ~ CI' ~ ~Li1~a' ~?K . 2~111~i~ - r -u i ~ .r 4 T ~ w 3Tr~ ~j ~ - w' ~ ~ _ ~r ~ # ~ } ~ f ~ + X. ~ l`~ i~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` - ~ ~ y / ~ y, ,x i r ~~~~t~?~r~ N~_ _ ~T - - - _ - - ~_.-r~x~- 4rrz~r~_ ~ - fir.-~-t,:~t-: ra e,~t~~ . ~ rg- • ~ Pmt ,f I I j `'~SG.~v ~i~-f'#~i-4~ ~ I IWaters~d~e Survey i i - I i -b- SCiALE: 1" = 100' `5~f1Q-07 ~ I I ~I Charles L. Deane _I _ _ - - ~I Architecture & Planning, P.C. ~i I Fi 303-444-9234 ~ sl BURNING TREE SUBDIVISION ~I ~ I ~ ~ I aM _ 500'19'S5'E 7723.17 el RI _ ~P { ~ ~ - _ t ~ I ~ n t o a , n I < ( e n _ _ _ _ I ~ -~l ( I p!'~ or.w.. s I ~ ~ ~ ( _ ~1 ' I ~ J j E . ~ ~ ~ ! I I ~ II r" ! ~ 1 2 t I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ' I H ~ I ~ 1 ~ t _ fN~ , ~ I u+eStW- m ~ - I I ~ i ~ I ~ . - _ ~ I ~ ) ~ ~ 1 1 -n ~r~ m_i / 5 , J ~ .'y v~ yM1 1 e , i ,-t ~ , ass vM.~~ i t I r _ ~ y .e cac / r ~ r--- _ _~ti`$'v'. s ~'_e .^;C~u. v~' ~`.~`u'4 ~_„'YT,,,:si~aaj7__ _'r- °.s ~ 4 i - ~ ~ < ( I _ ~ N0029'30'W 117413"- I UNPLATTED al MINTLING SUBDIVISION REPEAT ~ ~ ~I ~ i 401fC ~ ~ ~ 61 F - ~ _ ~I ed B ~ 1. fWHp p PEBAR MIN 1 1/2' AWbMpY CAP YARKEp pBkW PLS 2]9Y ~ I Y- At ALL BWNBARY CERNEES WRE55 OIHV.RMg Np)ED. ;~1 f fi j ~ ~ 2. BEMRlGS ARE BABE? pN :HE $ql]N lME pf 1HE SW t/{ OF SECIipN 2] R' e5~ / :.I . ~ AS 6EARBN: NBB'{t'454 bg1UYEN1Ep AS 910Mi. R~ ~ 1 RECCRpEp FASEYFNTS, kG!1}5-q'-WAY ANp IECAL pESdBPTON NR .I / ~ 91p1Y1 AS PER (,ICApp..T!}FpE{q~pBApp.y1C.. Cpyb_jtyENi 9 I I ~ _ -N1~BE~~{ice). Et]EClit~' pAIE' pC)pBER 19BB. E l i/ ~