All Correspondence 1820 15th Street & 1603 Walnut Street2046391.1
February 5, 2020
VIA E-MAIL
Design Advisory Board
c/o Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
City of Boulder
1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
Re:LUR2020-00033 –Design Advisory Board (“DAB”) Review
Dear Members of the Design Advisory Board:
Robyn Wolf retained our firm to represent her interests with respect to the First Presbyterian Church of
Boulder’s (“Applicant”) proposed redevelopment at 1603 Walnut Street (the “Property” or the “Annex”)
in the City of Boulder (the “City”). As you may know, our firm specializes in real estate development
matters, including design and use standard compliance. Our comments concern the particulars of your
review, not general grievances, and they supplement those we submitted in an earlier concept plan review
letter.
Unfortunately, the Applicant has almost entirely ignored the concerns raised in that letter, has failed to
satisfy the Downtown Design Guidelines (“DDG”or “Design Guidelines”), and seems intent on using its
proposed affordable housing as a shield against constructive criticism. W e stress again that the Applicant’s
project can succeed, but success requires the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with the Design
Guidelines. It hasn’t done so yet.
Factual Background
The Applicant’s materials submitted in Case No. LUR2020-33 (the “Application”) remain largely
unchanged from those it submitted to the Planning Board for concept review. The Applicant intends to
construct a four-story,mixed-use structure featuring ground-floor commercial uses, residential dwelling
units, and a partially unenclosed rooftop event space open to the public (the “Event Space”), as well as a
rooftop “amenity deck” (collectively, the “Project”).1 The Applicant’s design assumes that it will not
provide any parking whatsoever for the Event Space.
1 The Application also proposes certain redevelopments to Applicant’s property located at 1820 15th Street. All
references to the Application and the Project refer exclusively to Applicant’s plans for the Annex.
ANDREW L.W. PETERS
303 575 7507
APETERS@OTTENJOHNSON.COM
Design Advisory Board
February 5, 2020
Page 2
2046391.1
Ms. Wolf lives in a fourth-floor residence on the abutting property to the east (“1655 Walnut”). The
Project’s proposed amenity deck will be located immediately adjacent to, and across from,her home. 1655
Walnut also followed the City’s design review process, and as a result includes upper story setbacks to
foster a transition from the historic single-family dwelling on the south side of Walnut. The Applicant has
refused to provide consistent setbacks.
Event Space
The Project includes a rooftop event space consisting of, among other things, an expansive deck, roughly
equivalent interior area with a warming kitchen,and a green room. The Application indicates that the
Applicant will open the Event Space—including the outdoor area—to the public for a variety of
sound-amplified uses including wedding receptions, birthday parties, and corporate events. Although City
staff has encouraged the Applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting to address both design and operational
aspects of this Project component (and others)the Applicant has not done so.
Section 2 of the Design Guidelines “[d]iscourage[s] adverse impacts from noise, night lighting, poor
building design, and commercial service areas on adjacent residential neighborhoods.” The Event Space
does not satisfy this requirement. F irst, the Applicant has located the Event Space at the Project’s southwest
corner and against the neighboring residential uses. That use could instead be located against the
commercial corridor to the north. The Applicant’s design decision thus needlessly subjects the residential
neighborhood to noise and light, and it amounts to “poor building design.” Second, the Applicant has,at
most,indicated that it will eventually retain an acoustical consultant “to study potential noise sources and
help design acoustic partitions.” The Applicant may never make good on this promise, and the Design
Guidelines require it to demonstrate that its design will reduce adverse noise impacts now.
The DAB should require the Applicant to revise its design to prevent acoustical blight from the Event
Space’s sound-amplified events. Or, if the Applicant cannot do so, require that the outdoor component of
the Event Space be removed altogether.
Amenity Deck
The Project also features an open-air “Amenity Deck” at the southeast corner of the Project’s top floor.
This zero-lot-line Amenity Deck backs up to Ms. Wolf’s private balcony and bedroom window, appears to
be level with both, and remains virtually unchanged from concept review.2 This Amenity Deck could serve
as a hub for all Project residents and their guests at all hours—effectively becoming yet another event
space—and the Application simply does not address the relationship between this proposed public open
space and Ms. Wolf’s adjacent private open space.
2 In fact, the Planning Board directed the Applicant to:
work with neighboring property owners, particularly the residents at 1655 Walnut
to ensure that the location and design of the upper deck areas, are appropriate to
the context. Privacy between residences will be important in the refinements to
the plans as will a management plan as part of the Use Review for the event space
that will help to ensure reduced impacts.
The Applicant has not followed this direction. Its continued design deficiencies reflect as much.
Design Advisory Board
February 5, 2020
Page 3
2046391.1
As a result, the Applicant does not comply with section 2.1.I of the Design Guidelines. That section directs
the City to consider “context” when integrating open spaces into building design. The Amenity Deck’s
public open space is contextually inconsistent with Ms. Wolf private open space. Ms. Wolf raised this
point during concept review, yet the Applicant has chosen not to address it.
Even more importantly, that adjacency presents serious security concerns. The Amenity Deck is so close
to 1655 Walnut that a resident, guest, or anyone else who walks in the Project’s front door, could easily
jump its railing onto Ms.Wolf’s patio. While it appears the Applicant has added limited screening material,
that screening itself now conflicts with DDG Section 2.1.B’s direction to preserve mountain views from
the public realm “and surrounding area.” Ms. Wolf expects the screening will do little to stop would-be
intruders but will successfully block mountain views. It therefore violates Sections 2.1.I and 2.1.B. The
Amenity Deck should be removed or relocated to a more context-sensitive location.
Upper Story Setbacks
The Applicant’s intention to use the maximum available height with almost no setback is inconsistent with
the Boulder Municipal Code, the DDG, and the City’s earlier requirements for 1655 Walnut. In 2007, the
City required 1655 Walnut’s south elevation (along Walnut) to incorporate upper-story setbacks above the
second floor to achieve consistency and compatibility with the single-family residences in the Chamberlain
Historic District on the south side of Walnut. T he same houses face the Annex, and the same considerations
of consistency and compatibility therefore apply. E.g., BMC § 9-2-14(h)2.(F)(i)-(v); DDG § 2.2.B. What’s
more, DDG Section 2.1.B again directs projects to preserve access to the City’s extraordinary mountain
views. Without upper story setbacks, the Project will block 1655 Walnut’s views to the southwest—solely
because 1655 Walnut was required to include those same setbacks in 2007.
Following concept review, the Applicant appeared to add a trivial upper-story setback and argued that its
affordable housing prevented further reductions. Both design and affordability have significant impacts on
the public, however, and the Design Guidelines do not permit the Applicant to trade affordability for design
compliance. The Design Guidelines exist to prevent applicants from prioritizing pro formas over principles
of good design. What’s more, in relation to both 1655 Walnut and the adjacent historic district, this presents
a matter of basic fairness: there is no reason to hold the Applicant to lower standards than those the City
applied in 2007.
The Applicant should modify the Project to include an upper-story setback on the Project’s south elevation,
beginning above the second story. Doing so will provide the required consistency and compatibility with
both 1655 Walnut and the historic district, as well as an even-handed application of City standards.
Conclusion
The Applicant has failed to respond to the constructive feedback it received from the neighborhood and
Planning Board during concept review. While the Application could still succeed, the Applicant cannot
ignore the legitimate concerns raised during that process.
Design Advisory Board
February 5, 2020
Page 4
2046391.1
Ms. Wolf respectfully requests that the DAB reaffirm that the Applicant must comply with the Design
Guidelines.We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Very truly yours,
Andrew L.W. Peters
For the Firm
ALWP/KMG
1301 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 101, BOULDER, CO 80302 (720) 530-5901 dan@rhaparch.com
February 8, 2021
Re: LUR 2020-00064, Interface Between Proposed Grace Commons Annex and Existing 1655
Walnut Buildings
City of Boulder Design Advisory Board
City of Boulder Planning Board
City of Boulder Planning and Development Staff
Dear Board Members and Staff,
Our firm has been engaged by residents of the existing building at 1655 Walnut to assess the
proposed redevelopment of the Grace Commons Annex property and assist in arriving at
solutions that allow for a harmonious relationship between these neighboring properties.
Critique of the current Grace Commons Annex Proposal:
While there are several points of controversy with regard to the current design, this letter will
focus on two central aspects of the current design that are especially objectionable and
impactful to the neighbors. These elements of the design have related issues with respect to
the requested variances to the Form and Bulk Standards defined in Chapter 7 and the Site
Review Criteria defined in Chapter 2 of the City of Boulder Land Use Code. The requested
variances also need to be considered in the context of the City’s Downtown Design Guidelines.
1. The submitted design proposes a mix of event and residential uses that are highly
segregated with respect to circulation and internal adjacency. While this approach can
be understood as a response to the programmatic requirements of the proposed project,
the resultant design places the residents’ rooftop amenity deck in a location that
arguably maximizes impact to the neighboring 1655 Walnut neighbors. This proposed
location of the residents’ amenity deck is inconsistent with following relevant criteria:
- Site Review Criteria 9-2-14, h, 2, A, iv which states: “The open space provides a
relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development”
- Site Review Criteria 9-2-14, h, 2, B, ii which states: “The open space provides active
areas and passive areas that will meet the needs of the anticipated residents,
occupants, tenants and visitors of the property and are compatible with the
surrounding area or an adopted plan for the area.”
- Site Review Criteria 9-2-14, h, 2, F, viii which states: “For residential projects, noise
is minimized between units, between buildings and from either on-site or off-site
external sources through spacing, landscaping and building materials”.
- The Downtown Design Guidelines criterion 2.1, I. which notes that open spaces
should be integrated into the design “When appropriate to the context”
2. The applicant is requesting reduced front setbacks of 1’ (not 6’ as noted on the Project
Fact Sheet) for the 3rd floor and above where 15’ is required by code. We understand
2
that requests of this nature are not unusual for Site Review applications of this type.
However, partly as a result of the segregation of uses in the existing building, this has
resulted in the placement of the circulation core elements (which necessitate this
requested variance for a substantially reduced setback up to a height of approximately 3
½ stories) at close adjacency to the north and east property lines. While this variance
does not have a substantive impact on the neighbors in the case of the northwest
circulation core, the southeast core is in close proximity to the 1655 Walnut neighbors
and negatively impacts both view and solar access. This requested exception to the
Form and Bulk standards appears to be an outgrowth of the segregated circulation
approach identified above. The requested variance is significantly in excess of the third
and fourth story setbacks that were approved for the 1655 Walnut building, which were
agreed upon in an effort to better integrate that building into its context. The proposed
setback reductions are inconsistent with following relevant criteria:
- Site Review Criteria 9-2-14, h, 2, F, i which states: “The building height, mass,
scale, orientation, architecture and configuration are compatible with the existing
character of the area or the character established by adopted design guidelines or
plans for the area;”
- Site Review Criteria 9-2-14, h, 2, F, iii which states: “The orientation of buildings
minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties”
In summary, the overall design approach has located the tall circulation cores of the proposed
design in a location that is highly impactful to the neighbors to the east. Compounding that
impact, the taller circulation elements have then been utilized to effectively segregate the
rooftop open space, which has resulted in sandwiching impactful uses between the circulation
core and the neighbors at the southeast. Revisions to the design are needed to meet Site
Review criteria considering that variances to the Form and Bulk Standards are required to allow
for the proposed design. The stated purpose of the variances allowed under the Site Review
process is: “to assure that the building is of a bulk appropriate to the area and the amenities
provided and of a scale appropriate to pedestrians, and to set requirements for additional
height, density, and intensity that provide additional benefits to the community beyond the
underlying zoning” While we appreciate the community benefits provided by the affordable
housing component of this project, unrelated programmatic requirements appear to be driving
design elements that negatively impact the neighbors and reduce the compatibility of the
project in its context.
Suggestions Regarding Potential Opportunities:
While the simplest approach is to simply remove the residents’ amenity deck from the design,
we believe that there are opportunities to refine the design and deliver on the current program
while significantly improving the interface with the neighboring property. Without getting into
specific design solutions here are a couple of observations:
- The north elevation of the building proposes recessed decks for the residences that front
to the north, which sit below the level 4 program elements. Moving the residential
interior spaces north to the proposed north setback line and providing cantilevered decks
for the residents (similar to the existing 1655 Walnut building to the east) could free up
space at the south of the property to allow for setbacks consistent with the neighboring
3
building. This would also likely be less costly from a construction standpoint, while
providing better solar access for those outdoor spaces.
- Utilizing a single run stair for the circulation core at the southeast would provide an
opportunity to reduce the height of a portion of the circulation core that requires reduced
setback for levels 3 and above from 3 ½ to 3 stories. In combination with the reallocation
of floor area that could be made possible by the previously noted approach, it may be
feasible to configure a less bulky stairwell that could have setbacks consistent with the
1655 Walnut building. It also may be worth considering moving the stairwell east to be
adjacent to the east property line which would allow it to function as a buffer between the
uses in the two buildings.
- We would urge the applicant to consider a solution that relocates the residents’ amenity
deck to the west of the stair core. It is also likely that the residents’ amenity deck will
require access to two exits (without travel through intervening spaces) for building code
compliance and relocating the deck may aid in resolving that consideration.
Thank you for taking the time to review this letter. We are looking forward to a productive
engagement with the development team to arrive at an optimal interface between the two
neighbors.
Sincerely,
Daniel R. Rotner, AIA
RHAP Architecture + Planning
BoulderHOA
P.O. Box 7472
Boulder, CO 80306-7472
February 8, 2021
Boulder Design Advisory Board
Cc:
Ms. Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Ms. Cindy Spence, Board Secretary
Re: 1603 Walnut Street, Grace Commons Annex
LUR 2020-00064
To the Design Advisory Board:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the above project.
As we have noted in comments that we have previously submitted to the Planning
Board and City Council,there are numerous controversial design and use issues
with the proposed Annex redevelopment. These include:
1. Lack of required upper floor setback from Walnut Street.
2. Invasive rooftop Residents’ Amenity Deck at zero lot line with 1655 Walnut.
3. Noise, night lighting and other issues with regard to the proposed public
rooftop event space. These are of major concern to residents and impactful to the
neighborhood. We understand that Use Review is not part of the DAB purview, so
these critical issues will not be discussed further in this letter.
4.Parking:Applicant is requesting a reduction in required spaces at the new
Annex and proposes a reduction in the number of spaces currently at the Church
by about half,while adding substantial demand for parking from the proposed
event space and new Church facilities, including a basketball court.
5. Management of certain services to be provided on the first floor of the Annex.
6.Mechanical equipment:The choice,installation and location of HVAC and other
equipment can substantially impact residents of our building and other neighbors
with regard to noise and visual effect.
We understand that for the purpose of the DAB review,it is appropriate for us to
focus on items 1 and 2 above.
We also want to confirm one point that is not at issue:the benefits of providing
permanently affordable housing at the Annex site.We agree with that.Our issues
are with the proposed design.
Many of our concerns have been independently identified in comments from
Planning and Development Services in “Land Use Review Results and Comments”
and their “Preliminary Analysis”with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines.In
addition,comments from members of both the Planning Board and City Council
have suggested that our concerns should be addressed.
The Agenda for the November 10,2020 City Council meeting (p.87)includes this
language from the summary of the October 22, 2020 Planning Board meeting:
“The board also concurred that there are policies that are not yet met
by the Concept Plan,particularly those related to the intended use of
the fourth floor at 1603 Walnut Street as an event space and deck
that could create impacts to neighbors.The board also concurred that
there are policies related to refinements necessary to the buildings
designs.
The board noted that while there are a number of Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines that the Concept Plan is consistent with,the board
noted specific areas where the applicant should refine the project
plans for consistency with all of the relevant guidelines.”
Despite the comments from the various parties noted above,the newer design
submitted by applicant on January 4,2021 includes only minimally responsive
changes and does not address the important controversial issues in a meaningful
manner.
1.Precedent for and importance of the required 15-foot third floor setback in
relation to the immediate neighborhood
The Project Fact Sheet inaccurately represents the third floor setback variance
that is being requested.At the stairwell and at the corner of 16th and Walnut,
there is minimal setback.The required third and fourth floor setbacks (per the
City Code Form and Bulk Standards)should be enforced in order to conform with
the setback of 1655 Walnut at the building interface and to respect the smaller
scale of the two-story historical buildings directly across the street in the
Chamberlain Historic District.
We’ve reviewed documentation from the approval process for 1655 Walnut.
There are numerous references to the developer having worked with the City to
modify the design to respect the existing historic neighborhood.Examples from
the record:
●"The applicant has worked with planning staff,DDAB and Landmarks
Advisory Board to develop a unique plan for this site.The site is not in
a designated landmark district,but is adjacent to the Chamberlain
Historic district located along the south side of Walnut.The general
building appearance has been made to appear as a two story building
along the Walnut frontage and at the corner of 17th and Walnut
streets to blend with the existing smaller bungalows that are present
along the south side of Walnut between 16th and 17th Streets.”
●"That it is at the eastern edge of the district,adjacent to less intensive
use districts,suggests very strongly that building height and mass
must be made compatible with existing and planned development
within the area."
Those comments are still right on point.
2. Residents’ Amenity Deck
The only noticeable change to the Amenity Deck in the new plan is the addition of
some sort of security grating at the zero lot line where the Annex meets 1655
Walnut.This begins to address the significant security concerns of the original
design,but does nothing to address the issues of noise,privacy,shading and
context.The Deck directly overlooks at least two patios at 1655 Walnut and
provides views into bedrooms.The Amenity Deck is essentially another event
space,this one for the residents and guests of the thirty apartments in the
building;it is out of context next to the existing private spaces of 1655 Walnut.
Indeed,if the setback requirements were properly observed,it could not be
located there as designed.
If additional community space is desired for the residents,in addition to the
private balconies of each unit,there are at least a few other alternatives to the
location proposed by applicant:
1.The obvious alternative is to use a portion of the large outdoor event
space,especially since the event space would be utilized only part of the time.
The spaces could be separated by a wall or from time to time building
management could close the residents’area for large events.A privacy wall would
be necessary on the eastern side of such space.
2.The building contains a large first floor dining room and kitchen that are
likely to be underutilized.There is also a coffee shop that might not be used in the
evenings.
3.Of course,space at the expansive Church campus could be allocated as
well.
Given that applicant is starting with a blank sheet for the building design,it’s
unfortunate that they have selected a location for the Amenity Deck that is
separate from other areas within the building but highly invasive to the private
space of neighbors.It seems like a case of “internal NIMBY,”an evasion of
responsibility.Such an approach should not be approved nor rewarded with the
variances that are requested.
Subsequent to the City Council meeting at which this project was discussed,the
Boulder architecture firm of RHAP (https://www.rhaparch.com/daniel-rotner)
was retained to help residents of 1655 Walnut better understand the
development process and opportunities to assist in achieving a workable design.
Attached to this letter is a memorandum from RHAP that focuses on the setback
and Amenity Deck issues.Rather than reiterating here the specific references in
the memorandum to the Land Use Code,Site Review Criteria and Downtown
Urban Guidelines,we refer the reader to that document.The document also
includes some specific thoughts about how to begin to address these issues.
Respectfully submitted,
The Walnut Condominium HOA Board
Robert Gill
Robyn Wolf
Kevin Eggleston
Greg Mollenkopf, Managing Agent
www.BoulderHOA.com