Loading...
5B - Public hearing of Concept Plan LUR2006-00061 - for 1095 Canyon BoulevardCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 5, 2006 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan #LUR2006-00061. The Concept Plan includes the proposed development of 30 residential units and 21,284 square f~et of office/retail space on 0.72 acres, located at 1095 Canyon Boulevard, zoned Downtown-5 (DT-5), the northwest corner of Canyon Blvd and 11`h Street. ApplicanUOwner: Tebo Development, Stephen Tebo REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Plannin~& Development Services Ruth McAeyser, Acting Planning Director Bob Cole, Land Use Review Manager Brent Bean, Planner OBJECTIVES: Define the steps for Planning Boazd consideration of this request: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing Planning Boazd discussion of Concept Plan. No action is required by Planning Board. STATISTICS: Proposal: Develop a new four story building with heights to 55' over a two level below grade parking garage at the northwest corner of Canyon Boulevard and 11`~ Street. The new development will include up to 30 residential units and 21,284 square feet of office/retail space. Total proposed building azea will be 82,280 square feet. Ma~cimum building azea may be up to 85,168 square feet based on a floor area ratio of 2.7:1. Project Name: 1095 Canyon Boulevard I.ocation: The northwest corner of Canyon and 11`~ Street Size of Tract: 31,544 square feet or 0.72 acres Zoning: DT-5 (Downtown 5), previous zone RB1-X Comprehensive Plan: Regiona] Business KEY ISSITES: 1. Is access to and from Canyon appropriate? 2. Is the general bulk and scale of the building proposed appropriate at this location? 3. Is a height of up to 55' appropriate at this location? 4. Is the design consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines? S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # 5B Paee# 1 BACKGROUND: Existing Site / Site Context: The cunent site is occupied by the Republic of Boulder restaurant. This site is located in CAGID, the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines non-historic area and the Canyon Boulevard corridor. Surrounding land uses include the city campus south of Canyon , ihe St. Julien Hotel and the civic site (proposed arts complex) to the west. The Mediterranean restaurant and the Exeter buildings are to the north and the Randolf Center and One Boulder Plaza phase 5 to the east. All of the surrounding buildings north of Canyon except the Mediterranean building have been constructed to heights of 55'. Previous reviews: This site has been approved for two previous site reviews, P-77-28 and P-84-65 for the Elephant Baz. The site has been used for several other restaurants including the Oasis and the Republic of Boulder. Site constraints: The site is in the Boulder Creek 100 year floodplain and the southern 25% more or less of the site is in the high hazard and conveyance flood zones. There is also an isolated spot of high hazard zoned area in the northeastern portion of the site, that appears to be the result on site water detention ponding from previous approvals. The site is also in the Downtown area, subject to the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, which include a recommended 38' setback from the property line along Canyon Blvd. and the non-historic dis[rict design guidelines. ANALYSIS: Key Issues: The following Key issues have been identified by staff to heip guide Planning Board discussion of this application. All of the "key issues" are discussed in greater detail in the following Guidelines for Concept Review and Comments section. The basic conclusions for each key issue are reviewed in the following section. Planning Board may add to this list or provide additional comments for the key issue listed. 1. Is access to and from Canyon appropriate? Within the Canyon Boulevard corridor from 9~' to 16"' Streets, there are only two drives accessing Canyon. One Boulder Plaza, 1301 Canyon has an existing drive cut for the bank drive through that exits to Canyon. In this case, the driveway was a historic use of the site for the previous bank drive through that was retained on the site. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing driveway on this site to provide access to up to 800 pazking spaces if an internal connection is made to the CAGID/St. Julien Hotel pazking lot to the west. This is a significant change in the use of the existing driveway at this location. Staff has identified some issues that will need to be considered for the Canyon access. These include permitting only entrance movements from Canyon, development of an exit to the alley and the need to clearly distinguish be[ween the driveway and pedestrian movements within the plaza adjacent to Canyon. At the time of Site Pian review traffic studies will need to address exiting movements to Canyon Boulevard. The DDAB was supportive of locating a garage entry on Canyon if it helps solve traffic congestion on the intemal streets and alley. A change in paving materials separating the driveway from the S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSVvIEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aaenda Item # SB Pa¢e# 2 plaza and pedestrian movements was encouraged. 2. Is the general bulk and scale of the building proposed appropriate at [his location? In general, the bulk and scale of this building is consistent with the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines. DDAB has made a preliminary review of the proposed architecture and general scale of the building and found it to be consistent with the intent of the Guidelines. They found that the proposed 2T setback from Canyon would provide adequate space for views to the mountain back drop given the existing hotel and future civic building locations to the west of this site. Four story architecture combined with taller first floor elements are all consistent with other development along Canyon Boulevard. The alley is in the "downtown pedestrian district," where improved pedestrian movement are encouraged. The land use regulations require a 15' setback from the alley. The proposed zero lot line setback at the alley will not support pedestrian improvements including trees, walkways and the mix of service traffic. Staff does not support varying the full 15' setback for this reason. Additional consideration should be given by the applicant to design the building along the alley to met these concerns. 3. Is a height of up to 55' appropriate at this location? As noted in previous sections the buildings in the surround area are a115S tall with the exception of the Mediterranean buildings. A SS tall building in this location is consistent with existing and planned development. The northern edge of the fourth floor should be setback a minimum of 20' to provide views through the building to the south and west. The 20' setback will result in a view angle that wil] permit views of the Flatirons and Flagstaff mountain for the top floors of the 55' tall buildings to the north. Wa/nut St r-- - - - - = ~, ~ - ; ~ I ~ ~ J MEDI R N pJ(ETER BUILDING ~ ~NDOLPN p ~ ] ~ c CENTER ~ L I A _ ~~ ~ I ~~ ~ i 1 ~ ~ I = I ~_ '1095 `~ ~ ~ I 5 I I MOTEL qVIC SITE ONE BOULDER I I I PLAZA PHASE S ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ - ~ _ Canyon Bv =- 4. Is the design consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines? The Downtown Design Guidelines provide direction for the general building appearance. DDAB found that a more than S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # SB Paee# 3 adequate pedestrian corridor and plaza would be available along Canyon. The Board felt a stronger residentia] entry needs to be developed but the recessed commercial entry at 11`~ and Canyon was appropna[e at this loca[ion given the other more prominent comers of Broadway & Canyon, and Ninth & Canyon. They suggested the massing elements along the Canyon Bivd frontage could be simplified some from the details provided at this time. See DDAB minutes, Attachment `B." GUIDELINES FOR CONCEPT REVIEW AND COMMENT: The following guidelines are to be used to guide the 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 Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providin~ comments on a concept plan. 1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, developmeni 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 site is adjacent to Canyon Boulevazd and the "civic center;' with views to the south and wes[ mountain backdrop inclusive of Flagstaff and the Flatirons. The site and surrounding area are relatively flat, which result in the Boulder Creek floodplain being more expansive in this azea. There are no natural features present in this area, but the site has a number of existing trees. Eleven green ash trees aze present within the right of ways along Canyon and 11`h Street. Several pine trees and mixed species of deciduous trees are present on the site. The architecture found within this area is somewhat eclectic, a mixture of craftsmen, contemporary and other styles can be found within the immediate area. 2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitatio~, subcommunity and subarea plans; See attachment "A" for comprehensive plan policies that are appticable to this site. This site is within the CAGID boundaries and requires DDAB review of the final architecture and related site plan elements. DDAB has reviewed the concept architectural plans and found the concepts proposed for the site to be appropriate. See Attachment "B," DDAB minutes. The following Downtown Design Guideline applies to the genera] building design for this site: Po]icy 2.4 of the Downtown Design Guidelines has four primary policies: -Maintain visually interesting building form. Provide stepped upper floors and varying building mass. -Relate the heighi of buildings to neighboring struciures at the sidewalk edge. Upper floors should be stepped back 1 S' for the front fa~ade to reduce the perceived height. -Maintain a standard floor to floor height. 12 to 16' at the first floor and 10 to 12' at upper floor levels. -Consider the effect of building height on shading and views. Wherever possible, new buildings should maintain view corridors and not shade the nonhern sidewalks. -The floors will step back at the third and fourth floor levels along the southern, Canyon Boulevazd frontage. General building height within the area is 55', with the exception of the Medite~ranean building. Increased floor to ceiling heights have been proposed for the first floor. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc A¢enda Item # SB Paee# 4 The Downtown Design Guidelines call for a setback of 38' from the property line along Canyon Blvd. The applicant is proposing a 2Y setback from Canyon and zero setback from the alley (15' setback required). The setback proposed for Canyon is consistent with other setbacks approved along Canyon. The purpose of the setback is to create a"boulevard" along Canyon, with views to the mountains. A pedestrian plaza and walkways along Canyon can be provided within the proposed 27' setback. Reducing the setback should be met with other enhancements to the plaza assuring that pedestrians and city goals are met. The reduced alley setback will not permit the development of alley trees and will reduce the pedestrian use of this alley. Alleys are encouraged to be designed to include both these elements in the downtown area. The plan also does not show a delivery azea. This alley is fairly heavily used by the properties to the north and the Hotel for delivery needs. Pazking trucks in the alley for deliveries will block the alley for others. This site must have a well designed delivery location for use by commercial tenants and future residents. Because the use of this building will be primarily resident, the delivery area should be designed for moving trucks as well. A building height of 55' has been proposed for this site. Views from adjacent properties will be restricted as a result. The fourth floor will be larger housing units with extensive decks. Deck and mechanical equipment placement should be designed with consideration of views from the properties to the north of the alley. If the upper floor has a height of between 9' and 12', a 20' setback from the alley will assure that views to the south and west will be preserved for buildings to the north. The second, third and fourth floors will all be residential. Commercial activities have only been proposed at the first floor ]evel. The floor area ratio for the DT-5 zone pernuts an additional FAR of 1.0:1 for housing. The pernvtted FAR is 2.7:1 or 85,168 squaze feet. Approximately 75% of the new building will be developed for housing as a result. 3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; A site review is required for development of this site. The Site Review Criteria will need to be clearly addressed for all elements of this project. Building height and proposed setback exceptions will need to be discussed in the site review submittal documents, explaining how the proposed exceptions are appropriate within the existing neighborhood. A model of the site and adjacent buildings will need to be developed for this site. An elevation showing the Canyon Blvd. frontage for the blocks between Broadway and 9"' street and a perspective view from east of the site wes[ along Canyon should be included in the site plan submittal documents. In addition, views through the site from the nor[h should be drawn to show views through the site to south and west. A traffic impact study analyzing the impacts of connecting to the CAGID pazking garage and use of the Canyon Boulevard drive will need to be completed if the pazking garages are to be shared. A driveway exiting to the alley from this site should also be included in this analysis. 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; A floodplain map amendment will be required to remove the isolated pocket of high hazard flood plan shown in the northeaster portion of the site prior to issuance of any building pernvts for this site. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # 5B Paee# 5 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; The street system is well developed within this area. Access to the site wouid normally occur from the alley, however the applicant is proposing access from Canyon for a two level parking gazage. A traffic study will be required to determine the effects on the existing street system. The applicant is also proposing to coordinate the underground parking garage with the CAGID pazking lot under the St. Julien Hotel. CAGID has indicated an interest in combining the parking garages. An agreement with CAGID will need to be reached prior to submitting this application for site review if the CAGID parking garage and entrance/exits are to be shared. As a part of this shared use of the pazking structures, CAGID would gain a second entrance and exit to their parking garage. The applicant has provided a preliminary traffic report that supports the location of a driveway to the parking garage at Canyon for the new building. The transportation staff finds the entrance movements would be acceptable, but has some strong reservations about exitin movements and the resulting "U-turn" movements that could occur at ninth and Canyon for east bound traffic. An entrance only movement at Canyon coupled with an exit movement to the alley or through the CAGID parking lot would be more appropriate. City standards require driveways to take access from the lowest level street within the area. The alley and 11'~ Street aze lower classification streets than Canyon. There is also a concern that the driveway will constrain pedestrian movements along Canyon and that wnnecting the garage to the CAGID ]ot will increase car traffic across the sidewalks and associated plazas along Canyon. The driveway will need to be constructed of a different material then the rest of the plaza; such as a colored and/or textured material. Improvements to the alley will need to include consideration of pedestrian movements, delivery needs for the new building including moving trucks (residential use), trash pickup and alley landscape/ pedestrian requirements. 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 ~nd habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; Other than the floodplain limitations noted in the preceding discussions, there aze no environmental constraints for [his site. 7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; The applicant proposes to develop approximately 75% of the building for residential use; 2°d, 3`d and 4`~ floors. The first floor will be commercial. This is similar to the 15~' and Pear] project recently approved. There has been a growing demand for housing in the downtown azea over the past 10 years. The demand began with the development of new housing along east and west Pearl when revisions were made to the mixed use zones. The success of One Boulder Plaza and 909 Peazl projects stimulated the newest downtown projects. The development of new housing in the downtown area has also been stimulated by changes to the DT-5 zone pertnitting up to a 1.0:1 additional floor azea for housing. Increased housing in the downtown area is supported by a number of BVCP policies. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # SB Paee# 6 8) The appropriateness of or necessity For housing; Development of housing in lieu of commercial/office use is supported by BVCP policies 2.21, 2.22, 2.26 and 7.02, which support development of new housing and the provision of new permanently affordable housing. (See the following BVCP policies Attachment "A.") 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 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-3, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Staff has received comments from the neighbors to the north regazding the proposed height of buildings. Property owners within 600 feet of the subject site were notified via U.S. mail of the neighborhood meeting. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: No action is required by the Planning Board. Planning Board, public and staff comments will be documented for use by the applicant, Concept Plan Review and Comment is intended to give the applicant preliminary feedback on the development concepts, and give direction for a future site review application. Ap~roved y: ~ ~ u[h McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: A. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies B. Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) minutes C. Development Review Committee (DRC) comments D. Vicinity Map E. Comments received from neighbors F. Applicants plans and written description of project / concept plan S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc A¢enda Item # SB Paec# 7 BVCP Policies ATTACHMENT A 1.21 Jobs: Housing Balance. Boulder is a major employment center, with more jobs than housing for people who work here. This has resulted in both positive and negative impacts including economic prosperity, significant in-commuting, and high demand on existing housing. The city will continue to be a major employment center and will seek opportunities to improve the balance of jobs and housing while maintaining a healthy economy. This will be accomplished by encouraging new mixed use neighborhoods in areas close to where peopie work, encouraging transit-oriented development in appropriate locations, preserving service commercial uses, converting industrial uses to residential uses in appropriate locations, and mitigating the impacts of traffic congestion. 2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern. The city and county will, by implementing the comprehensive plan, ensure that development will take place in an orderly fashion, take advantage of existing urban services, and avoid, insofaz as possible, pattems of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered development within the Boulder Valley. The city prefers redevelopment and infill as compared to development in an expanded service area in order to prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community. 2.18 Mixture of Complementary Land Uses. The city and county will strongly encourage, consistent with o[her land use policies, a variety of land uses in new developments. In existing neighborhoods, a mixwre of land use types, housing sizes and lot sizes may be possible if properly mitigated and respectful of neighborhood chazacter. Wherever land uses are mixed, careful design will be required in order to ensure compatibility, accessibility and appropriate transitions between land uses that vary in intensity and scale. 2.21 Mixed Use. The city will encourage well designed mixed use development that incorporates a substantial amount of affordable housing in appropriate ]ocations, including some commercia; c~nters, corridors and industrial ar~as. In reviewing mixed use projects, the city will cons~der impacts to adjacent neighborhoods. (See Policies 5.06, 5.07 and 6.10.) 2.22 Incentives for Mixed Use. The city will provide incentives and remove regulatory barriers to encourage mixed use development where and when appropriate. This could include public-private partnerships for planning design or development; density bonuses tied to affordable housing and other zoning incentives; new zoning distric[s; and the review and revision of floor area ratio, open space and parking requirements. 2.26 Mixed Use and Higher Density Housing. The city will consider mixed use and higher density housing along certain multi-modal corridors through an area planning process that engages the public and addresses issues S:~PLAAI~PB-ITEMSUvIEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # SB Pa¢e# 8 such as the urban design, street network, and compatibility with the surrounding area. 2.39 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment. Overall, infiil 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 wil] 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 neig6borhood context. 5.07 Upgrade Existing Commercial and Industrial Areas. The city will cooperate with the private sector to foster the revitalization of commercial and industrial azeas in order to create greater vitality. Where appropriate, the city will enhance retail and services desired by employees, add housing and create transit- friendly developments. The city will work with property owners to improve the quality of Boulder's office and industrial buildings through rehabilitation or redevelopment. A variety of tools should be considered to create public/private partnerships that lead to successful redevelopment. These tools may include, but are not limited to, area planning, infrastructure improvements, changes to zoning or development standards and financial incentives. 6.09 Transportation Impact. Traffic impacts from a proposed development that cause unacceptable community or environmental impacts or unacceptable reduction in level of service will be mitigated. All development will include strategies to reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the development. 7.02 Supply of Affordable Housing. There is a growing concern about the availability of affordable housing for low and moderate income families in the Boulder Valley. The city will continually monitor and evaluate its policies, programs and regulations that affect land cost, development fees, and other associated development costs to ensure that these costs are compatible with the overall goal of affordable housing. Where appropriate, incentives and regulations will be employed to encourage conswction of affordable housing or to mitigate the costs of constructing and acquiring permanently affordable housing. (See Policy 2.22 Incentives for Mixed Use.) S:~PLAN~PB-ITBMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aaenda Item # SB Paee# 9 DDAB MINI.JTES DDAB Comments on 1095 Canyon: ATTACHMENT B 1. The Board felt that revising the setback for the property may be appropriate in that the distance from the sidewalk is ample for pedestrian use and streetscape improvements, as weli as maintaining the mountain view corridor. The relationship to the setbacks of buildings on both sides, but primarily the site to the west, should be given the most weight in making this decision. 2. The amount of contrast between the colors shown should be toned down a bit from what was presented in the renderings. 3. White stucco is probably not an appropriate material for this site. 4. The applicant agreed that the intent was to have the entry signaled by exterior architectural treatments at the actual entry location for the residential uses. 5. Various entry treatments were discussed at the corner of llth and Canyon. The board was supportive to the three-story entry expression at this corner, but did not feel that it must come forward to the corner. Rather, its relationship to the entry of the building across llth street to the east should be considered as the two of them frame the pedestrian crossing of Canyon from the civic park into the downtown. Creating a recessed plaza at this corner might aiso be appropriate, especially for a restaurent tenant. The specific execution and relationship of this entry to the context seems more important to the Board than following the letter of the Downtown Design Guidelines, especially as this buiiding is at the periphery of downtown. 6. The number of massing elements could be simplified from what was presented. The scale of the massing is appropriate for the Canyon corridor, however iYs organization, overlapping shapes and colors seem overly complicated. To aid the process of simplification, cues might be taken from the existing adjacent structures. The continuation of horizontal base and cornice elevations along Canyon might be considered. The applicant might also consider creating massing that not only expresses the 25'-30' bay typical of individual buildings downtown but also clusters elements into readings at an intermediate scale between this small bay and the large scale of the block. 7. The Board was supportive of locating a garage entry on Canyon in the location proposed if it helps to solve traffic congestion problems on the internal streets and alley. Consider using paving to demarcate this entry. Consider that appropriate signage for this garage entry might be confusing and mnflict with tenant signage. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc A¢enda Item # SB Paae# 10 CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: August 25, 2006 ATTACHMENT C CASE MANAGER: Brent Bean PROJECT NAME: 1095 Canyon LOCATION: 1095 CANYON BL COORDINATES: N03W06 REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review & Comment REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2006-00061 APPLICANT: Steven Tebo DESCRIPTION: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT: Proposal for a four story, mixed-use building with a total of 81,570 s.f. and approximately 30 residential units. REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: - Building height to 55' - 28' Setback to Canyon, where 38' is req. - 0' setback to the alley, where 15' is req. I. REVIEW FINDINGS The general information provided in this review will be forwarded to the Planning Board for review and comment at the October 7, 2005 Planning Board meeting. This application has received some comments from neighbors to the north expressing concerns that the building will block their views of the mountains to the south. The normal building foot print for the site has been proposed to be extended to the south by 10 feet and to the north by 15'. The maximum building floor area ration (FAR) for this site is 2.7 : 1(increase approved in 2005). The applicant is requesting an FAR of 2.59 : 1. Most buildings placed along Canyon were built under the 2.2 :1 FAR limitation. Section 5 includes the guidelines for "review and comment" This section and "key issues" identified by the staff will be the primary issues discussed in the Planning Board memo forwarded to the Planning Board prior to the Public Hearing. Key issues identified at this time: 1. Is the general bulk and scale of the building proposed appropriate at this location? The building has been designed to be consistent with the land use regulations for the RB7-X zone. Bulk and scale are Iimlted by the maximum FAR of 2.7:1. 2. Is a height of up to 55' appropriate at this location? All of the bulldings surrounding this site to the north, east and west have been approved for building heights of 55', with some possible adjustments in building locations to preserve view corridors consistent with the Site Review criteria. 3. Is the design consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines? The plan has been review by the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) and found to be consistent with the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines. Additional design direction was given to the applicant by DDAB regarding specific design issues. 4. Is access to and from Canqon appropriate? Additional information is needed to make a final determination regarding access to and from Canyon at the time of site review application. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Access/Circulation Traffic Imoact Studv (Comments by Steve Durian, 303-441-4493) 1. On all of the figures, the south leg of the 11th and Canyon intersection must be removed to avoid confusion. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSVvIEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # SB Paee# 11 The only route currently available for traffic accessing the St. Julien/CAGID garage from the east is to make right-turns at CanyoN9`h and W alnuU9'". This would be a potential short-cut for some traific that would access the Hotel/CAGID garage via the 1095 Canyon entrance. The resulting shift in tra;tic may not have significant impact on level of service at these two intersections, however it should still be analyzed this way to determine if there is an impact from this shift. The amount of traffic that would enter differently than the existing condition may depend of the adequacy of signing to guide drivers to the St. Julian/CAGID garage. 3. The u-turn activity added to the 9'h/Canyon intersection could be completely avoided by providing an ex~t from the garage to the alley. This would also provide a more direct route for trips with destinations to the east. See additional comments below related to the site plan. Site Plan 1. The pre-application plan indicated that an exiting ramp to the alley would be possible. This configuration would increase accessibility to the downtown street network in a more direct manner, reduce overall vehicle miles traveled, and reduce the potential for accidents. 2. If a parking ramp is approved taking access across the plaza adjacent to Canyon, there will need to be a clear differentiation in material types and textures. Pedestrian movements along Canyon should encouraged, not discouraged. Access to the parking garage should be secondary to pedestrian movements. not the reverse. Building Design There are three issues that need to be considered for the proposed design. 1. Is the general bulk and scale of the building proposed appropriate at this location? The Downtown Design Guidelines recommended a 78' setback from centerline of Canyon Boulevard or 36' from the property line. The purpose of this setback is to create a boulevard effect along Canyon from 16'" Street to 9`h Street. Projects along Canyon have varied from this setback, but the intent of the "Boulevar~'" has been preserved. This is one of the last properties to be developed along Canyon. The last will ba :~-,e "Civic" site to the west of this property. Developing a 28' setback from Canyon at this location will create a landscaped plaza similar to Phase 5 One Boulder Plaza. The secondary issue is the reduced setback along the alley or north property line. The Exeter Building to the north of the alley has a height of 55'. Placing the new building adjacent to the alley will block views from this building. Care should be taken to reduce the impact of building height along the northern edge of the building. The fourth floor could be recessed 15 to 25 feet to preserve some of the views to the southwest for the existing building. Placement of the building at zero lot line along the alley is consistent with all other existing projects with alleys within the W alnut Canyon corridor. 2. Is a height of up to 55' appropriate at this location? All of the new buildings constructed in the WaInuUCanyon corridor in the last ten years have been constructed with heights to 55'. The Exeter building to the north, the Randolph Center to the northeast and One Boulder Plaza Phase 5 to the east have approved heights to 55'. The Canyon corridor has been constructed with building heights to 55' from 17`h Street to 91b Street. The section from 14`" Street to 9"' Street have all been constructed with 55' tall buildings. Development of a 55' tall building at this location is consistent with existing development. 3. Is the design consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines? There are sections of the Design Guidelines that are not being met by this application. a. The first is a setback along Canyon of less than 38', which has been discussed above. b. The second is that the corner element of the building has been recessed rather than pulled out at the southeast corner of the site. The guidelir~ - encourage corner elements of buildings in the downtown area to be taller and more r-_ ~~ ant. The corner elements have been pulled up to the fourth floor, bWt rather than pushi~ -. to Canyon, they have been recessed. This issue was reviewed with the Downtown D-- ;~, .,avisory Board (DDAB). The general comments from DDAB were supportive of this propc~ ~~, aue to the fact that this is not a major intersection, such as Broadway and Canyon, that a recessed entry at this location can further the boulevard effect and would create an appropriate change in the context of building fronts along Canyon Boulevard. 4. The decks placed on the structure at the second level should be recessed into the units rather than S:~PLAN~PB-ITcMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # SB Paee# 12 extended over the south plaza. Dreinage(Steve Buckbee,303-441-3279) 1. Storm water quality enhancement 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 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: • Adequate space to accommodate drainage and water quality facilities • Using full flow from the drainage culvert entering the southwest corner of the site to design drainage facilities and evaluate downstream infrastructure adequacy • Possible addition of curb and gutter along street frontages as well as run-on from surrounding state highways and county streets • Downstream infrastructure size/condition and eventual southern site discharge location to Wonderland Creek • Offsite drainage infrastructure improvements • Evaluation of negative impacts to downstream properties from existing offsite flow • Water quality for surface runoff using "Best Management Practices" • Groundwater discharge • Erosion control during construction activities 2. Discharge of groundwater to the public storm sewer system is anticipated to accommodate construction and operation of the proposed developments. City and/or State permits will be required for this discharge. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Boulder Storm Water Quality Office at 303-413-7350 regarding permit requirements. All applicable permits must be in place prior to building permit application. Additionally, speciai design considerations for the properties to handle groundwater discharge as part of the development may be necessary. 3. City standards require that all projects minimize directly connected impervious areas in accordance with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Drainage Criteria Manual Volume III. Wherever possible, runoff from roofs and parking lots needs to be directed to landscaped areas, grass buffer strips, and grass lined swales. This requirement is in addition to the requirement that structural Best Management Practices such as water quaiity ponds be provided on the site. This requirement must be address in the Preliminary Stormwater Report and Pian at Site Review. Flood Control (Cristina MaRinez 303-441-1886) Current regulatory mapping indicates that the site is impacted by the 100-year floodplain, high hazard zone and conveyance zone of Boulder Creek and therefore a floodplain development permit is required prior to building permit issuance. The extent of the high hazard and conveyance zone boundaries shown on the submitted plans appear to be incorrect and should be accurately identified in future submittals. Additionally, the isolated high hazard area located on the northeast corner of the site has not been addressed. This high hazard area is primarily due to a depression or low spot in the topography identified in the Boulder Creek detailed flood study. Floodpiain regulations do not allow for development of structures intended for human occupancy within high hazard zones. This portion of the site is not located in a conveyance zone and may be filled to remove the high hazard scenario without causing a rise in the water surface elevation of the 100-year floodplain. The applicant is notified that without a local map amendment that removes the high hazard condition, the development as proposed cannot be permitted. An application for a local map amendment, as set forth under Section 9-9- 4(c), "Map Amendments," B.R.C. 1981, will be required to make any changes to the existing regulatory mapping. Fees Because revisions or corrections are not required for this application, based on 2006 development review fees, houriy billing will not be applicable unless another appiication is requested by the applicant. Fire Protection Building will be required to be protected through with a sprinkler system designed in accordance with S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSVvIEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc A~enda Item # SB Paee# 13 NFPA 13. The building will also (due to its height) be required to have a standpipe system designed in accordance with NFPA 14. The sprinkler system is required to be monitored by a UL listed receiving station and occupant notification is required through out including the residential units. D. Lowrey, 303.441.4356 Landscaping No preliminary landscape plans were provided with this concept plan. Landscape plans similar to other properties along the north edge of Canyon will need to be developed for site plan review. Considerations for this site will need to include street trees along canyon and within the alley. Plaza elements should include planting beds, seating, pedestrian walkways and texture changes separating the parking garage drive from other activities on the plaza. Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272. Neighborhood Comments The owners of the Exeter building have expressed concerns that a new building with heights to 55' will block their views to the southwest. Under the provisions of site review, 9-4-11(i)(1)(F)(iii) "the orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties." As discussed in preceding sections of this report, buildings with heights to 55' have consistently been approved. Building design can be adjusted along the alley to reduce impacts to views and solar impacts to adjacent properties by recessing the upper levels of the building along the alley. Utilities (Steve Buckbee, 303-441-3279) 1. On-site and off-site water main and wastewater main construction per the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) as necessary to serve the development, as well as perpetuate the overall system, may be required. All proposed public utilities for this project shall be designed in accordance with the DCS.A Preliminary Utility Plan and Report meeting section 4.03, 5.02 and 6.02 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards will be required as part of any Site Review submittal. 2. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along the property frontage may conflict with existing or proposed utilities, including without limitation: water, wastewater, storm drainage, flood control, gas, electric, telecommunications, drainageways, and irrigation ditches, within and adjacent to the development site. It is the applicanYs responsibility to resolve such conflicts with appropriate methods conforming to the Boulder Revised Code 1981, the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and any private/franchise utility specifications. 3. A Colorado Department Of Transportation permit will be required for any proposed work in the Canyon Boulevard Right-of-Way. 4. 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. 5. 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 ficors, shall be connected to the wastewater service using appropriate grease and sediment traps. 6. Per Section 5-5-13 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, no person shall excavate an area in the pavement of a public street for a period of 3 years from completion of resurfacing, except in compliance with said section. Canyon Boulevard was resurtaced in 2004, which means no excavation may occur until mid 2007 unless the criteria of Section 8-5-73 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 can be met. • III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS None at this time. IV. NEXT STEPS Application will be forwarded to Planning Board for review and comment at the October 5, 2006 Planning Board meeting. V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc A¢enda Item # SB Paee# 14 Guidelines for Review and Comment The following guidelines wili 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. Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without Iimitation, 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; The current site is occupied by the Republic of Boulder restaurant. Existing landscaping on site is in poor condition. There are a number of existing trees on the site varying from green ash, sumac to pine trees. The eleven street trees are in poor condition, but the City forester must approve removal of any of these trees. 2. The site is in the Boulder Creek floodplain. The southern and a portion of the northeastern site is in the high hazard and conveyance zones. New structures can not be placed within these areas without completing a flood plan map amendment. 3. The surrounding uses are commercial with limited residential units to the east in phase 5 One Boulder Plaza. The only structures with heights of less than 55' are to the northwest, the Mediterrenean restaurent. Buildings have been constructed to zero lot line along the aliey or the alley has been vacated (St Julien HoteUCAGID parking structure). 4. Views from this site are to the southwest, the flatirons and west to Boulder Canyon. Views to the northwest will be limited due to the height of the hotei and other buildings northwest of the site. 5. 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; See attached list of BVCP policies that apply to this application. This site is also within the Downtown Design Guideline area 2. The design guidelines suggest development consideretion for this site that include design and construction details, building location (setbacks), and bulk and scale criteria. 6. DDAB has made an initial review of this applicant The generel findings were that the site plan does not conform to all the criteria, but that the plans are consistent wlth the intent of the plans. The applicant is proposing a 28' setback from Canyon where a 38' setback is recommended. This standard has been varied based on individual property impacts on the intent of the guideline. Corner elements are generally encouraged to be the taller and more prominent elements of the building. DDAB found that the corner of Canyon and 11"' Street is not a major corner and a recessed, but well designed corner element could be appropriate at this location. Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; Development of this site is subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines, discussed in the proceeding seetton. Due to the size and height ot the building proposed, a Site Review application is required. A building height of greater than 35' is subject to Planning Board review. 8. 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 site is in the Boulder Creek flood S:~PLAN~PB-IT'EMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # SB Pa¢e# 15 plain. A portion of the site proposed for development has a small isolated area shown as High Hazard. This area will require a map amendment be processed removing the area for the high hazard zone. 9. 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 alley north of this site serves as a pedestrian connection between the hotel and 11'" Street. The Exeter building along the north edge of the alley has developed open space and public access points to their building based on this pedestrian connection. The new use should continue to enhance pedestrian use of the alley. Tresh, parking access and delivery needs for the building should not constrein pedestrian use of the alley. 10. The applicant is proposing an entrance/exit onto Canyon Boulevard. Canyon is a state highway. Access is restricted to the lowest class of street adjacent to the site. The alley along the north property line is the lowest class street. Eleventh Street is the second lowest and Canyon the highest. A preliminary traffic study has been provided for this review. Access to the site appears to be reasonable, however exiting onto Canyon will require additional study. 11. 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 bioiogical inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; The site is in the Boulder Creek flood plain. With the exception of the isolated piece of High Hazard zoned portion of the site, the new development will be out side the High Hazard and Conveyance portions of the site. 12. Appropriate ranges of land uses; and The application is proposing to develop the first floor for mixed commercial uses varying from a bank, to restaurant. The applicant is proposing to develop the first floor with mixed commercial activities ranging from retail, office to restaurent. The second, third and fourth floors have been proposed for residential development. All are permitted uses within the R61-X zone. 13. The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. The provision of new housing in the downtown area is supported by changes to the downtown zones providing a bonus for additional floor area exclusively for Housing. In addition, BVCP housing policies 2.21, 2.22, 2.26 and 7.02 support the development of new housing and the provision of new permanently affordable housing. (See the following BVCP policies attachment.) Housing in the downtown area was not considered a part of downtown development until 2000. Housing in the fringe areas along Pearl had been well received prior to 2000. In 2000, two projects were develo~ed within the downtown regional business district; phase one Boulder Plaza, and 9& Pearl. Both projects were highly successful. Three other projects with downtown housing have been approved since that time and all have pre-sold units very successfully. All of the new projects have met the city's inclusionary zoning requirements. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # SB Pa¢e# 16 ATTACHMENT D I / ~ , - ~HZ-E ` c~t-u_~.~,``. Location: 1095 Canyon Blvd ProJect Name: 1095 Canyon - Crty of ~~~~ (d B Review Type: Concept Plan Review ou er andComment NORTH '^°~^'°^~'°°^°°~~°°^""^"~'•a~"°°° as o~nnr,ai rea~~~w~ ~~r rne caY a eouae. Review Number: LUR200&00061 1 inch equals 200 (eet °~"`°"°~°""'" °"`°~°°"'""~° "°" ~0°'"ok""P6aimeimwme~on ~„ "~ ° Applicant: Stephen Tebo ~ ,~„ S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # SB Paee# 17 ATTACHMENT E 1~ TRANSWESTERN September 19. 2006 r..,..,r ^OG~(',P.f Attn vBrent Bean 1777 Broadway Boulder. Colorado 80302 ~ 0>0 wainut Sreei Sune 35a BouNe~ C080302~5~50 Pnone 30.9 mG 3Pa Fax 303 aa0 ~<2'~ www trans«estem net Subject Formal Objection - 1095 Canyon Concept Plan Dear Brent On behalf of the owners of the Exeter Building located at 1050 Walnut Street, we are writmg to notify the City of our formal objection to the proposed variations from the land use regulations relating to building height and alley setbacks for the 1095 Canyon Boulevard development. The proposed variances are inconsistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies relating to the des~gn for the built emironment or the Site Review criteria found in the land use regulations. Building Height Variance Request The applicant is requesting a variation from the iand use regulations to aliow an increase in building height from 35' to 55'. Upon thorough review of the application materials, there is no justification for the requested building height increase such as a demonstrated hardshin or unusuai physical characteristics or conditions that could warrant granting said request. Planning Board approval of an increase in building height to 55' impacts the value of our asset, the Exeter Building. The owners have invested in excess of $2.5 million in upgrades to the building since 2005 based in part upon pnor approvals that included preservation of public view corridors of the Flatirons and West Boulder Canyon. C~ty Staff concluded that the development of a 55' tall building at this Iocation is consistent with existing development in the area. Our analysis shows that all surrounding 55' tall buildings were approved, in part, because they were located on full blocks therefore securing publ~c view corridors. Owner relationships behveen One 8oulder P1aza and ihe Randolph Center also played a roVe in approval processes. The proposed building does not satisfy the same conditions. Your Partner of Choice. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSUvSEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # SB Paee# 18 City of Boulder September 19, 2006 Page 2 In addition to the fact that the proposed height increase will compromise the value of the Exeter Building, there is no justification for the proposed height increase. The request is inconsistent with Boulder residents' vision of design for the built environment and the City's Site Review criteria relating to preservation of view corridors. There are a number of Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies that are relevant ;c th~s development. Policy 2.24 Enha~ced Design for the Built Environment (b) stat=s that "buildings should not block access to sunlight, and should 6e sensitive to important public view corridors." The most important public view corridor in Boulder is that which provides views of the Flatirons and West Bouider Canyon. Further, the Site Review criteria 9-4-11(i)(1)(F)(iii) states that "the orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties." The proposed building design does not consider any adjacent properties. We maintain that the proposed development could be designed to fimit sotar impact and to not obstruct views of adjacent properties. As such, we recommend that the Planning Board uphold the 35' existing building height requirement. Alley Setback Variance Request The applicant is requesting the elimination of the 15' alley setback along the north property line, which is an existing pedestrian-oriented alley. Our owners have set forth a significant investment in open space and public access points to their building to ensure pedestrian connectivity between the public parking structures located at the St. Julien Hotel and the Randolph Center. The alley also provides the only access point for the parking garage located beneath the Exeter Bui~ding. With a zero setback on the alley, normal functions including trash collection, access to parking, and delivery needs of the proposed building would limit and discourage pedestnan use of the alley that the owners of the Exeter Building worked so hard to develop and maintain over the years. Additionally, the lack of an alley setback will create a deep tunnel effect between the proposed development and the Exeter Building. The related conditions inciuding darkness and a narrow pedestrian path with 55' tall sides are not conducive to safety concerns and continued beautification of the downtown area. The possibility of providing a location for potentially increasing crime presents a safety risk to the community and to both affected properties. Lastly, allowing the reduction in setback would exacerbate the impact of the proposed building height resulting in loss of the existing view corridors. As such, we recommend that the Planning Board uphold the 15' alley setback requirement. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~MEMOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc Aeenda Item # 5B Paee# 19 City of Boulder September 19, 2006 Page 3 Summary The owners of the Exeter Building are in support of the redevelopment of the Oasis Brew Pub and Republic of Boulder restaurant site but are opposed to the proposed variances from the land use regutations. It is clear that the proposed mixed-use development can be built to meet the intent of refevant Boulder Valley Comprehensive Pian policies and Site Review criteria as noted above. The application failed to demonstrate a hardship (as is usually required for variance requests) or provide any ~ustification that could warrant granting said requests. We thank the City for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 1095 Canyon Boulevard deveiopment Sincerely, Transwestern. as agent for owner ^ r ~ ~ ~ /- ~ ~ (, / ~J /1 ~i 7 11 l~ ~U, L~~. / `~" I l'~'~ Lucia McCamey ~ Property Manager LHM:cm S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~ME,MOS\1095canyonbbcp.doc A¢enda Item # 5B Pa~e# 20 'I O9$ CANYON PROJECT AREA: 0.72 acres (31,554 SF) ZONING: RBX-1 PROJECT SUMMARY: MqX. /LL.LOWABLE F.AR.: 2.7 (2.7 X 31,554 SF = 85,195.8 SF) AREASUMMARY RetaiUOfficeArea ResideMialArea Ftrst Floor 21,284 GSF 614 GSF (Lobby) Sewnd Floor 0 GSF 22,454 GSF Third Floor 0 GSF '19,506 GSF F~~ FWa 0 GSF 17.712 GSF Total Gross Area 21,284 GSF + 60,286 GSF = 81,570 GSF TOTAL PARI4NG SUMMARY: Parldng Pmvkied ResiderAYal (Parldng level 2) 72 Spaces P4dic (Partdna level 11 66 Soaces TofalProvided 138 Spaces Parldng Required Nonreside~al uses 0 Spaces Ra ~~~al (1 soaee cer ~~+itl 30 Soaces (30 ~niCsl 7ofa1 Requi~ed 30 Spaces PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The 1095 Caryon pro(w~al at 1095 Carryon BaileraN indudes the demolition of the existi~ restauraM building on the east half of the site abrg wMh the existng parldng Id on the west half of the sihe, u,e wr~au.wo~, o~ a a-~c«y mae~~ ~ru~ cwMaining appro~dmately 69,000 GSF of residerfial area on the upper tlttee fbas and a ground flaor wilh space for a 5,000 sf office, an 8,800 sf resfauaM, and a 4,000 sf bank, wilh two levels of undergrou~d parldng. There wi0 he approximatey 30 resideMial units. The primary aubomob(Ie aaess to 1095 Ca~ryron w~ oocur south of fhe siOe trom Canyon BoWeva~d, whae the primary pedestrian access will oxur fiom a Wrge plaza area on tlie south of the site abng Canyon Boulevard. This propor.al requests an exception to the 78' setbadc abrg Ca~ryon Boulevard since Uie Cnric Cerrter park is adjacerrt to the ske (located directly aaoss the street to tlie soulh). Furtliemare, the majority of Foofiills and Flatirons views are to tlie soutlwvest Parldng far the reside~ial units wll oxur on parldng level2, whik the public parldng will occur on parldng level 7 and vual exit via a connectlon through tlie SairtJulien Hotel parldng struchne to WalnutAvenue. This 4-story building proposal will also require a hegM modif'cation to 55' and 4 sfaries. The applicard has met wHh tl~e City and plans to connect the proposed public parldng (ar the projed to the e~dsGng St. JuGen sfiicWre. ARer meeting wMh the Transportation DepartrneM, the applicarK and the Cily have agreed to aaess the sihe's below grade parldng structure from Carryon Boulevard. Buiklina Desaiotion: The proposed lwiWing materials ardiapated are brick, stone, archihectural pmcast, stucco and glass . The building massing wip be primarity 2 stories alang Carryon Boukvard with the tlied and tourth fbor being set badc in order W achieve a more pedestrian orieMed streetscape abng Camron. VeBcal elemen5 wiN mark both the SoWieast and Soutlnxest comers of the building to accerrt tlie major pubiic and residential erMries irrto the buikling. The charader of 1095 Canyon's arthitedure wiR relate to tlie more tradfiaral context that is characterisdc of DoHmtoMm Boukler. The majaily of the south, east and xrest elevations ~+n71 be dad in bridc or arohifeclural precast to gire the buiidln9 a pedestrian scale and teMure. Modular window openings, treRis' and aAiwlaAzd sills and IiMels at the ground floor will make the building wekort~ing to pedestrians. Aglass, masonry and metal 'ta~rtem"tower at the comer of 11 th Street and Carryon Boulevard will act as a gateway irrto Downtown fivm Civic CerMer Park The tourth floor peMhase vdume will be acceMed wifh large glass openings and bakkpnnies to take advanqge of the spedaadar views of the FWtirons and Foothilis available to this sde. ~ a~~~ce De~otion: The e~ossUng street tree lawn abrg Canyon 8oulevarcl will be cwntinued across 11th Street and orrto tlx 1095 site. The majaity of the ground wrrounding the proposed building wiA be paved in naWral or cdored concrete with jaMs that refied the rtrythm of major building elemeMs. Staie or concrete texWred paving will be used to enhance the ground plane at each building erMrance. A series of rais¢d piarrters w1 be placed at fhe base of the lwild'mg on the soufh fapde to bufter pedestrians from the buiklirg. p,ddi~wia~ deciduous omamerMal and shade trees in raised plarHers and tree grates will be placed between Ca~ryon Boulevard and the bui~ng on the saAh side of the site to provide a comfortable pWza experience and to reduce solar gain wifhin the buildng durrcig the summer~rorrths. Plant material will be grouped with aCer~tion to similar Mrater and wltural requiremerrts. Mukiies, xeriscape p1aM maierial and an efficierrt irtigation system will be employed W reduce water demand on site. ATTACHMENT F Al TECHNI~UES AND STRATEGIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA~T AV4lP_ANG~ MINIMIZATION OR MITIfzAT14N This projed is planned tor a previously developed site. The e~assti4rg site corrtains an apprmdmatety 8,000 sf restauraM building on the east side and an accomparrying parldng lot on the west side. The proposed devebpmerH will not signiFicaMly impad arry adjaceM sites, aside from temporary inconveniences inF~ereM wiTh co~utruction activily. The project is wiThin the fbodpiain and fhe projed will mfigate this through the use of flood-proof doors and storefront glazing systems as well as elevat~d e~dts on the north side of the building. The I'ighting for the site will compy w%h tlie Cily of Boulder I Iluminafbn Ordinance. The landscape irrigation of the projed wtll indude water conservation measures, induding drip irtigadon, and plarH selection will include native and bw water demand plar~. Low wdter use toilets will be ir~fled. The developer will insEihde a recyd'mg and wasOe minimaalion plan for tenarqs, in wnju~cfion wilh tlie wasEe disposal cortparry. c~ aanoncFn i eun ~isFC nun iF iT is n nFVFi nouFUr THAT INCLUDES RESIDENTIALHOUSING TYPE. MIX. SIZES. AND ANTICI- PATED SALE PRICES. THE PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS TO BE INCLUDED: SPECIAL DESIGN CHA?eCTERISTICS THAT MAY BE NEEDED TO ASSURE AFFORDABIIJTY The projed design indudes resideMial forvsale unHs on the second, tldrd and Tourth fbas. The developer plans to TulFil the projeds permaneMly afforslable hauing obl'gation through a combination of in-lieu contributiore. ~aod ded~caeor~, a om~r menw~ axe~w~ co u,e ~ -rr -~3~~ OZ ARCHITECTUAE ~ I , ~ ~ , _ ~Z~~6 The project lies wXhin the business district of DowMown Boulder which will albw for quidc and easy access to and from the qcyed The location of tlus projed w~l allow residerAs to walk or bike to DowMown Boulder's emPbyrr~eM, erhertainmeM or sFap~~ng opportunifies, minim¢i~ vehicular deperMency for resideMS. The projed also lies approximatety two bbcks away Trom an RTD bus station. '16026.00 - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUBMISSION 07.'17.06 i o ~ oa~ zoo~ 400~ ~ ` "'` f ~ ~ Oi aNCHIiECT~RE ~ ~ ~ ' ~' ~ f. ~~ ~' ~ ~~~~~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ w~i '. f~~~ i ~e`"~ ~ ~~~ ~ r,~ , ~a~~ y''' ° _r _ ir. ~1~ ~200E ~ i ~e. ~.,_ ... ~ ~..~.~~ .._..., _ . _ . -- -"°' .~.a, ~--~ -- .~-~,. ,.~ ~-..~..,--,_,-.,.~.M;~r,-,~. --.~,,.._ ~.,..,~_-,_ •,~, - -~ 16026.00 - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUBMISSION 07.17.06 1 ~p t° ~~~~~~ ~~ o ., : = `'g `~ OT ARCHITECT~HEn E-~ _ - - -~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~`~k ~ ~:'~ ~ °.Fh~ ~ ~~ r , _, J ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ F ~ I~~ ~ ,~ ~~ .~ ~'~~ ~ ' •.._,_ . ., . . _, .._ ~ -~ ~ ,: ,~, . : ~ . _' F ~ ~~ 4 • m20D6 ~ _ . . . . ~_.,. , `~ ~ ~ ~~ _w. .. ~ . ~ ~~ _ $ ~ ~ ~? __ . . _ ...... ._ ~ . .,. .. .`~ ~' aw ; ~'r-a*a~~FZar ~'`.`.`~ d~~`y?u~ -'~ ,q ~' ~~iilii.~i~tr irz:~`~i;~~ . . . _ , " •,~'~~,s,~~.~.~.~,~3~~.~~~~~,~ ;~,.~~~,.,4,.W~,~~r ~~~ 16026.00 - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUBMISSION 07.17.06 '~ 1~=~===~ L~ k=~=~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -O -~ ---o ---o ---o ---o 0 10' 20' 40' ~ _7''-I?!~ OZ AACNITECTURE ~`;, I , N ~ ! o..~, ~~~,., ~zaoe ~/~ •- . '16026.00 - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUBMISSION 07.17.06 :~ % ~:~.~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -O ---o ---o ----o ---o 0 10' 20' 40' ~ _~''C~C'1 `"'°" OZ AACHITECTURE ~`~_l;, I , ~ ~ . ~ _.,a,.,~.: ~2006 ~~ . '16026.00 - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUBMISSION 07.'17 06 {' /% // .I ~% ~'% /r'_,~I A ~ ~ ~ Y z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ CANYON 13~ VI~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ APPpOX, ~OCATION F NIGN NAZAP.b ZON~ APPpOX. I,OCAtION CGNV~YANCEZONE 0 10' 20' 40' ~ -~,! /Kr/ u[ n n ~ n i ~~ e ~ u n ~ ~ I ' i ~ 7 oe.e~e ~ ~~~.o... ~zoas ~ ~ • • - ~ 16026.00 - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUBMISSION 07.~7 06 / I I L.-.-.-.-..-.-._.-._.-.._.~..-..-.-.-._._.____._.-..-..L 0 10' 20' 40' ~ _ ~ • r °7l=l3C) ---- ~C RHGRIItGI~U20U6~~~ /• ~ ~~~ ~ ••- • • . 16026.00 - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUBMISSION 07.17 06 / ~ ~~ . ~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ . ~~ ' ~ 0 10' 20' 40' ~ ~ V L I~ 11 Y 1 1 1 L Y 1 V 11 L' , ~ • ~ ~ _ . ..~Ar~onvr ~2~~6 ~ • '16026.00 - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUBMISSION 07.17.06 ~~ , I I L._ -.-..-.~._.____._.._...~.-.-.-._.._.-.-.-----.____.-.1 0 10' 20' 40' ~ =/•I~I~C~ ...E.,.,.a.,~.,.o.,.,.,.......~..,,..,,., 0 Z A A C H I T E C T U R E ,~L~J I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - • . ., o. . _.s~,.,... ~ 2o Os -~~ .• - - • '16026.00 - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUBMISSION 07 17.06 ~IGTW. ~~1~~G~ M~1"~,1~~~~15 ~pICK u' urirur i ~wr , u~ UV~~I ~~~Vl'IIIVIV ~dr..rn~ hnu u ~l ~,r~ i~~n I NG ~~ ~ OI~Cp~TE T~. 50U1~ ~~~UA1~ON C CANYON ~~I/b,) ~A51" ~~~UA110N C~N 5~?~~~") a ~o~ zo~ ao° ~,"~`l~C, ~ OZ ARCHITECTUBE ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ' ~2006 ~ R ~~~:~, . ~~~ .,. ~ ~`~14Fin4Llu!ii. :..~t~ _ r.,.- _ ir- ~M{~'IEirl~ F.a7W n , ~~~+. . .. .... . .._ , , . F ~• 16026.00 - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUBMISSIQN 07.17.06 •