Item 4A - 2-compressed1
9-2-14(h) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the
approving agency finds that:
(1)Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the land use map and the service area map
and, on balance, the policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Service Area Map. The property is located within Planning Area I, defined as, “the area
within the City of Boulder that has adequate urban facilities and services and is expected to
continue to accommodate urban development.” Redevelopment on the site is consistent with
the service area map.
BVCP Land Use. The majority of the site is designated as Transitional Business on the land
use map of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), which typically includes areas
along major streets. Desired uses in these areas includes a mix of uses, including housing.
The description from the BVCP is below.
The site is bisected by a Parks designation (Park, Urban and Other), which contains the
multiuse path along Boulder Creek. The PK-U/O designation is intended for a variety of active
and passive recreation purposes and/or flood control purposes.
The areas south of the creek are designated High Density Residential.
The proposed use of the site for predominantly residential uses, with a small amount of
complementary non-residential uses, is consistent with the land use designation.
BVCP Policies. Staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with several BVCP policies
supporting the redevelopment, including:
2.16 Mixed Use and Higher Density Development – The proposal provides higher-
density residential development in proximity to multimodal corridors.
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
1 of 141
2
2.18 Boulder Valley Regional Center & 28th Street – The proposal enhances the BVRC
by providing co-location of housing near existing retail, daily amenities, and transportation
amenities.
2.23 Boulder Creek, Tributaries & Ditches as Important Urban Design Features – The
proposal supports the preservation of the creek corridor and improves the open space and
multi-use path along the creek as a unifying urban design feature of the site.
2.24 Commitment to a Walkable City – The proposal promotes a walkable and
accessible city by providing numerous transportation improvements to allow residents to
reach places on foot, bike, and transit.
2.25 Improve Mobility Grid & Connections – The proposal provides improved walk- and
bikeability through the construction of planned improvements of the BVRC Transportation
Connections Plan, including new right-of-way dedication, detached public sidewalks, and
new and re-aligned multi-use path connections.
2.33 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment – The proposal is a redevelopment that is
sensitive to existing site constraints, design guidelines, and enhances the benefits of infill
through site improvements accessible to the overall community.
2.36 Physical Design for People – The proposal provides a physical design for people
through the provision of mobility improvements, an accessible site design, and functional open
space along the creek corridor.
2.38 Importance of Urban Canopy, Street Trees & Streetscapes – The proposal provides
an overall increase to the city’s tree canopy and preserve as many mature trees as possible.
2.41 Enhanced Design for All Projects –
b. The Context – The proposal responds to the site context and enhances the quality of the
existing creek corridor to improve this area as a recognizable and coherent part of the
neighborhood.
c. Relationship to the public realm – The proposal relates positively to the Boulder Creek
multi-use path and provides numerous enhancements to the creek corridor.
e. Transportation connections – The proposal provides a complete network of vehicular,
bicycle, and pedestrian connections across the site.
f. Parking – Parking is reduced significantly through a request for a parking reduction and
placed in a subordinate role to the extent possible via floodplain constraints.
i. On-site open spaces – The proposal provides an excess of open space, over 53% of the
net site area, including well-designed open spaces along the creek corridor available to
the public and private open spaces designed for residents.
k. Buildings – The proposed building designs provide a cohesive design with multiple
entries from the public right of way, four-sided design, and high-quality materials.
7.07 Mixture of Housing Types – The proposal provides for a mix of studio, 1-, 2-, 3-
and 4-bedroom units designed to serve the city’s student population.
7.12 Permanently Affordable Housing for Additional Intensity – The city’s community
benefit standards provide for permanently affordable housing in-lieu fees to be increased from
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
2 of 141
3
25% to 36% for the bonus units provided via the proposed 4th story / additional building
height.
(B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation.
Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a three-
hundred-foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the
site shall not exceed the lesser of:
n/a (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or
Not applicable; there is no maximum density associated with the BVCP land use
designation of TB.
(ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without
waiving or varying any of the requirements of chapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards,"
B.R.C. 1981, except as permitted for building sites with permanently affordable
units meeting the requirements of Paragraph 9-10-2(c)(4), “Nonconforming
Permanently Affordable Units,” B.R.C. 1981.
The applicant is proposing 303 dwelling units, of which 28 are efficiency living
units; per 9-8-7, B.R.C. 1981, for purposes of the intensity standards in chapter 9-
8, two efficiency living units constitute one dwelling unit, resulting in a total of 289
units for the purposes of intensity standards. Per chapter 9-8, at least 1,200 square
feet of open space per dwelling unit is required on the site, or a total of 346,800
square feet of open space required. The applicant’s plan set demonstrates that
there is 371,792 square feet of open space provided, or approximately 25,000
square feet of open space in excess of the minimum required. Therefore, the
applicant is proposing an amount of units that can be placed on the site without
waiving or varying any of the required intensity standards of the BT-1 zoning
district.
(C) The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP
policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques
required to meet other site review criteria.
The project is designed so it is economically feasible to meet, on balance, BVCP
policies and the other site review criteria.
(2)Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of
place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural
environment, multi-modal transportation connectivity and its physical setting. Projects
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
3 of 141
4
should utilize site design techniques which are consistent with the purpose of site
review in Subsection (a) of this section and enhance the quality of the project. In
determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the
following factors:
(A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation
areas and playgrounds:
(i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional and incorporates
quality landscaping, a mixture of sun and shade and places to gather;
A substantial amount of well-designed useable open space is provided in excess
of minimum requirements, including private open spaces for residents such as
private balconies and rooftop decks and interior programmed courtyards; and
publicly accessible open spaces including the areas surrounding Boulder Creek
and the multi-use path such as open lawn areas, improved and stabilized creek
access, basketball and pickleball courts, a dog park, and natural and
landscaped areas.
n/a (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit;
(iii) The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts
to natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees,
significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian
areas, drainage areas and species on the federal Endangered Species List,
"Species of Special Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder
County, or prairie dogs ( Cynomys ludiovicianus ), which is a species of local
concern, and their habitat;
Boulder Creek passes through the site and there are wetlands, riparian areas,
and floodplain areas associated with the creek. The proposal has been
reviewed and approved for a Floodplain Development Permit for the CLOMR
associated with the work proposed in this site review. A wetland permit will
also be required.
There are no known special status species on the site. The proposed design of
the area surrounding the creek has been designed to limit negative impacts to
the creek and associated riparian areas.
Refer to criterion (C)(ii) for information on long-lived trees.
(iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and
from surrounding development;
The intensity standards for the zoning district require at least 1,200 square feet
of open space per dwelling unit, or a total of 346,800 square feet of open space,
which constitutes approximately 53% of the net land area of the site. The land
use code section 9-9-11(c), B.R.C. 1981 also specifies that any building forty-
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
4 of 141
5
five to fifty-five feet in height shall provide at least twenty percent of the total
land area as useable open space. The proposed buildings are approximately 53
feet in height. Because the amount of open space required by the residential
calculation is greater (53% vs. 20%), the greater of the two is required. The
applicant’s plan set demonstrates that there is 371,792 square feet of open
space provided, or approximately 25,000 square feet of open space in excess of
the requirement. The proposed open space is well-designed with a focus on the
creek corridor as well as providing private open spaces for residents in
uniquely designed courtyard spaces between the arms of the buildings. The
open spaces provide significant relief between the proposed buildings and the
adjacent properties to the south.
(v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it will be
functionally useable and located in a safe and convenient proximity to the uses
to which it is meant to serve;
The proposal provides a wide variety of both passive and active open spaces,
including outdoor seating, open lawn spaces, access to Boulder Creek, and
amenities such as a dog park, basketball court, and four pickleball courts. The
proposal improves the Boulder Creek multi-use path and provides additional
multi-use path connections throughout the site, allowing for recreational uses
such as walking, running, and biking. Privately accessible spaces for residents
include a swimming pool and courtyard spaces designed with amenities such as
an outdoor kitchen. Additional interior spaces that were not included in the
open space calculation but provide convenience for residents include a fitness
area, clubroom, and various study rooms.
(vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features
and natural areas; and
The open space is designed to enhance and protect the features of Boulder
Creek. New buildings have been placed outside of the high hazard and
conveyance zones of the creek. The proposal provides for intentionally-
designed access to the creek and paths for users.
(vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
The proposal is linked to and is an important part of the city’s multi-use path
system along Boulder Creek that runs through the site.
(B)Open Space in Mixed Use Developments (Developments That Contain a Mix of
Residential and Nonresidential Uses):
(i) The open space provides for a balance of private and shared areas for the
residential uses and common open space that is available for use by both the
residential and non-residential uses that will meet the needs of the anticipated
residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property; and
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
5 of 141
6
The proposal includes predominantly residential uses, with two small cottages
south of the creek consisting of existing daycare and community-serving office
uses. The proposed open spaces serving the non-residential uses include an
existing, private fenced playground serving the daycare to remain. The bulk of
the open spaces on the site are shared areas available to the residents, users of
the cottages, and the public in general. Certain private open spaces are
designated for the residents of the apartments, including the fenced courtyard
amenities and private balconies and roof decks.
(ii) The open space provides active areas and passive areas that will meet the
needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the
property and are compatible with the surrounding area or an adopted plan for
the area.
Active include pickleball courts, basketball court, dog park, use of the Boulder
Creek multi-use path for walking, running, and cycling, and a swimming pool
for residents. Passive areas include open lawn spaces and patios for gathering,
seating areas, balconies, and rooftop decks.
(C) Landscaping:
(i) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard
surface materials, and the selection of materials provides for a variety of colors
and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where
appropriate;
The landscaping includes hard and softscape materials that are intended to
enhance the aesthetics of the site. There are a variety of shrubs, ornamental
grasses, perennials and trees proposed, including a diversity of species. The
proposal provides a focus on landscaping appropriately to the specific area of
the site, including rain gardens, pollinator areas, and riparian areas. Turf lawn
is limited to select publicly-accessible, active-use spaces.
(ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on and off
site to important native species, healthy, long lived trees, plant communities of
special concern, threatened and endangered species and habitat by integrating
the existing natural environment into the project;
The site currently contains mature trees throughout the site, including areas
that require elevation/grading per floodplain requirements and areas that
would be disturbed during deconstruction of the existing building and
construction of the proposed development. The applicant conducted an
extensive evaluation of the existing trees on the site and considered how the
proposal could incorporate as many existing mature trees into the design as
possible. Refer to the applicant’s tree preservation exhibit in Attachment H.
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
6 of 141
7
While approximately 279 of the 472 existing trees on the site are proposed to be
removed, with over half of the trees to be removed in poor health or dead, the
proposal would provide 440 new trees being planted, for a total of 611 trees on
the site, more than existing conditions. Additionally, the applicant will provide
a comprehensive tree management/maintenance plan as part of the technical
document review, as noted in the conditions of approval.
Refer to criterion (A)(iii) for information on wetlands, riparian areas, and
species.
(iii) The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of
the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-9-12, "Landscaping and Screening
Standards," and 9-9-13, "Streetscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and
The proposal meets or exceeds all landscaping plant material minimum
requirements, including providing 47 street trees along Olson and 28th Street
where a minimum of 40 are required, and providing 611 site trees where a
minimum of 304 are required.
(iv) The setbacks, yards and useable open space along public rights of way are
landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features
and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan.
The setbacks and yards along 28th Street and Olson Drive are landscaped with
a mix of low-water demand and native/near native shrubs, perennials, and
ornamental grasses to provide an attractive streetscape appropriate to the
planting location and climate.
(D) Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation
system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether
constructed by the developer or not:
(i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the
project is provided;
High speeds and potential conflicts with vehicles are discouraged by
maintaining minimal vehicular circulation access points to the site and
formalizing the “access” that currently exists at the north end of the site as a
dedicated right-of-way with detached sidewalk and tree lawn, consistent with
the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan. The site prioritizes and separates
movement by cyclists and pedestrians from vehicles via the improvements to
the creek path and addition of multiple north-south multi-use paths and
numerous pedestrian circulation paths.
(ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized;
See response to “i” above.
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
7 of 141
8
(iii) Safe and convenient connections are provided that support multi-modal
mobility through and between properties, accessible to the public within the
project and between the project and the existing and proposed transportation
systems, including, without limitation, streets, bikeways, pedestrianways and
trails;
The proposal provides safe and convenient connections through the property
and connects to multi-modal transportation systems, including multiple multi-
use paths through the site and public sidewalks. In addition, the proposal
provides for 172 short term and 961 long term bike parking spaces, where 157
short term and 457 long term bike parking spaces are required.
(iv) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design
techniques, land use patterns and supporting infrastructure that supports and
encourages walking, biking and other alternatives to the single-occupant
vehicle;
The site is well-connected to existing infrastructure that encourages walking
and biking. The proposal includes improvements to the Boulder Creek multi-
use path, other multi-use path connections running north-south through the
site, and other pedestrian connections including along Olson Drive, as well as
well as infrastructure for short- and long-term bike parking well in excess of
minimum requirements.
(v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single-occupant
vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand
management techniques;
The applicant is requesting a 52.2 percent parking reduction that reduces the
amount of required parking from 728 spaces to provide 348 spaces. The
proposal includes a TDM Plan (Attachment C) including unbundled parking
through separate leases and fees, an alternative transportation fund for
residents that do not bring a vehicle, a bike share program, eco passes for any
employee or resident not already receiving one, and other provisions to assist
in a shift away from single occupant vehicle use.
(vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of
transportation, where applicable;
The proposal provides improvements to the Boulder Creek path, new north-
south multi-use path connections, new detached sidewalk along the new Olson
Drive right-of-way, and other on-site pedestrian pathways that connect to the
city-wide pedestrian network.
(vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; and
The applicant is requesting a 52.2 percent parking reduction, which will
significantly reduce the amount of land devoted to the street system.
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
8 of 141
9
(viii) The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without
limitation, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians, and provides safety,
separation from living areas and control of noise and exhaust.
The proposed project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including
automobiles, truck deliveries and trash pickup, bicycles, and pedestrians. The
proposed project is designed to formalize the “access” at the north end of the
site as a dedicated right-of-way with separated, detached sidewalks. The
proposal provides for separation of living areas from vehicular traffic, noise
and exhaust via substantial setbacks from all adjacent rights-of-way.
(E) Parking:
(i) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide
safety, convenience and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular
movements;
The project design separates parking areas from primary pedestrian
circulation routes through the site to provide safe and convenient pedestrian
movements.
(ii) The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the
minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project;
The applicant is requesting a 52.2 percent parking reduction, which
significantly reduces the amount of land necessary to meet parking needs.
(iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the
project, adjacent properties and adjacent streets; and
The proposal maintains parking in the same general locations as the current
site configuration; due to floodplain constraints, no new parking can be
located within the high hazard and conveyance zones, and underground
parking is also not possible per floodplain requirements. The proposal reduces
the amount of surface parking through the request for a parking reduction.
The existing site contains 516 parking spaces, and the proposed site plan
provides 348 spaces. The proposal provides an outdoor lighting plan
consistent with 9-9-16, Lighting, Outdoor, B.R.C. 1981.
(iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the
requirements in Subsection 9-9-6(d), and Section 9-9-14, "Parking Lot
Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981.
The proposal provides 36 parking lot trees where 30 are required to provide
shade in excess of minimum requirements.
(F) Building Design, Livability and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed
Surrounding Area:
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
9 of 141
10
(i) 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;
The surrounding built context is eclectic.
• The BVRC to the north contains the most intensive development in the city.
• Development to the west constructed in 1959 consists of a residential
building two-stories in height.
• Newer developments to the south are built at a higher intensity and scale.
The Carillon at Boulder Creek congregate care facility to the southwest is
built up to nine stories and approximately 80 feet in height. The University
Village at Boulder Creek Apartment buildings directly to the south are four
stories and up to 53 feet in height.
The existing hotel is 60 feet in height. The proposed apartment buildings are
proposed to be in the same general location on the property as the hotel building.
Overall, due to the proximity of the above-mentioned developments and proximity
to the BVRC, the height of the development would not be an anomaly and the
proposed height, mass, and scale would continue to be appropriate.
The property is located at the southern edge of the BVRC, adjacent to 28th Street.
The BVRC is defined in the 2020 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) as a
high intensity regional commercial center planned for a variety of uses. The
redevelopment of the site is subject to the BVRC Design Guidelines, which
communicate the city’s design goals and objectives to create, maintain, and
enhance a high-quality regional commercial center through redevelopment. Staff
finds the proposal meets the following BVRC Guidelines:
• 3.1.E. Lay out the site to support pedestrian circulation
• 3.1.G Preserve and capitalize on views to the west
• 3.1.F Useable open space should be integral to the plan
• 3.1.K. Provide vehicular and pedestrian links
• 3.2.A. Internal drives should connect public streets
• 3.2.B. Connect with adjacent parking lots or drives
• 3.3.A. Provide a complete pedestrian network
• 3.3.B. Provide interior pedestrian links to adjacent properties
• 3.5.A Try to minimize parking needs
• 3.6.A Provide useable outdoor open space;
• 3.6.B Locate and design open space to encourage use;
• 5.1.A Break down the mass of the building
• 5.1.C. Transition to adjacent buildings
• 5.1.E Intermingle the building interior and exterior
• 5.2.A Orient the building to the street
• 5.2.C Emphasize building entrances
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
10 of 141
11
• 5.2.D Avoid large blank walls
• 5.2.E Provide pedestrian interest on the ground level
• 5.2.F Design all sides of the building
• 5.2.G Standardized designs and foreign styles are discouraged
• 5.2.I Use human-scale materials
• 5.2.J Select high-quality exterior materials.
Because Site Review is a discretionary review process, there is some flexibility in
the use of the guidelines. Due to the floodplain constraints on the site,
redevelopment is not able to fully meet guidelines 3.1.B “Locate buildings close
to the street,” 3.1.D “Maximize the street frontage of buildings” and 3.5.B “Try
to provide structure, rather than surface, parking” (without the provision of a
structured parking garage; subterranean parking would not be permitted). To
meet these guidelines as much as possible, the proposal reduces the amount of
parking along 28th Street from existing conditions, proposes the nearest building
closer to 28th and more parallel to the street than existing conditions, and
minimizes surface parking through a parking reduction request. In recognition of
the floodplain constraints, staff is supportive of providing flexibility to these
guidelines.
(ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing
buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or
approved plans or design guidelines for the immediate area;
As stated above, the height of the proposed building is in general proportion with
heights of structures in the vicinity. The existing hotel building is 60’ in height and
the proposed structures are approximately 53’ in height. The impact of height on
the area is further mitigated by the setbacks from the proposed buildings on the
overall 15.8-acre property, which exceed minimum requirements on all sides.
(iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views
from adjacent properties;
The proposal meets the solar access regulations and does not significantly
block views from adjacent properties. The applicant’s written statement
includes massing diagrams to demonstrate how the existing and proposed
building massing are similar in height and extents.
(iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by
the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs and lighting;
The project will be compatible and will enhance the character of the surrounding
area, which is largely eclectic with a mix of commercial and residential buildings
near 28th St, a major vehicular thoroughfare. The proposal will contribute to
improving the character of the area through significant transportation
improvements to the site and establishment of new streetscape along Olson Drive.
The building design uses appropriate colors and materials including three tones of
brick, thermally treated wood, metal panel, and a CI system. Landscaping provides
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
11 of 141
12
a focus on installation of new diverse trees and appropriate plant selections for
rain gardens, pollinator areas, and riparian areas. Outdoor lighting will be
provided consistent with 9-9-16, B.R.C. 1981.
(v) Projects are designed to a human scale and promote a safe and vibrant
pedestrian experience through the location of building frontages along public
streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths, and through the use of building elements,
design details and landscape materials that include, without limitation, the
location of entrances and windows, and the creation of transparency and
activity at the pedestrian level;
The proposed building design incorporates building entrances, windows,
balconies, and landscaping that face the streets. The primary building entrance for
the common amenity spaces at the easternmost building incorporates a storefront
system and large windows facing 28th Street, Olson Drive, and the internal multi-
use path corridor.
While the constraints of the floodplain limit building placement and require the
lowest level to be elevated, the street-facing sides of the buildings are enhanced as
much as possible with a mix of design elements to support a positive pedestrian
experience including the creation of transparency and location of common spaces
and building entries along the street façade, horizontal and vertical material and
color variations, and landscaping along the façade where appropriate.
(vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned
public facilities;
The proposal incorporates planned public improvements including the
extension of Olson Drive as a dedicated public right-of-way with detached
sidewalk and tree lawn, the improvement of the Boulder Creek bike path and
extension of new multi-use paths north-south through the site as indicated on
the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan, and improved public spaces
along the creek.
(vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a
variety of housing types, such as multifamily, townhouses and detached single
family units, as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms and sizes of
units;
The proposal provides for 303 new attached dwelling units in studio, 1-, 2-, 3-,
and 4-bedroom configurations. The units are designed to serve the city’s
university student population.
(viii) For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings
and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing,
landscaping and building materials;
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
12 of 141
13
The external noises from 28th Street are mitigated via the spacing of the
buildings from the thoroughfare. Substantial landscaping and high-quality
materials also provide for the minimization of noise between units on the site.
(ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation,
safety and aesthetics;
The proposal provides an outdoor lighting plan consistent with 9-9-16,
Lighting, Outdoor, B.R.C. 1981 and a condition of approval requires review of
a final lighting plan at the time of technical document review. The lighting has
been designed to minimize potential impacts on the Boulder Creek corridor.
(x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids,
minimizes or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
Boulder Creek passes through the site and there are wetlands, riparian areas,
and floodplain areas associated with the creek. The area surrounding the
creek has been designed to limit negative impacts to the creek corridor. The
proposal has been reviewed and approved for a Floodplain Development
Permit for the CLOMR associated with the work proposed in this site review.
A wetland permit will also be required.
The site currently contains mature trees throughout the site, including areas
that require elevation/grading per floodplain requirements and areas that
would be disturbed during deconstruction of the existing building and
construction of the proposed development. The applicant conducted an
extensive evaluation of the existing trees on the site and considered how the
proposal could incorporate as many existing mature trees into the design as
possible. Refer to the applicant’s tree preservation exhibit in Attachment H.
While approximately 279 of the 472 existing trees on the site are proposed to
be removed, with over half of the trees to be removed in poor health or dead,
the proposal would provide 440 new trees being planted, for a total of 611
trees on the site, more than existing conditions. Additionally, the applicant will
provide a comprehensive tree management/maintenance plan as part of the
technical document review, as noted in the conditions of approval.
(xi) Buildings minimize or mitigate energy use; support on-site renewable energy
generation and/or energy management systems; construction wastes are
minimized; the project mitigates urban heat island effects; and the project
reasonably mitigates or minimizes water use and impacts on water quality;
The project will be required to meet the city’s adopted Energy Conservation
Code. Presently, the adopted code is the 2020 City of Boulder Energy
Conservation Code, which is a localized version of the 2018 International
Energy Conservation Code that is 20% more efficient than the national code.
The proposed project is designed to minimize and mitigate energy use by
incorporating light covered roofing, rooftop photovoltaic panels, shading
structures, and energy efficient mechanical and electrical systems.
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
13 of 141
14
(xii) Exteriors of buildings present a sense of permanence through the use of
authentic materials such as stone, brick, wood, metal or similar products and
building material detailing;
The proposed building exteriors present a sense of permanence through the use of
authentic materials including three tones of brick in coordination with a range of
modern materials including thermally treated wood, metal panel, and a CI system.
The material strategy responds to the various edges of the site. Storefront windows
define building entries and communal amenity spaces.
(xiii) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to
the natural contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope
instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential
threat to property caused by geological hazards;
The site is significantly impacted by the high-hazard zone, conveyance zone,
and 100-year floodplain of Boulder Creek which impacts the majority of the
site. New proposed buildings are required to be located outside of the high
hazard zone and the lowest floor must be elevated to at or above the flood
protection elevation. Grading is necessary to elevate portions of the site. Cut
and fill have been minimized to allow for the preservation of as many mature
trees on the site as possible (refer to Attachment H for the applicant’s tree
exhibit).
n/a (xiv) In the urbanizing areas along the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
boundaries between Area II and Area III, the building and site design provide
for a well-defined urban edge; and
n/a (xv) In the urbanizing areas located on the major streets shown on the map in
Appendix A to this title near the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
boundaries between Area II and Area III, the buildings and site design
establish a sense of entry and arrival to the City by creating a defined urban
edge and a transition between rural and urban areas.
(G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum
potential for utilization of solar energy in the City, all applicants for residential
site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces and buildings so as to
maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the
following solar siting criteria:
(i) Placement of Open Space and Streets: Open space areas are located
wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings
within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties.
Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify
deviations from this criterion.
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
14 of 141
15
Open space areas are located south of the proposed buildings, protecting
the proposed buildings from shading by other buildings.
(ii) Lot Layout and Building Siting: Lots are oriented and buildings are
sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal
building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is
unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are
sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for
better owner control of shading.
The proposal will result in one lot encompassing the overall development.
The proposal provides for solar potential on the rooftop of each building
where solar panels are proposed to be installed.
(iii) Building Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize
utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection
and solar siting requirements of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C.
1981.
The shapes of buildings are designed with flat roofs that allow for rooftop
solar panels. Buildings meet the requirements of 9-9-17, Solar Access,
B.R.C. 1981.
(iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent
buildings are minimized.
Proposed landscaping does not materially shade adjacent buildings. The
proposed Olson Drive is located between the subject site and the property
to the north.
n/a (H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height:
n/a (I) Land Use Intensity Modifications:
n/a (J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area Ratio Increase for Buildings in the BR-1
District:
(K) Additional Criteria for Height Bonuses and Land Use Intensity Modifications for
Properties Designated within Appendix J: A building proposed with a fourth or fifth
story or addition thereto that exceeds the permitted height requirements of Section 9-7-
5, "Building Height," or 9-7-6, "Building Height, Conditional," B.R.C. 1981, together
with any additional floor area or residential density approved under Subparagraph
(h)(2)(I)(iii), may be approved if it meets the requirements of this Subparagraph
(h)(2)(K). For purposes of this Subparagraph (h)(2)(K), bonus floor area shall mean
floor area that is on a fourth or fifth story and is partially or fully above the permitted
height and any floor area that is the result of an increase in density or floor area
described in Subparagraph (h)(2)(I)(iii). The approving authority may approve a height
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
15 of 141
16
up to fifty-five feet if the building is in an area designated in Appendix J, "Areas Where
Height Modifications May Be Considered," and one of the following criteria is met:
(Note: Appendix J expired on August 31, 2021 per Ordinance No. 8453.)
(i) Residential Developments: If the development is residential, it will exceed the
requirements of Subparagraph 9-13-3(a)(1)(A), B.R.C. 1981, as follows:
a. For bonus units, the inclusionary housing requirement shall be increased as
follows: Instead of twenty-five percent, at least thirty-six percent of the total
number of bonus units shall be permanently affordable units. If the building is a
for-sale development, at least fifty percent of all the permanently affordable
units required for the building shall be built in the building; this fifty percent on-
site requirement may not be satisfied through an alternative means of
compliance. A minimum of one bonus unit shall be assumed to be provided in
the building if any bonus floor area is in the building.
b. For purposes of this Subparagraph (i), bonus units shall mean a number of units
that is determined as follows: A percentage of all the units in the building that
equals in number the percentage of bonus floor area in the building. For
example, if twenty percent of the building's floor area is bonus floor area and
the building has one hundred units, twenty percent of those one hundred units
are bonus units, resulting in twenty bonus units.
c. The city manager shall review the development's compliance with this increased
inclusionary housing requirement pursuant to the standards and review
procedures of Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981.
In order to permit a proposed building height and number of stories greater
than the 35-foot height and three-story maximum in the zoning district, the
project is subject to the adopted Community Benefit requirements of Section 9-
2-14(h)(2)(K) “Additional Criteria for a Height Bonus and Land Use Intensity
Modifications,” B.R.C. 1981, for the floor area in the 4th floor above the zoning
district height limit. This additional floor area is called "bonus floor area" in
the code and the percentage of the total building floor area that is considered
bonus floor area is what is used to determine the required number of "bonus
units" (e.g., residential units above the 25% Inclusionary Housing requirement).
While all residential projects are subject to providing at least 25% of the units
as permanently affordable or the in-lieu fee or another equivalent, the
aforementioned requirement increases that percentage for bonus units from
25% to 36%. The number of units considered "bonus units" is the number that is
the percentage of all units of the building that equals in number the percentage
of "bonus floor area" in the building. This results in the number of additional
permanently affordable units that must be in the building or included in the total
calculation for in lieu fees. The in-lieu fee payment would ultimately be due
prior to issuance of a building permit and helps fund permanently affordable
housing in the city of Boulder.
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
16 of 141
17
(L) Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions: The off-street parking
requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be
modified as follows:
(i) Process: The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed fifty
percent of the required parking. The planning board or city council may grant a
reduction exceeding fifty percent.
The proposal includes a request for a 52.2% vehicle parking reduction. The
planning board may grant this reduction request as part of the review of the
proposal.
(ii) Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project
meets the following criteria, the approving agency may approve proposed
modifications to the parking requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking
Standards," B.R.C. 1981 (see tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4), if it finds that:
a. For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by
occupants of and visitors to dwellings in the project will be adequately
accommodated;
The intended residents for the apartments are university students. The
applicant evaluated parking demand at nearby residential properties
serving university students to determine expected rates of parking demand.
While the city’s off-street parking requirements would require 728, the
parking analysis indicated a parking demand of significantly fewer spaces
based on national data for multi-family apartments, adjustments specific to
student housing, and considerations for the specific project location. Refer
to the applicant’s Parking Study in Attachment J for additional
information.
The site is located in close proximity to the university, with access via the
existing underpass located just west of the subject property along the
Boulder Creek multi-use path, where students can easily walk and bike to
the campus. The site is also located immediately south of a commercial
shopping center including a grocery store, multiple restaurants, and other
stores and services. Overall, the site is highly accessible to alternative
transportation modes including biking, walking, and taking transit.
The applicant is further encouraging “adequate accommodation” of
parking by implementing SUMP Principles through the project TDM plan
(Shared, Unbundled, Managed and Paid). In particular, parking is
unbundled from rent and paid via separate lease (discouraging students
from using/parking a car). The proposal also includes numerous TDM plan
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
17 of 141
18
elements, including an alternative transportation fund for those that choose
not to bring a car, a bike share program, and provision of eco passes for
any employee or resident not already receiving one, to increase the
percentage of alternative travel modes and decrease parking demand on the
site.
b. The parking needs of any nonresidential uses will be adequately
accommodated through on-street parking or off-street parking;
A very small number of parking spaces are required to support the
nonresidential uses on the site. Parking for these non-residential uses will be
adequately accommodated through the provided off-street parking.
c. A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the
parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking;
While the predominant use of the site is residential, a small amount of non-
residential space (daycare and office uses) is provided in the cottages south
of the creek. The parking needs of all uses can be accommodated through
the proposed off-street parking.
n/a d. If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of
use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and
e. If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature
of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the
occupancy will not change.
The proposal is being designed as a primarily residential development with
a small amount of non-residential uses in the two existing cottages south of
the creek. The nature of the occupancy is not expected to significantly
change over time.
n/a (M) Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking: The parking required under Section
9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be located on a separate lot if
the following conditions are met:
USE REVIEW
SECTION 9-2-15(E)
Criteria for Review: No use review application will be approved unless the approving
agency finds all of the following:
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
18 of 141
19
(1) Consistency with Zoning and Non-Conformity: The use is consistent with the purpose
of the zoning district as set forth in Section 9-5-2(c), "Zoning Districts Purposes," B.R.C. 1981,
except in the case of a non-conforming use;
Residential uses are included within the defined intent for Business Transition -1 (BT-1) zoning
district consistent with section 9-5-2, B.R.C. 1981 is as follows:
“(E) Business – Transitional 1 and Business – Transitional 2: Transitional business areas which
generally buffer a residential area from a major street and are primarily used for commercial
and complementary residential uses, including, without limitation, temporary lodging and office
uses.”
Ground floor residential uses along a street may be established in the zoning district with
approval of a Use Review.
(2) Rationale: The use either:
n/a (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the
surrounding uses or neighborhood;
(B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity
uses;
The proposed development would provide an appropriate transition between the intensive
commercial district to the north (BVRC) and the residential uses to the south and west.
The BT-1 zone district anticipates residential located above first floor retail, however, the
significant flood restrictions on the site limit the placement of buildings and prevent the
location of commercial uses close to 28th Street as intended by this code provision. A
significant setback is instead required from this major throughfare due to the location of
the high hazard zone. Providing ground floor residential uses would be appropriate
given the context and design constraints on the site. Additionally, the development will
serve the intended “transitional” function from the high-intensity regional commercial
center to the north to the residential zones to the south and west.
n/a (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate
income housing, residential and non-residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and
group living arrangements for special populations; or
n/a (D) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted
under subsection (f) of this section;
3) Compatibility: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably
compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
19 of 141
20
residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the
potential negative impacts from nearby properties;
The location, size, and design of the proposed apartment building is compatible in the context
where large, often tall, residential structures are located and where the Millennium Hotel has
existed in a similar placement and height on the property for several decades. The proposed
ground floor residential uses are similar to that of other residential buildings in the area and
will not create a negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The applicant has provided an
operating plan (Attachment I) to inform the community as to the standards of operation of the
property and share guiding principles.
(4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under Section 9-6-1, "Schedule
of Permitted Uses of Land," B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of
impact of a non-conforming use, the proposed development will not significantly adversely
affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater,
and storm drainage utilities and streets;
The proposal to provide ground-floor residential uses would not adversely impact the
infrastructure of the surrounding area as compared to development permitted in section 9-6-1,
B.R.C. 1981. The existing infrastructure has been in place for decades and the proposed
development will provide numerous infrastructure improvements including providing a
development that is elevated to the flood protection elevation and installation of new streets and
multi-use path connections.
(5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the
surrounding area or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans for the area;
and
The provision of ground floor residential in this location will not change the predominant
character of the area. The character of the area has been changing over the past 10 to 15 years
as the corridor along 28th Street, notably on the east side of the street, has been redeveloping.
Because the city encourages additional residential units, in particular with the proximity of the
site to the university and easy pedestrian access to the university via the Boulder Creek multi-use
path and pedestrian underpass, the site is well-situated to provide additional student residential
units.
The site is located with the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC). The proposed ground-floor
residential use would not change the character established by adopted guidelines for the area.
The proposal’s compliance with the adopted guidelines for the BVRC are listed under Site
Review criterion (F)(i), above.
n/a (6) Conversion of Dwelling Units to Non-Residential Uses: There shall be a presumption
against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts set forth in
Subsection 9-5-2(c)(1)(a), B.R.C. 1981, to non-residential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use
review, or through the change of one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. The
presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be approved
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
20 of 141
21
serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in the
community including, without limitation, a use for a day care center, park, religious assembly,
social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an
educational use.
Not applicable; the existing hotel use (non-residential) is proposed to be removed and a
residential use established.
Attachment D - Staff Responses to Review Criteria
21 of 141
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: June 21, 2022
CASE MANAGER: Sloane Walbert
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
MILLENIUM HARVEST HOUSE HOTEL
1345 28TH ST
REVIEW TYPE: Site & Use Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2022-00021
APPLICANT: JASON DOORNBOS, LCD ACQUISITIONS, LLC
DESCRIPTION: Site and Use Review to redevelop the property at 1345 28th St. with three 4-story
buildings approximately 53-feet in height. The development is proposed to contain
302 residential apartments, in a mix of studio, one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom
configurations. A 46% parking reduction is proposed to allow for 390 parking
spaces, where 717 are required per the underlying zoning. A Use Review is
required for a residential use on the ground floor.
I.REVIEW FINDINGS
Additional information and revisions to the plan documents are required as indicated below. Considering the
complexity of the project, additional comments may be forthcoming based on the requested information and plan
revisions. Refer to ‘Next Steps’ comments below for directions on how the project can be resubmitted for staff
review. Please contact staff with any questions or concerns.
II.CITY REQUIREMENTS
The section below addresses issues that must be resolved prior to project approval.
Access/Circulation
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1.Circulation Plan: The circulation plan does not show the location of the off-street delivery and loading spaces for
the three buildings. Per Section 9-9-9, B.R.C. 1981 revise the site plans to show the location of the off-street
delivery and loading spaces.
2.Single Story Cottages: The site review application did not discuss the existing or proposed uses for the three
single story cottages. The existing or proposed land uses of the single story cottages will impact, vehicle and
bicycle parking, trash collection, the traffic study, the parking analysis and the TDM Plan. Revise the site review
application accordingly to address this comment.
3.Boulder Creek Path: If the tennis courts are removed and in meeting the site review criteria for circulation
(Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(D), B.R.C. 1981) the project will be required to realign the alignment of the boulder creek
path south of the bridge to remove the existing curve where the path intersects with the existing bridge. Revise
the site plans accordingly.
4.In support of meeting the site review criteria for circulation (Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(D), B.R.C. 1981) revise the site
plans to provide a pedestrian connection from Taft Street to the residential buildings across the south parking lot.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
22 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 2 of 16
5. The access point (driveway) serving the site from Taft Drive does not meet the city’s design standards for site
access contained in Section 2.04 of the City’s Design and Construction Standards. Revise the site plans and
engineering drawings to show the reconstruction of the driveway as a CDOT Type 1 driveway ramp for a
curbwalk with the reconstructed driveway intersecting Taft Street at a 90-degree angle and revise the easement
sheet if a public access easement is necessary for the new driveway.
6. Olson Drive: The site review application did not include documentation that supports the public has the right to
access the existing access drive west of Olson Drive. At time of resubmittal either provide the supporting
documentation or design a cul-de-sac at the west end of Olson Drive.
7. It is unclear to staff the approval being requested from staff for the information being shown on the Auto Turn
Exhibit Sheet (Sheet EX-1) from the engineering drawings. To address this comment, provide a design memo
describing the existing conditions and the CDOT and City design standards being met with the proposed design.
8. In support of meeting the site review criteria for circulation (Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(D), B.R.C. 1981) and maintaining
the ¾ access point from 28th Street staff will require the multi-use path be reconstructed where it crosses the
driveway as a raised crossing with ramps to mitigate the speed of the turning vehicle. Revise the engineering
drawings, drainage drawings and site review application accordingly.
9. The engineering drawings to not include a sheet showing how emergency vehicles will access and either
turnaround or circulate through the site to provide emergency services to the three buildings. Staff is concerned
pursuant to Section 2.10 of the DCS a turnaround will be required for the emergency access lane for the west
parking area. It is also not clear how emergency vehicle access is being provided for the middle building or that
the east parking lot has been designed to allow emergency vehicles to access and circulate through the parking
area. Revise the site plans to address staff’s concerns.
10. Sheet A14: Please revise the narrative on this sheet to better reflect the discussion regarding the three planned
multi-use connections impacting this site. In that discussion staff said it would support the removal of the eastern
most planned multi-use connection given the proximity of the existing and planned paths that will be constructed
by the project. The narrative should state that pedestrian access and circulation will be provided along the
eastern edge of the building connecting to the existing and planned paths.
11. In meeting the site review criteria for circulation (Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(D), B.R.C. 1981), revise the site plans to
provide bicycle access and circulation from the south area of the eastern parking lot to the Boulder Creek Path.
12. In meeting the site review criteria for circulation, revise the site plans to show the sidewalk connection between
building #1 and the 28th Street multi-use path as a raised sidewalk across the drive aisles of the parking area.
13. Pursuant to the city’s site access control standards (Section 9-9-5, B.R.C. 1981) staff does not support the site
having three access points from Olson Drive. Staff will support the site being served by two access points from
Olson Drive in support of emergency access and circulation. Revise the site plans accordingly.
14. In meeting the site review criteria for circulation (Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(D), B.R.C. 1981) revise the western
parking lot to provide a turnaround for the trash collection vehicle.
Building Design
Sloane Walbert, 303-441-4231
1. Please provide typical wall sections and schedule including information from any below grade construction to roof
transition details.
2. Provide details indicating the construction of window and door assemblies of the typical wall or exterior cladding
types for the head, jamb, and sill. Include dimension(s) from the finish face of the exterior cladding to the window
frame. This includes the typical details for the assorted wall assemblies of stone, wood, or metal cladding, etc.
3. Provide typical detail sections of both horizontal and vertical in-plane exterior wall material changes to illustrate
transitions. For example, transitions from stone veneer to siding, brick bond changes, in-plane material changes
or “seams” of the different exterior cladding transitions, inside and outside corner edge condition details, etc.
4. Provide detail sections of exterior projections, recesses, or notable architectural features. For example, entry
features, roof/parapet details, soffit and floor details of the balconies, eaves, awnings, and notable building
features.
5. Wheel tracks are necessary on stairs leading entries that lead to bike storage rooms. Please update plans and
include call outs.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
23 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 3 of 16
6. Perspectives are not consistent with landscape plans, in particular in walkways between buildings. Correct
accordingly.
7. Provide additional detail on the proposed EIFS. Is this a stucco coated EIFS? What is the type of finish?
8. Consideration should be given to providing cohesion in the window families across the site and providing design
continuity across each façade.
9. Consideration should be given to ensuring architectural distinct design for each building in the development.
Some adjustments could be done so each building reads as a distinct building rather than a large contiguous
building. For example, instead of using three different colored bricks mixed across facades one colored brick
could be used for each building.
10. Consideration should be given to emphasizing building entries (primary and secondary) on each building
elevation, through the use of awnings, fenestration, or specific building materials. This will help with architectural
legibility and to meet site review criteria on pedestrian scale building elements.
Site review criterion (2)(F)(v): “Projects are designed to a human scale and promote a safe and vibrant
pedestrian experience through the location of building frontages along public streets, plazas, sidewalks and
paths, and through the use of building elements, design details and landscape materials that include, without
limitation, the location of entrances and windows, and the creation of transparency and activity at the pedestrian
level.”
11. Consideration should be given to simplifying the material palette by building and thoughtful material assignment
to improve architectural legibility.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
24 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 4 of 16
Drainage
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
1. The Preliminary Stormwater Report states that water quality treatment will include use of a proprietary device for
runoff from the east parking area that cannot be conveyed practically to the proposed south-side rain gardens.
However, per section 7.16 of the DCS, a hydrodynamic separator is considered the least desirable treatment
approach in the hierarchy provided in figure 1. Since this site is an Applicable Site per the DCS and since nearly
all of the site is proposed to be redeveloped, opportunities must be sought to provide more robust and preferred
methods of treatment - most notably, infiltration. Revise Report to include (or as a separate document) the
Geotechnical Report prepared by Terracon and evaluate infiltration feasibility in accordance with the DCS.
Further, since the separator is the only proposed SCM for most of the north side of the site, including the new
roadway, and all of the east parking area, and runoff flows from these areas are shown to be piped to the CDS
unit, unless it can be demonstrated that this is the only means of providing treatment, other strategies should be
thoroughly evaluated. In particular, the site slopes generally from west to east and north to south so site grading
could be favorably utilized to allow for runoff to surface flow into the east parking area. Existing/proposed
imperious areas could be reconfigured to implement infiltration elements or WQCV facilities as replacement for
some of the proposed surface parking. Revise drainage design accordingly and update Report as necessary.
2. Regarding the city’s new storm water regulations and the June 2019 adoption of the updated City of Boulder
Design and Construction Standards (DCS), this development is considered an “applicable development”. All
requirements of Chapter 7 of the DCS apply to the drainage design of this project including, (but not limited to):
Preliminary Infiltration Feasibility Screening (PIFS), Treatment Approach Selection Criteria, Soil and Infiltration
Test (if applicable), LID Techniques, Stormwater Quality Design Standard Compliance, Selection and Design of
SCM’s, etc. The Preliminary Drainage Report submitted as part of this Site Review application is incomplete. The
report must address all required and relevant analyses, decision paths and forms necessary to demonstrate
compliance with these standards and must be included in the report. Revise Report as necessary to fully address
all required elements. Particular attention must be given to sections 7.14, 7.15 and 7.16 of the DCS. Revise plans
and Report as necessary.
Engineering
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1. Sight triangles are not shown where the private drives intersect with the public rights-of-way. Revise the plans to
show sight triangles in accordance with Section 9-9-7 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981.
2. Engineering Sheets C400 and C401: The plan and profile sheets for Olson Drive does not include elevations to
verify the cross slope of the street being proposed for staff’s review and approval. Staff is open to consider a
pitched street for Olson Drive provided the cross slope of the street is 2%. Revise the plan and profile sheets
accordingly.
3. Engineering Sheet C400: The plan and profile sheet does not show the design details on how Olson Street
transitions to the access street. Revise the plan and profile sheet to show the design details.
4. Engineering Sheets C400 and C401: The plan and profile sheets for Olson Drive does not include elevations to
verify the street’s sidewalk is meeting the city’s design standard for accessibility. Revise the plan and profile
sheets accordingly.
5. The slope of the street ramp at the raised crossing is not consistent with the city design policy for raised
crossings. Revise the engineering drawings to provide a ramp slope between 5% and 8% for the raised crossings
to be constructed on Olson Drive and the access point serving the site from US-36 (28th Street).
6. In accordance with the City’s Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines, revise the engineering
drawings to show a streetlight being installed at the two locations for the raised crosswalks that will be
constructed with the project.
7. Revise the site plans to show the north / south multi-use paths that will intersect with the Boulder Creek Path
designed with a smaller intersection radius.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
25 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 5 of 16
8. West MUP: Revise the profile to show and label the profile (cross-slope) where the path intersects with the Olson
Drive sidewalk and the Boulder Creek MUP.
9. West MUP: Revise the West MUP (path) plan and profile sheet to extend the path northward so that the path
intersects with Olson Drive by means of a curb ramp.
10. General Comment for the Multi-Use Paths: Revise the engineering drawings to add edge of pavement
elevations and the cross slope between the edge elevations for the multi-use paths. Pursuant to Section
1.03(D)(3)(e)(xi) of the City’s Design and Construction Standards (DCS) the city requires that paths be
constructed to have a cross slope of less than 2%. The path shall be designed and constructed with cross slopes
sufficiently less than 2% to ensure that they do not exceed the 2% maximum.
11. MU Path Middle (path) Plan: In accordance with Section 1.03(E)(2)(e) of the DCS revise the engineering
drawings to label the horizontal curve data of the path which staff will use to verify the path’s horizontal design
conforms to Chapter 5 of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th edition per Section
2.11(F) of the DCS.
12. MU Path Middle (path) Profile: The vertical profile of the path does not meet minimum standards. In accordance
with Section1.03(E)(2)(e) of the DCS revise the profile drawing for the path such that a minimum slope of 0.5% is
provided.
13. MU Path Middle (path) Profile: The engineering drawings do not include a vertical profile for the Boulder Creek
Path where the path approaches and intersects with the existing bridge. Revise the engineering drawings
accordingly.
14. Sheet 403 / MU Path Middle (path) Profile: The engineering drawing does not include either the Olson Drive
sidewalk and street or how the multi-use path ties into the existing pavement to the north.
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
15. The Utility and Drainage Reports state a geotechnical analysis was performed for the site and a report of the
findings prepared, however no Soils/ Geotechnical Report has been included in the submittal documents. The
Geotechnical Report must be provided at the time of the next submittal. Findings presented in the Report may
result in additional comments not noted herein.
Floodplain
Christin Shepherd, 303-441-3425
1. While an overall reduction in parking spaces is proposed, staff needs to confirm that additional parking is not
being added to specific lots or existing parking areas in alignment with code intent.
Provide a table that describes BOTH existing and proposed parking space counts for three distinct 'lot' areas:
a. South of Boulder Creek, the entire lot area
b. North of Boulder Creek in the HHZ
c. North of Boulder Creek NOT in the HHZ, but in 18-inch water depths
2. Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) Required: A CLOMR is required for the proposed scope of work. A
separate floodplain development permit application is required for the CLOMR submittal. City approval of the
supplied CLOMR is a condition of Site & Use Review approval.
3. As a condition of approval, the city will require that the Trail and Recreation Easement (Film # 1378, Rec#
00721036) be replaced with one or more easements to better identify the existing and proposed recreational and
multi-use path infrastructure and clarify management and maintenance obligations and flood control rights.
Provide a draft of the flood control easement location to be dedicated on page 12 of the development plan
(Easement Exhibit). Staff will work with applicant to finalize easement location and maintenance responsibilities
before final dedication.
4. MILE HIGH FLOOD DISTRICT COMMENTS: The drainage report states on page 8, Section D Regulatory
Floodplain that a CLOMR Is not anticipated while on page 12, Source Controls, Section C that a CLOMR/LOMR
is anticipated. Please clarify which one is correct.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
26 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 6 of 16
5. MILE HIGH FLOOD DISTRICT COMMENTS: Per City of Boulder DCS, maintenance of raingardens and
stormwater conveyance network is the responsibility of the owner. Please specify maintenance responsibilities for
the rain gardens and stormwater conveyance network in the drainage report.
6. MILE HIGH FLOOD DISTRICT COMMENTS: The rip rap from the west outfall into Boulder Creek is MHFD
maintenance eligible. Acknowledge that the necessary design information will be provided at time of TEC DOC
submittal to confirm it is adequate for the proposed discharge rates.
7. MILE HIGH FLOOD DISTRICT COMMENTS: Please confirm whether this project will use the existing outfall to
discharge the conveyance network to the east. Note, this outfall may need to be updated for maintenance
eligibility. Please confirm the existing outfall is adequate at time of civil plan submittal.
Land Use
Sloane Walbert, 303-441-4231
The applicant states that they are amenable to maintaining the businesses located within the cottages on the south
side of the creek. At the Planning Board hearing on the concept plan several board members voiced support for
continuing to house the existing small businesses in the cottages. Please provide details on proposed uses within
the cottages, operating characteristics of the uses, parking generated by the uses, and how parking would be
managed with the residential uses. Since the use review would determine future allowed uses the applicant should
consider all prospective uses that would be compatible with the development and with similar impacts. Refer to
Table 6-1, B.R.C. 1981 for allowed uses within the zone district.
Landscape
Christopher Ricciardiello, 303-441-3138
1. FORESTRY, TREE ASSESSMENT: The tree assessment that has been provided has many inconsistencies and
does not reflect the current conditions of the site. For example, there are dead trees along 28th St. called out for
preservation. The assessment is not passable in its current condition and will need to be updated for the Forestry
Department and Landscape Architecture staff to provide an accurate evaluation.
2. FORESTRY, TREE MAINTENANCE: Section 6-6-2, B.R.C. requires that the property owner is responsible for the
removal of dead, diseased, of dangerous trees. Should the applicant have a different proposal for the
maintenance of trees on the property, provide all information with respect to an operations and maintenance plan
for these trees.
3. FORESTRY, TREE REMOVAL: Based on an initial evaluation Boulder Forestry has concluded that the removal
and replacement of the following trees due to tree health and/or tree structural concerns is necessary. All trees
below are in ‘poor’ condition and should be removed:
Plant ID # 162 (Public Site ID Tree54895) Plant ID # 173 (Public Site ID Tree54893) Plant ID # XXX-2 (Public
Site ID Tree54901) Plant ID # XXX-3 (Public Site ID Tree54902) Plant ID # 175 (Public Site ID Tree54903) Plant
ID # 169 (Public Site ID Tree54904) Plant ID # XXX-6 (Public Site ID TREE54910).
Examples of private trees proposed for preservation that should be removed:
Plant ID # 163 (24” DBH crabapple) and # 164 (23” DBH crabapple) – trees are dead Plant ID # 13 (32” DBH
Willow) – large deadwood and recent large tear out wound
Unknown Plant IDs – several dead ash trees along south side of Boulder Creek, east of the bridge
The listing of trees above is not meant to be exhaustive. On receipt of the updated tree assessment and a full
evaluation of the evaluation of the assessment by Forestry staff, the City Forester may amend the trees noted
above.
4. FORESTRY, TREE PRESERVATION: Consistent with section 9-2-14(h)(2)(C)(ii) Landscaping, B.R.C. and
sections of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, such as protection of the Urban Forests, it is the expectation
of the city that the applicant will "avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on and off site to important native species,
healthy, long lived trees, plant communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and habitat
by integrating the existing natural environment into the project."
Attachment E - DRC Comments
27 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 7 of 16
At the direction of the City Forester, a site visit was performed, and Forestry staff has noted several trees within
the property that are worthy of preservation based on B.R.C. and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan objectives.
Examples of large, private trees in fair to good condition that should be preserved include:
Individual, large private trees in fair to good condition such as: Plant ID # 113 (26” DBH Linden), Plant ID # 114
(28” DBH Austrian pine), Plant ID # 93 (19” DBH Linden). Groupings of evergreen trees such as: Plant ID #s 64
(16” DBH Austrian pine) and # 65 (12” DBH Blue spruce) and # 66 (12” DBH Blue Spruce), Plant ID # 70 (17”
Austrian pine) and # 71 (17” Austrian pine) and # 72 (15” Austrian pine) and # 73 (15” Austrian pine) and # 74
(16” Austrian pine) and # 75 (20” Austrian pine) and # 76 (11” Blue Spruce).
Trees along north property boundary such as: Plant ID # 117 (18” DBH Ponderosa pine) and Plant ID # 118 (18”
DBH Ponderosa pine) and Plant ID # 119 (17” DBH Ponderosa pine) and Plant ID # 120 (22” DBH Ponderosa
pine), Plant ID # 146 (?) (23” DBH Honeylocust) along north boundary.
The listing of trees above is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather only to provide examples of trees that the city
believes meet B.R.C. and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan requirements and objectives for preservation. On
receipt of the updated tree assessment and a full evaluation of the assessment by Forestry staff, the City
Forester may recommend the preservation of additional trees or exclusion of some that have been noted above.
It will be the responsibility of the applicant to provide defensible reasoning as to why the trees recommended for
preservation cannot be preserved. Where trees are shown to be preserved, it will also be the responsibility of the
applicant to show that trees designated for preservation will not be adversely impacted through site grading, utility
installation, and other site development or construction activities.
5. FORESTRY, EXISTING TREE WATERING: All public & private trees to be preserved shall be watered
throughout the project at a rate of 15 gallons per diameter inch every 2 weeks in March – September, and once
per month October – February.
6. FORESTRY, TREE SPECIES SELECTION: For the proposed street trees, select and indicate the tree species on
the site/landscape plan consistent with the current City of Boulder Approved Tree List. Each tree shall be a large
maturing deciduous tree (over 45' mature height) as stated in Land Use Code 9-9-13(b), B.R.C. 1981 sized at a
minimum 2" caliper such as State Street Maple, (Fall Fiesta, Caddo, Legacy) Sugar Maple, Western Catalpa,
Common Hackberry, Turkish Filbert, Kentucky Coffeetree, White Oak, Swamp White Oak, Bur Oak, Japanese
Pagodatree, (Accolade or David) Elm. The species must be allowable under the most current Boulder Forestry
standards. The landscape plans submitted with the Site Review indicates that Amur Corktrees and species
Boxelders have been proposed. Amur Corktree is not considered a large maturing tree by Boulder Forestry
standards. And, only ‘Sensation’ Boxelder is allowable as a street tree.
7. MANICURED LANDSCAPE IN PROXIMITY WITH BOULDER CREEK: The applicant is proposing developed
landscape areas typically requiring commercial/chemical treatment (fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide) employed by
landscape management staff to maintain viability in proximity with the wetland/riparian corridor of Boulder Creek.
Staff requires that all plantings abutting or draining in the direction of Boulder Creek be maintained without the
use of chemical agents as they would have a detrimental effect to creek, wetlands, and riparian ecosystems.
8. WETLAND DELINEATION: The applicant shall perform and provide a wetland delineation associated with the
project reach of Boulder Creek and prepared by a certified wetland professional. The delineation shall then be
used by the applicant in functional and spatial analysis to determine design influences and best practices to
minimize potential impact to the creek corridor, wetland, and riparian resources. It may be possible through this
development to enhance the creek corridor through riparian and wetland plantings. Provide analysis supporting
this objective.
9. SITE FURNISHINGS: Site furnishings appear to be graphically represented on the Site Review Landscape
Plans. Provide verbal callouts for landscape furnishings, shade structures, lighting standards, etc. The portion of
the project area surrounding the Boulder Creek Path does not appear to be designed with site furnishings in
mind. Provide a comprehensive plan for all site furnishings proposed.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
28 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 8 of 16
10. PARKING LOT INTERIOR PLANTINGS AND SCREENING: Revise landscape plans to show interior parking lot
plantings and comprehensive screening for parking lots in accordance with Land Use Code Section 9-9-14,
B.R.C. 1981.
11. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS TABLE: The Total Landscape Area is indicated in the table as 180,024 SF
without providing data to show how the number was calculated. All data provided with the Requirements Chart
must adhere to the following criteria, 9-9-12(d)(1)(J), B.R.C. 1981 - A chart comparing the landscaping
requirements of Sections 9-9-13, "Streetscape Design Standards," and 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping
Standards," B.R.C. 1981, to the proposed materials, including, without limitation, the following information: total
lot size (in square feet), total parking lot size, including all drives and driveways (in square feet), total number of
parking stalls required and the total provided, total interior parking lot landscaped area required and the total
provided, total perimeter parking lot landscaping required and total provided, total number of street trees required
and the total provided, and total quantity of plant material required and the total provided;
12. WATER CONSERVATION AND XERISCAPE PRINCIPLES: The applicant shall provide narrative addressing
the requirements of water conservation and the use of Xeriscape principles in the developed landscape. Review
Land Use Code Section 9-9-12(d)(14 and 15), B.R.C. 1981 for additional guidance.
13. LANDSCAPE TRANSITIONS: The submitted landscape plans show pedestrian and vehicular entries to the site
as somewhat unembellished in landscape character and without identity. It may be beneficial to enhance
landscape treatment with monumentation and structured ornamental plantings at critical transitions from the
public realm to the development site.
14. MINIMUM OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPING: Land Use Code section 9-9-12(d)(8), B.R.C. 1981 requires the
following for overall landscaping - "In all zones except A, P, RR, RE, RL and RM, one tree and five shrubs are
planted for each 1,500 square feet of lot area not covered by a building or required parking." The Landscape
Requirements Table included on L5.1 of the submitted plan set states the Total Landscape Area as 180,024 SF.
Following the Land Use Code to determine the Minimal Overall Site Landscaping, the applicant is required to
begin with the total lot size (689,526 SF), subtracting building area (116,837 SF) and required parking area
(130,055 SF) to establish the Minimal Overall Site Landscaping area of 442,634 SF. There is a distinct
discrepancy between the applicant stated total landscape area and the Minimal Overall Site Landscaping area
required by code. Revise all landscape quantities, calculations, etc. based on the correct landscape area
required by City Code. Keep in mind that the one tree and five shrubs calculation is a basis for landscape
development. Land Use Code Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(C) Landscaping Site Review Criteria requires an applicant to
further enhance proposed landscape development by applying the criteria listed. Revise landscape design to
accommodate Site Review Landscaping Criteria.
15. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS: The current landscape plan does not indicate with specific planting intent within
courtyard areas and between residential buildings. Provide detailed planting design for all courtyards and
pedestrian corridors, adding planting buffers between walkways, paths and the buildings wherever needed.
There should be visual separation between the residential units and the pedestrian walks.
Legal Documents
Julia Chase, 303-441-3052
1. Exhibit - On page 12 of the Development Plan, revise the "Easement Exhibit" to include all of the proposed
easements to be dedicated, including but not limited to any storm water detention/water quality easements, the
new "Trail and Recreation Easement", and any flood control easement.
2. Development Plan - Add a sheet to depict "Proposed Lot Layout" to clarify whether each parcel line is to be
removed. Please indicate whether the applicant plans to create one lot for the whole site. It is recommended that
the Applicant submit an application for a Preliminary Plat to remove the parcel lines and show the proposed
easements.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
29 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 9 of 16
Miscellaneous
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1. General Comment - Landscape Plans: Revise the landscape plans to remove non-standard landscape materials
that are being shown encroaching into the public access easements for the multi-use paths.
2. TDM Plan: The TDM Plan is incomplete because it does not include a TDM Plan for the commercial businesses
occupying the bungalows south of Boulder Creek. Revise the TDM Plan accordingly.
3. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) did not use the “new” peak hour trips that were reviewed and approved for the
project by staff in the project’s Trip Generation and Assignment Report dated July 27, 2021. Revise the TIA to
use the “new” peak hour trips shown in the project’s Trip Generation and Assignment Report dated July 27, 2021.
The applicant can expect additional review comments from staff when the revised TIA is reviewed by staff.
4. This comment was received by staff from CDOT R4. Revise the traffic study to include a discussion to identify if
the existing left-turn lane on northbound US-36 must be reconstructed to meet the CDOT State Highway Access
Code design standards for the peak hour turning volumes that will be generated by the project.
Parks
Doug Godfrey, 303-413-7229
1. The applicant should call out any proposed changes to the existing Trails and Recreation Easement.
2. Fish Observatory, Operations and Maintenance: The applicant should provide information for the proposed
operation and maintenance of the fish observatory. It would be a condition of approval that a new Maintenance
Agreement for the Fish Observatory be entered into between the City and the new property owner.
Parking
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1. The Site Review Application does not support the parking reduction being requested by the project. The TDM
Strategies included in the TDM Plan along with the proposed site improvements support a much lower parking
reduction. Staff will require additional TDM Strategies and site improvements in support of the requested parking
reduction.
2. The landscape plans do not delineate the parking area (concrete pad) for the bike racks to be installed for the
short-term bicycle parking consistent with technical drawing 2.52.B of the DCS. Revise the site plans accordingly.
3. Staff is unable to determine if the short-term bicycle parking is meeting the design criteria of being located within
fifty feet of the primary entrance pursuant to Section 9-9-6(g)(3), B.R.C. 1981. Revise the landscape plans to
label the building entrances.
4. The Architectural Plans do not include the design details of the long-term bicycle parking to allow staff to verify
the parking is meeting the design criteria for parking per Section 9-9-6(g)(4), B.R.C. 1981. Revise the
Architectural Plans accordingly.
5. South Parking Area: There are vehicle parking spaces shown on the plans that do not meet the city’s standard
for back distance per Section 9-9-6(d), B.R.C. 1981. Revise the plans to correct the discrepancy.
6. South Parking Area: The Horizontal Control Plan does not include dimensions for the south parking area to verify
the south parking area is meeting the city’s parking standards contained in Section 9-9-6(d), B.R.C. 1981.
Revise the site plans accordingly.
7. South Parking Area: Revise the plan to show the accessible route between the accessible spaces to the
buildings they serve.
8. Circulation Plan: Trash Storage & Recycling Area: Please clarify how the trash storage and recycling areas meet
the criteria of being accessible and convenient for the collection vehicles pursuant to Section 9-9-18, B.R.C.
1981.
9. The Type “B” bike rack does not meet the city’s design standard for other bike rack styles contained in Section
2.11(2)(b) of the City’s Design and Construction Standards. Revise the site review plans to identify a bike rack
that meets the city’s design standards.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
30 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 10 of 16
10. This is a follow-up to a comment made during staff’s review of the Concept Plan for the Project. In support of the
parking reduction the project will be required to submit a Parking Management Plan for the vehicle parking
spaces being provided on the site. The Parking Management Plan must be submitted when the site review
application is resubmitted for staff’s review.
11. Parking Analysis: The Parking Analysis is incomplete because there’s no discussion on the parking
requirements or impacts of the commercial businesses on the south side of the creek.
12. Parking Analysis / Page 1: The analysis incorrectly describes the multi-use path on 28th Street as a wide
sidewalk. Correct the discrepancy.
13. Parking Analysis / Page 1: The analysis describes the Folsom Street sidewalk as wide; however, the width of the
existing sidewalk on the east side of Folsom Street is less than the standard width for a sidewalk for a minor
arterial street. Revise the sentence in the analysis.
14. Parking Analysis / Page 2: The analysis doesn’t include a discussion that supports / justifies using “Multi-Family
Housing (Mid-Rise) as an appropriate substitution for off campus student housing. The response to this
comment should be discussed with staff prior to revising the Parking Analysis.
15. Parking Analysis / Page 3: The analysis does not include a discussion on either the methodology or accepted
professional practice that supports/justifies the 82% trip adjustment. The response to this comment should be
discussed with staff prior to revising the Parking Analysis.
16. Parking Analysis / Page 4: The analysis does not include a discussion from the transportation engineer on the
comments provided by the property staff and how it’s relevant to the parking analysis for the project.
17. Parking Analysis / Page 4: The analysis does not include a discussion if the properties listed in Table 3 “Local
Parking Supply and Demand Data” have a TDM Plan or provide bicycle parking on the site in support of the
number of parking spaces being provided on the property. Revise the analysis to include the discussion for staff’s
review and comment.
Sloane Walbert, 303-441-4231
18. Per Section 9-9-6(c), B.R.C. 1981 the required parking should be rounded to the next lower whole number when
the required number of spaces is more than five. Thus, the required vehicular parking round down is 717 spaces.
Revise accordingly.
19. The use is considered “dwelling units without a private garage” for the purposes of calculating required bike
parking. Group quarters are defined as fraternities, sororities, dormitories, boarding houses, and transitional
housing. Thus, 604 bike parking spaces are required (151 short-term spaces and 453 long-term secure spaces).
Revise accordingly.
Plan Documents
Sloane Walbert, 303-441-4231
1. Since the project includes the dedication of public right-of-way, please update the site area and density
calculations to include “net” and “gross” calculations.
2. Show the right-of-way for Olson Drive on the architectural site plan and proposed side yard setbacks for each
building from this street.
3. Staff appreciates the residential unit typology diagrams. However, please submit standard floor plans for each
building showing kitchens, bedrooms, walls, doors, windows, stairs, etc. so that staff can review bedroom counts,
window locations, etc.
4. Submit a floor area analysis with supporting floor plan diagrams clearly showing areas counted toward the floor
area totals as well as those that are excluded from the floor area totals, including uninhabitable space. Floor area
must be measured to the outside surface of the exterior framing, or to the outside surface of the exterior walls if
there is no exterior framing. Refer to the definition of “floor area” in Section 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981. If necessary,
correct the floor area and/or FAR listed in the table.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
31 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 11 of 16
5. Staff supports the large parking reduction proposed based on the site location, surrounding services and goods,
and access to transit and alternative modes of transportation. However, additional information would be helpful in
a stand-alone parking management plan. The plan should describe plans for reserved car share spaces,
provisions in lease agreements, parking permit management, unbundled parking, etc. The plan should address
how the development can be managed to ensure that vehicles owned by residents will not be stored in
surrounding public rights-of-way.
6. Please show required EV charging stations on the site plans. Refer to site review criterion (2)(F)(xi): “Buildings
minimize or mitigate energy use; support on-site renewable energy generation and/or energy management
systems; construction wastes are minimized; the project mitigates urban heat island effects; and the project
reasonably mitigates or minimizes water use and impacts on water quality.”
7. Provide additional detail on how trash, recyclables, and compost will be managed on the site since freestanding
trash enclosures are not proposed.
8. Revise the landscape and architectural plans to show the intended use of the areas south of the creek that
previously occupied by the tennis courts. Given the proposed student housing staff recommends providing active,
programmed open space for residents.
Review Process
Sloane Walbert, 303-441-4231
1. Subdivision. The property is made up of unplatted parcels. Thus, a subdivision (preliminary and final plat) is
necessary as part of the development proposal. Necessary vacations of certain easements and dedications of
easements and right-of-way could be completed on the final plat. The preliminary plat is necessary with the site
review so that staff can coordinate necessary easements and right-of-way dedications. The final plat will be
necessary with the tec. doc. review. Please submit an LUR application for the preliminary plat with the
resubmitted plans.
2. City Council referred the project to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and Design Advisory Board (DAB)
for review and input at their meeting on Nov. 30, 2021 (9-0, motion by Friend, seconded by Wallach). Regarding
TAB, staff recommends presenting the project to the board for input prior to resubmittal of revised site review and
use review plans. TAB generally meets on the second Monday (and the fourth Monday, as-needed) of each
month at 6 p.m. Please contact Natalie Stiffler at StifflerN@BoulderColorado.gov to schedule the item for TAB
consideration.
Regarding DAB, staff recommends waiting for staff to review the revised site and use review plans before
scheduling for DAB review. This would ensure that there are no major changes to the site plans or building
locations prior to DAB review. The Design Advisory Board typically meets on the second Wednesday of each
month at 4 p.m. Please work with the case manager as the project moves forward to schedule the item for DAB
consideration.
Site Design
Doug Godfrey, 303-413-7229
1. It is unclear from the drawings and information that have been provided what are the exterior private and public
spaces and amenities.
Corrective Action: Provide a clear graphic or narrative showing or describing all public versus private spaces
and amenities. Provide a written statement or other information describing proposed maintenance and operation
of these spaces.
2. Fish Observatory: The planning, construction, and funding of the existing fish observatory involved much input
from the community and Council. For this reason, the Parks and Recreation Department would like to ensure that
the fish observatory is integrated into any proposed redevelopment plans and that it can continue to provide
recreation and educational opportunities along Boulder Creek.
In looking at the fish observatory, provide detailed information on how the observatory is integrated into the
proposed plan. The applicant will need to coordinate with the Parks and Recreation Department on any proposed
renovations or improvements to the observatory or adjacent areas.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
32 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 12 of 16
The Parks and Recreation Department will, as part of the recently approved Community, Culture, Resilience, and
Safety Tax, be preparing a Boulder Creek Management Plan in coordination with multiple city departments. The
plan will promote environmental and ecological stewardship of the creek corridor with responsible recreation and
enjoyment by the public. An area of focus for the plan will be the fish observatory.
The timing of the start and completion of this project has not yet been determined. However, through the course
of the site and technical document review process, the department would like to coordinate with the applicant on
the best way to incorporate the fish observatory into the plans.
Corrective Action: Provide details and any other necessary information indicating how the existing fish
observatory is integrated into the proposed plan and path system.
3. It is unclear from the drawings and information that have been provided what are the exterior private and public
spaces and amenities. Provide a clear graphic or narrative showing or describing all public versus private spaces
and amenities. Provide a written statement or other information describing proposed maintenance and operation
of these spaces.
Utilities
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
1. The submitted Utility Report is incomplete. Per section 5.02(B) of the DCS, a system layout and network analysis,
based on the current City of Boulder water system model, are required to be provided in accordance with
subsections (3) and (4). Revise report accordingly.
2. The Utility Report indicates the water demand forecasting is based on medium density residential development,
(statement and highlighting), however, the high density multiplier is used for Peak Day computations and medium
density demand factor is used for Max Hour and Max Day computations. Given the number of intended
residents, this project should be considered high density for all water demand forecasting. Revise Report
accordingly.
3. The Utility Plan shows a looped connection from the west side 28th Street 8" water distribution system, through
the east side parking lot to the non-standard 6" and 4" east side distribution piping of the Cordry Court
neighborhood. This looping proposal may not be desirable given the unconnected systems in the area and
requires a crossing of a State Highway. Staff will meet with Utilities to determine the suitability of the proposed
looping scenario. Pending final determination, update as necessary.
4. The Utility Report states that small sections of the existing 8" water main along the north side of the site require
upsizing in order to satisfy operational parameters for the distribution system. If the main must be upgraded to
meet standards, then the upsizing must extend from the main distribution network connection to the most
downstream branch connection. Revise layout accordingly and update modeling.
5. The Utility Plan as prepared is difficult to read and limits staff's ability to evaluate Public Works related issues
effectively. The plans do not adhere to appropriate graphics hierarchies - site amenities, curb lines, trees,
hardscape, etc. are given bold line-weights equal to or greater than proposed public and private utilities
improvements. Update plan as necessary to ensure proposed and existing utilities infrastructure, and other
required elements, are the dominant visible features on the Utility Plans.
6. The plans show numerous locations where required minimum horizontal utilities separations are not met. In
addition, the separation between trees and utilities does not meet the 10' minimum required clearance in several
locations. Review utilities layouts and planting plan. Revise and update as necessary.
7. Private storm piping and appurtenances are shown to be constructed within public utility easements. Private
utilities improvements within public easements are limited to roughly orthogonal crossings only. Revise plans
accordingly.
8. The Sanitary Capacity Analysis worksheets indicate several of the pipe sections exceed maximum flow depth for
peak flow design as given in section 6.06 (A)(2) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards,
(DCS). However, since no system layout or pipe identifiers were provided, staff's ability to evaluate the proposed
system design is limited. Provide system layout and include infiltration and inflow contributions as detailed in
Report requirements given in section 6.02(B). In addition, the capacity analysis must use a Manning's roughness
coefficient of 0.013 per section 6.06(A)(1). Revise Utility Report as necessary to ensure the Report is prepared in
accordance with 6.02 of the DCS.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
33 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 13 of 16
9. The west side hydrant lateral exceeds the maximum fire access distance between hydrants as set forth in section
5.10(A)(3)(c) of the DCS. Further, per previous discussions between staff and the design team, the hydrant was
to be designed as a dead-end main (8"), such that domestic and irrigation services could be connected to the line
to limit the potential negative impacts of stagnant water in the distribution system. Revise system layout and/or
hydrant placement as necessary to conform to city standards. Also, it may be necessary to explore design
alternatives, including additional looping, if the terminal main cannot be utilized for service connections.
10. City of Boulder Utilities utilizes an existing unimproved access ramp near the southeast corner of the site on the
north side of the creek. Utilities maintenance wishes to ensure access through the site up to and including this
access point is maintained upon redevelopment. Please provide a utility access easement as continuation from
any existing or proposed utility easements up to the channel bottom. Update plans accordingly.
Wetland
Christin Shepherd, 303-441-3425
There are city of boulder regulatory wetlands and buffer zones impacted by this proposed project. Staff needs to
ensure that the proposed work is permissible in each zone. Create and submit a separate document that includes the
regulatory wetlands and buffer zones to the overall site plan and overall landscape plan. Be sure to include and call
out areas of new lighting, size and location of concrete stairs entering the drainageway, tree removal, and any
impervious area such as stone or decking.
Title the document "WetPln" (e.g., WetPln_3425 28th St_06_01_2022.pdf) for review.
Zoning
Sloane Walbert, 303-441-4231
1. The BT-1 zone district is located in Solar Access Area III, where solar access protections are not anticipated.
However, the property to the west in the RH district is protected under Solar Access Area II, which is designed to
protect solar access principally for rooftops. Please update the solar access analysis accordingly.
2. Please confirm whether the “studio” units meet the definition of an “efficiency living unit” in Section 9-16-1, B.R.C.
1981. An ELU is a dwelling unit that contains a bathroom and kitchen and does not exceed a maximum floor area
of four hundred seventy-five square feet. Pursuant to Section 9-8-7(a), “Density and Occupancy of Efficiency
Living Units”, B.R.C. 1981, for purposes of the density limits of Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards,"
B.R.C. 1981, two efficiency living units constitute one dwelling unit.
3. Open Space: The intensity of development in the BT-1 zone district is controlled by the required provision of open
space. Thus, it is imperative that the open space calculations are correct and only include usable open space
meeting the requirements of Section 9-9-11, B.R.C. 1981. Please revise the open space diagram as follows:
• Include interior spaces like pedestrian ways, plazas or atria within a building that are designed for the specific
use and enjoyment of the residents or tenants of that structure that include passive recreational amenities.
Note, such areas shall constitute no more than 25% of the required useable open space.
• Remove areas that will be dedicated as public right-of-way. Landscaped areas of rights of way can be included
but such areas shall constitute no more than 10% of the required useable open.
• Include individual balconies for the residential use. These may count toward the requirement up to 25% of the
required open space.
• Remove any areas of land with a slope in excess of 15%.
• Remove all exterior paved surfaces that do not have a pavement surface decorated with elements such as
brick, stone, concrete pavers, exposed aggregate, textured concrete, patterned concrete or colored concrete.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
1. Flood
A FEMA Approved CLOMR will be a condition of TEC DOC approval.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
34 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 14 of 16
2. Access / Circulation
Staff has discussed the project with CDOT R-4 and CDOT has agreed in concept to the two access points off
US-36 (28th Street) shown in the project’s site review application. That said, CDOT R-4 will require additional
design information for the access points prior to concurring with the two access points.
3. Addressing, Alison Blaine, Address Administrator - 303-441-4410, blainea@bouldercolorado.gov
Each new building is required to be assigned a street address following the city’s addressing policy. The city is
required to notify utility companies, the County Assessor’s office, emergency services and the U.S. Post Office
of proposed addressing for development projects. Please submit an Address Plat and list of all proposed
addresses as part of the Technical Document Review process.
4. Addressing, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
The proposed street name of “Olson Drive” meets the city’s addressing policy. The official naming of the section
of street abutting the site will be done through the final plat for subdivision.
5. Architectural Inspections, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
The applicant should note the "rough and final architecture" inspection for buildings with discretionary approvals
such as site and use reviews will require that building architecture, materials and window details are consistent
with approvals. The inspection would occur as a part of the regular building permit inspection process.
6. Boulder Creek Path, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department, 720.470.1499
The Parks and Recreation Department will continue to provide minor maintenance and snow removal along the
east/west section of the proposed Boulder Creek Path, consistent with practices along other areas of the
Boulder Creek Path. The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to be consulted on the details and
alignment of the Boulder Creek Path so staff can provide feedback related to snow removal and other
maintenance activities the department performs.
7. Easements
As a condition of approval, the city will require the Trail and Recreation Easement (Film # 1378, Rec#
00721036) be replaced with one or more easements to better identify the existing and proposed recreational
and multi-use path infrastructure and clarify management and maintenance obligations and flood control rights.
The new easements are proposed as follows:
a. a new “public access easement” over the portions (both existing and proposed) of the Boulder Creek multi-
use path;
b. a new easement to address the area surrounding the Fish Observatory; and
c. any other easement rights which may be necessary, including but not limited to the city’s rights related to
Boulder Creek and associated floodplain.
8. Fish Observatory, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department, 720.470.1499:
The applicant should provide information on their proposal for the operations and maintenance of the fish
observatory. It would be a condition of approval that a new Maintenance Agreement for the Fish Observatory
be entered into between the City and the new property owner.
9. Fish Observatory, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department, 720.470.1499
The planning, construction, and funding of the observatory involved much input from the community and
Council. For this reason, the Parks and Recreation Department would like to ensure that the fish observatory is
integrated into any proposed redevelopment plans and that it can continue to provide recreation and
educational opportunities along Boulder Creek.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
35 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 15 of 16
In looking at the fish observatory, provide detailed information on how the observatory is integrated into the
proposed plan. Indicate how ADA access will be addressed and any proposed improvements to the
observatory or adjacent areas. The applicant will need to coordinate with the Parks and Recreation Department
on any proposed renovations or improvements to the observatory or adjacent areas.
The Parks and Recreation Department will, as part of the recently approved Community, Culture, Resilience,
and Safety Tax, be preparing a Boulder Creek Management Plan in coordination with multiple city departments.
The plan will promote environmental and ecological stewardship of the creek corridor with responsible
recreation and enjoyment by the public. An area of focus for the plan will be the fish observatory.
The timing of the start and completion of this project has not yet been determined. However, through the
course of the site and technical document review process, the department would like to coordinate with the
applicant on the best way to incorporate the fish observatory into the plans.
10. Inclusionary Housing, Michelle Allen allenm@bouldercolorad.gov
a. Each new residential unit developed on the property is subject to 9-13 B.R.C., 1981, “Inclusionary Housing”
which requires that all residential developments with 5 or more dwelling units contribute 25% of the total
dwelling units as housing affordable to low/moderate and middle-income households. The means for
satisfying the inclusionary requirement will be reviewed by staff concurrent with any land use review.
b. Affordable Housing Case #AFH2021-00030 has been created for this development and is viewable through
the Customer Self Service (CSS) portal.
c. Rental developments may satisfy the inclusionary requirement through the provision of on-site affordable
rental units or comparable existing or newly built off-site permanently affordable rental or for-sale units,
through the dedication of land appropriate for affordable housing or by payment of a cash-in-lieu
contribution.
d. The applicant has indicated that they will meet the requirement with a CIL contribution. Cash-in-lieu
amounts are adjusted annually on the first of July and the amount in place when the payment is made will
apply. Any applicable cash-in-lieu contribution must be made prior to receipt of a residential building permit.
11. Legal Documents, Julia Chase, 303-441-3052
The Applicant will be required to sign a Development Agreement, if approved. When staff requests, the
Applicant shall provide the following:
a. an updated title commitment current within 30 days; and
b. documentation confirming authority to bind.
12. Next Steps, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
Revisions to the plan documents are required. Resubmittal materials that address the comments herein shall be
uploaded through the “Attachments” tab in the CSS portal using the naming conventions in the Electronic
Submittal Requirements for Development Review/ Plan case document.
Resubmittals should have the following components:
• Development Review Resubmittal form.
• A written response identifying all changes made, saved as a PDF file. (See requirements).
• FULL set of electronic drawings and/or affected documentation addressing the review comments. (Named
as specified in the requirements).
• Revised plans must include the date of ALL revisions. These must be saved as PDFs. (See requirements).
• ALL documents, including forms and specifications supplied at the time of submittal.
The application deadlines for the review track system can be found at https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan-develop.
Fees shall be paid, and files uploaded to the customer self-service portal for resubmittals by 10 AM on the
application deadline. Staff is happy to meet with you to discuss these comments in detail at your convenience.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
36 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 16 of 16
13. OSMP – Bethany Collins – collinsb@bouldercolorado.gov, (720) 415-1543
- Due to the project’s adjacency to the Boulder Creek corridor, OSMP requests that all lighting be enclosed
and focused downward to mitigate wildlife impacts.
- OSMP staff is not supportive of the concrete steps leading to the creek and encourages use of natural
materials such as boulders and cobble.
- OSMP staff notes there is turf lawn proposed on the site and recommends that fertilizer not be used on
these areas as it would increase nutrient inputs into the creek.
- OSMP would like additional understanding regarding the reconstruction of the parking lot on the eastern
portion of the site as it pertains to any rip rap or other proposed impacts to the streambank.
14. Other Proposed Paths, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department, 720.470.1499
The Parks and Recreation Department will not be responsible for any operations and maintenance activities
along any path or sidewalk systems other than the Boulder Creek Path.
15. Plan Documents, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
Upon site review approval, the applicant will be required to submit a 3D model for inclusion in the city’s mapping.
16. Review Processes, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
A Site Review is required because the site is over two acres and includes 30,000 square feet of floor area.
Additionally, the proposed buildings exceed the permitted building height in Section 9-7-5, "Building Height,"
B.R.C. 1981. Per Table 7-1 of the land use code, buildings are limited to three stories and 35 feet in the BT-1
zone. A modification to Section 9-7-5, "Building Height” is required as part of site review to allow the height of
the structure to exceed 35 feet. In addition, a modification would be necessary to Section 9-7-1, “Schedule of
Form and Bulk Standards,” to allow four stories where three are permitted. Per Section 9-2-14(g) a public
hearing before Planning Board is required for an application for any principal building above the permitted
height for buildings set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981.
Per Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K) of the land use code, properties within the BT zone districts are eligible for height
modification requests. The project is subject to the adopted Community Benefit requirements of Section 9-2-
14(h) (2)(K)(i), B.R.C. 1981 as there is floor area above a third story in a fourth floor above the zoning district
height limit. Conditions of approval for the Site Review will be applied to any approved development that would
ensure compliance with the community benefit regulations.
The Use Review is required for a residential use on the ground floor per the Land Use Code Table 6-1, “Use
Table,” B.R.C. 1981. In 2019 the Use Tables within the land use code were changed under adopted Ordinance
8337, including allowed uses within the BT-1 zone district. Attached dwelling units are identified as an L1 use in
Table 6-1, Use Table, B.R.C. 1981. The L1 use limitation states that attached housing is allowed by right if the
use is not located on the ground floor facing a street, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level
access. Since this use limitation is not met the use may only be allowed pursuant to Use Review. Additional
uses within the development may require use review, depending on the applicants plans for the cottages south
of the creek. These uses could be considered as a part of the same application as a part of a comprehensive
development proposal.
17. Zoning, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
The project site is zoned Business - Transitional 1 (BT-1), which is defined as: “Transitional business areas
which generally buffer a residential area from a major street and are primarily used for commercial and
complementary residential uses, including without limitation, temporary lodging and office uses” (Section 9-5-
2(c), B.R.C. 1981).
IV. FEES
Please note that current development review fees include a $131 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial
city written comments. Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly
billing system.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
37 of 141
1345 28th St – Millennium Hotel Redevelopment
Forestry Comments
The following public trees along 28th St have been selected for preservation by the applicant. Boulder
Forestry requires the removal and replacement of the following trees due to tree health and/or tree
structural concerns. All trees below are in ‘poor’ condition:
Plant ID # 162 (Public Site ID Tree54895)
Plant ID # 173 (Public Site ID Tree54893)
Plant ID # XXX-2 (Public Site ID Tree54901)
Attachment E - DRC Comments
38 of 141
Plant ID # XXX-3 (Public Site ID Tree54902)
Plant ID # 175 (Public Site ID Tree54903)
Plant ID # 169 (Public Site ID Tree54904)
Plant ID # XXX-6 (Public Site ID TREE54910)
Attachment E - DRC Comments
39 of 141
Examples of private trees planned for preservation that should be removed:
Plant ID # 163 (24” DBH crabapple) and # 164 (23” DBH crabapple) – trees are dead
Plant ID # 13 (32” DBH Willow) – large deadwood and recent large tear out wound
Unknown Plant IDs – several dead ash trees along south side of Boulder Creek, east of the bridge
Attachment E - DRC Comments
40 of 141
Examples of large, private trees in fair to good condition that should be preserved:
• Individual, large private trees in fair to good condition such as:
o Plant ID # 113 (26” DBH Linden)
o Plant ID # 114 (28” DBH Austrian pine)
o Plant ID # 93 (19” DBH Linden)
Attachment E - DRC Comments
41 of 141
• Groupings of evergreen trees such as:
o Plant ID #s 64 (16” DBH Austrian pine) and # 65 (12” DBH Blue spruce) and # 66 (12” DBH
Blue Spruce)
o Plant ID # 70 (17” Austrian pine) and # 71 (17” Austrian pine) and # 72 (15” Austrian pine)
and # 73 (15” Austrian pine) and # 74 (16” Austrian pine) and # 75 (20” Austrian pine) and #
76 (11” Blue Spruce)
Attachment E - DRC Comments
42 of 141
• Trees along north property boundary such as:
o Plant ID # 117 (18” DBH Ponderosa pine) and Plant ID # 118 (18” DBH Ponderosa pine) and
Plant ID # 119 (17” DBH Ponderosa pine) and Plant ID # 120 (22” DBH Ponderosa pine)
o Plant ID # 146 (?) (23” DBH Honeylocust) along north boundary
Attachment E - DRC Comments
43 of 141
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: September 30, 2022
CASE MANAGER: Shannon Moeller
PROJECT NAME: MILLENIUM HARVEST HOUSE HOTEL
LOCATION: 1345 28TH ST
REVIEW TYPE: Site & Use Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2022-00021
APPLICANT: ROB TURK, LANDMARK PROPERTIES
JASON DOORNBOS, LCD ACQUISITIONS, LLC
DESCRIPTION: Site and Use Review to redevelop the property at 1345 28th St. with three 4-story
buildings approximately 53-feet in height. The development is proposed to contain 302
residential apartments, in a mix of studio, one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom
configurations. A 46% parking reduction is proposed to allow for 390 parking spaces,
where 718 are required per the underlying zoning. A Use Review is required for a
residential use on the ground floor.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
During the review track, staff and the applicant met regarding unresolved comments from the previous review.
Additional changes are expected that would affect multiple aspects of the proposal. Given the anticipated changes,
the comments contained herein are not intended to constitute an exhaustive review of every aspect of the proposal.
Upon the next resubmittal, additional comments should be anticipated.
Additional information and revisions to the plan documents are required as indicated below. Considering the
complexity of the project, additional comments may be forthcoming based on the requested information and plan
revisions. Refer to ‘Next Steps’ comments below for directions on how the project can be resubmitted for staff
review. Please contact staff with any questions or concerns.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
The section below addresses issues that must be resolved prior to project approval. Access/Circulation
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1. Single Story Cottages: The site review application did not discuss the existing or proposed uses for the three single
story cottages. The existing or proposed land uses of the single story cottages will impact, vehicle and bicycle
parking, trash collection, the traffic study, the parking analysis and the TDM Plan. Revise the site review application
accordingly to address this comment. This comment will be reviewed by staff once the traffic study and TDM Plan is
revised to account for the cottages.
2. Olson Drive: Per staff's previous comment the site review application did not include documentation that supports
the public has the right to access the existing access drive west of Olson Drive. At time of resubmittal either provide
the supporting documentation or design a cul-de-sac at the west end of Olson Drive.
3. Per Staff's previous comment the engineering drawings to not include a sheet showing how emergency vehicles will
access and either turnaround or circulate through the site to provide emergency services to the three buildings. Staff
is concerned pursuant to Section 2.10 of the DCS a turnaround will be required for the emergency access lane for the
west parking area. It is also not clear how emergency vehicle access is being provided for the middle building or that
the east parking lot has been designed to allow emergency vehicles to access and circulate through the parking area.
Revise the site plans to address staff’s concerns or submit a variance request pursuant to Section 1.05 of the DCS.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
44 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 2 of 13
Building Design
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
1. Consideration should be given to ensuring architectural distinct design for each building in the development. Some
adjustments could be done so each building reads as a distinct building rather than a large contiguous building. For
example, instead of using three different colored bricks mixed across facades. one colored brick could be used by for
each building. Comment retained for reminder to discuss with Design Advisory Board.
2. Consideration should be given to emphasizing building entries (primary and secondary) on each building elevation,
through the use of awnings, fenestration, or specific building materials. This will help with architectural legibility and to
meet site review criteria on pedestrian scale building elements.
Site review criterion (2)(F)(v): “Projects are designed to a human scale and promote a safe and vibrant pedestrian
experience through the location of building frontages along public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths, and through
the use of building elements, design details and landscape materials that include, without limitation, the location of
entrances and windows, and the creation of transparency and activity at the pedestrian level.”
Staff will further review this item when complete building elevations including interior facades are provided.
3. Elevations:
a) Please re-order and group the elevations on sheets A21-A22 by building.
b) Provide all sides of building elevations including interior elevations; e.g. interior west, interior north, interior east,
etc.
c) On all elevations please include specialty patterns/material treatments such as those depicted on the rendering on
sheet A09, View 1.
4. Upon receipt of full building elevations staff will take an additional look at the extents of the CI system and the
proposed color/finish. Staff is concerned with weathering and accumulation of dirt/particles that tend to be an issue
with this type of color/finish.
5. On sheet A43, Detail 1, Cantilevered Deck @ Balcony, a structural support/arm is depicted below the precast deck
that needs to be shown in elevations and renderings throughout the plan set.
6. On sheet A41, Detail 5, Typical Inset Balcony; is this balcony detail typical to all inset balconies on the site; such as
the balcony shown on sheet A44?
7. In addition to the north-south building sections provided on sheet A31 through
a building wing, please also provide a north-south building section through a
courtyard space for each of the three buildings.
8. On sheet A46 (among other sheets) on the building elevation there are what
appear to be ventilation covers above the windows. Please clarify if these are
for ventilation, some other purpose, the material, etc.
9. Please note that section 9-7-7(a)(4), B.R.C. 1981 requires all mechanical
equipment to be screened from view, regardless of the height of the building.
Screening is not only required from a ground-level vantagepoint or from
certain areas or properties as implied from the provided mechanical screening
study. Staff understands the intent of the proposal to allow as much rooftop solar as possible. Please re-evaluate the
placement of rooftop a/c units, solar, and potential screening options to provide full screening.
Drainage
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
1. The Preliminary Stormwater Report states that water quality treatment will include use of a proprietary device for
runoff from the east parking area that cannot be conveyed practically to the proposed south-side rain gardens.
However, per section 7.16 of the DCS, a hydrodynamic separator is considered the least desirable treatment
approach in the hierarchy provided in figure 1. Since this site is an Applicable Site per the DCS and since nearly all of
the site is proposed to be redeveloped, opportunities must be sought to provide more robust and preferred methods of
treatment - most notably, infiltration. Revise Report to include (or as a separate document) the Geotechnical Report
prepared by Terracon and evaluate infiltration feasibility in accordance with the DCS. Further, since the separator is
the only proposed SCM for most of the north side of the site, including the new roadway, and all of the east parking
area, and runoff flows from these areas are shown to be piped to the CDS unit, unless it can be
demonstrated that this is the only means of providing treatment, other strategies should be thoroughly evaluated. In
particular, the site slopes generally from west to east and north to south so site grading could be favorably utilized to
allow for runoff to surface flow into the east parking area. Existing/proposed imperious areas could be reconfigured
to implement infiltration elements or WQCV facilities as replacement for some of the proposed surface parking.
Revise drainage design accordingly and update Report as necessary.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
45 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 3 of 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
The updated drainage design continues to include a proprietary hydrodynamic separator for water quality treatment.
Although separators were discussed as a potential option for some WQ treatment, concurrence was never reached
to allow for inclusion of a proprietary device. Further, since the treatment of storm water discharge proposed for the
separator is for runoff generated almost exclusively within a public right-of-way, there is greater reluctance to allow a
device due to the public stormwater utility component of the collection and conveyance system. Revise plans
accordingly.
2. Regarding the city’s new storm water regulations and the June 2019 adoption of the updated City of Boulder Design
and Construction Standards (DCS), this development is considered an “applicable development”. All requirements of
Chapter 7 of the DCS apply to the drainage design of this project including, (but not limited to): Preliminary Infiltration
Feasibility Screening (PIFS), Treatment Approach Selection Criteria, Soil and Infiltration Test (if applicable), LID
Techniques, Stormwater Quality Design Standard Compliance, Selection and Design of SCM’s, etc. The Preliminary
Drainage Report submitted as part of this Site Review application is incomplete. The report must address all required
and relevant analyses, decision paths and forms necessary to demonstrate compliance with these standards and
must be included in the report. Revise Report as necessary to fully address all required elements. Particular attention
must be given to sections 7.14, 7.15 and 7.16 of the DCS. Revise plans and Report as necessary.
Engineering
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1. Per staff's previous comment sight triangles are not shown where the private drives intersect with the public
rights-of-way. Revise the landscape plans to show sight triangles in accordance with Section 9-9-7 of the Boulder
Revised Code, 1981.
2. Engineering Sheets C400 and C401: Per staff's previous comment the plan and profile sheets for Olson Drive does
not include elevations to verify the street’s sidewalk is meeting the city’s design standard for accessibility. Revise the
plan and profile sheets accordingly.
3. Per staff's previous comment the slope of the street ramp at the raised crossings are not consistent with the city
design policy for raised crossings. Revise the engineering drawings to provide a ramp slope between 5% and 8% for
the raised crossings to be constructed on Olson Drive and the access point serving the site from US-36 (28th Street).
4. In accordance with the City’s Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines, revise the engineering drawings
to show a streetlight being installed at the two locations for the raised crosswalks that will be constructed with the
project.
5. Per staff's previous comment revise the site plans to show the middle north / south multi-use path intersecting with
the Boulder Creek Path with a small intersection radius rather than as a right-turn as shown on the engineering
drawings..
6. General Comment for the Multi-Use Paths: Per staff's previous comment revise the engineering drawings to add
edge of pavement elevations in order to verify the cross slope between the edge elevations for the multi-use paths.
Pursuant to Section 1.03(D)(3)(e)(xi) of the City’s Design and Construction Standards (DCS) the city requires that
paths be constructed to have a cross slope of less than 2%. The path shall be designed and constructed with cross
slopes sufficiently less than 2% to ensure that they do not exceed the 2% maximum.
7. General Comment for the Multi-Use Path: Per staff's previous comment and in accordance with Section 1.03(E)(2)
(e) of the DCS revise the engineering drawings to label the horizontal curve data of the path which staff will use to
verify the path’s horizontal design conforms to Chapter 5 of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, 4th edition per Section 2.11(F) of the DCS.
8. MU Path Middle (path) Profile: The vertical profile for the Boulder Creek Path where the path approaches and
intersects with the existing bridge will be reviewed by staff when the revised site plans are resubmitted. This in case
the vertical profile is modified in addressing staff's comment regarding the existing trees on the site. Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
9. The results of the geotechnical investigation have revealed groundwater levels across much of the site, particularly on
the north side, to be approximately 5' below grade or less. In addition, per the narrative regarding site groundwater
conditions, groundwater should be expected to be significant issue given the proximity to an existing waterway and
floodplain. As such, it is necessary to discuss how the development will handle the potential groundwater issues, both
during and after construction. Also, the utilities along the north side of the structure are proposed at depths that may
be permanently impacted by the high groundwater in that area leading to potential continuous flows along the
trenchlines. Revise plans and Report as necessary to thoroughly discuss the groundwater implications and provide
design alternatives to mitigate for significant groundwater impacts to the site.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
46 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 4 of 13
Floodplain
Christin Shepherd, 303-441-3425
1. Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) Required: A CLOMR is required for the proposed scope of work. A
separate floodplain development permit application is required for the CLOMR submittal. City approval of the supplied
CLOMR is a condition of Site & Use Review approval.
2. As a condition of approval, the city will require that the Trail and Recreation Easement (Film # 1378, Rec# 00721036)
be replaced with one or more easements to better identify the existing and proposed recreational and multi-use path
infrastructure and clarify management and maintenance obligations and flood control rights. Provide a draft of the
flood control easement location to be dedicated on page 12 of the development plan (Easement Exhibit). Staff will
work with applicant to finalize easement location and maintenance responsibilities before final dedication.
9/30 CS Update: a draft easement location has been provided. staff and applicant will continue to work thru easement
dedication needs.
Land Use
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
The applicant states that they are amenable to maintaining the businesses located within the cottages on the south side
of the creek. At the Planning Board hearing on the concept plan several board members voiced support for continuing to
house the existing small businesses in the cottages. Please provide details on proposed uses within the cottages,
operating characteristics of the uses, parking generated by the uses, and how parking would be managed with the
residential uses. Since the use review would determine future allowed uses the applicant should consider all prospective
uses that would be compatible with the development and with similar impacts. Refer to Table 6-1, B.R.C. 1981 for
allowed uses within the zone district. Comment retained as a reminder for follow up. Applicant response to initial
comment was: “To be evaluated.”
Landscape
Christopher Ricciardiello, 303-441-3138
1. UPDATED COMMENT (9/29/22) -- FORESTRY, TREE ASSESSMENT: Staff’s review of all landscape related
design and development plans for this Site Review submittal, inclusive of existing tree inventory/preservation data, is
not exhaustive in nature with the understanding that tree preservation interior to the site may drive significant changes
in the site design and architectural layout. Following ongoing direction from staff relating to existing trees, the design
team will present potential solutions in the next submittal. Staff will provide detailed analysis and review comments at
that time. -- The tree assessment that has been provided has many inconsistencies and does not reflect the current
conditions of the site. For example, there are dead trees along 28th St. called out for preservation. The assessment
is not passable in its current condition and will need to be updated for the Forestry Department and Landscape
Architecture staff to provide an accurate evaluation.
2. UPDATED COMMENT (9/29/22) -- FORESTRY, TREE PRESERVATION: Staff’s review of all landscape related
design and development plans for this Site Review submittal, inclusive of existing tree inventory/preservation data, is
not exhaustive in nature with the understanding that tree preservation interior to the site may drive significant changes
in the site design and architectural layout. Following ongoing direction from staff relating to existing trees, the design
team will present potential solutions in the next submittal. Staff will provide detailed analysis and review comments at
that time. -- Consistent with section 9-2-14(h)(2)(C)(ii) Landscaping, B.R.C. and sections of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, such as protection of the Urban Forests, it is the expectation of the city that the applicant will
"avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on and off site to important native species, healthy, long lived trees, plant
communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural
environment into the project."
At the direction of the City Forester, a site visit was performed, and Forestry staff has noted several trees within the
property that are worthy of preservation based on B.R.C. and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan objectives.
Examples of large, private trees in fair to good condition that should be preserved include:
Individual, large private trees in fair to good condition such as: Plant ID # 113 (26” DBH Linden), Plant ID # 114 (28”
DBH Austrian pine), Plant ID # 93 (19” DBH Linden). Groupings of evergreen trees such as: Plant ID #s 64 (16” DBH
Austrian pine) and # 65 (12” DBH Blue spruce) and # 66 (12” DBH Blue Spruce), Plant ID # 70 (17” Austrian pine)
and # 71 (17” Austrian pine) and # 72 (15” Austrian pine) and # 73 (15” Austrian pine) and # 74 (16” Austrian pine)
and # 75 (20” Austrian pine) and # 76 (11” Blue Spruce).
Trees along north property boundary such as: Plant ID # 117 (18” DBH Ponderosa pine) and Plant ID # 118 (18”
DBH Ponderosa pine) and Plant ID # 119 (17” DBH Ponderosa pine) and Plant ID # 120 (22” DBH Ponderosa pine),
Plant ID # 146 (?) (23” DBH Honeylocust) along north boundary.
The listing of trees above is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather only to provide examples of trees that the city
Attachment E - DRC Comments
47 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 5 of 13
believes meet B.R.C. and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan requirements and objectives for preservation. On
receipt of the updated tree assessment and a full evaluation of the assessment by Forestry staff, the City Forester
may recommend the preservation of additional trees or exclusion of some that have been noted above.
It will be the responsibility of the applicant to provide defensible reasoning as to why the trees recommended for
preservation cannot be preserved. Where trees are shown to be preserved, it will also be the responsibility of the
applicant to show that trees designated for preservation will not be adversely impacted through site grading, utility
installation, and other site development or construction activities.
3. UPDATED COMMENT (9/29/22) -- SITE FURNISHINGS: Staff’s review of all landscape related design and
development plans for this Site Review submittal, inclusive of existing tree inventory/preservation data, is not
exhaustive in nature with the understanding that tree preservation interior to the site may drive significant changes in
the site design and architectural layout. Following ongoing direction from staff relating to existing trees, the design
team will present potential solutions in the next submittal. Staff will provide detailed analysis and review comments at
that time. -- Site furnishings appear to be graphically represented on the Site Review Landscape Plans. Provide
verbal callouts for landscape furnishings, shade structures, lighting standards, etc. The portion of the project area
surrounding the Boulder Creek Path does not appear to be designed with site furnishings in mind. Provide a
comprehensive plan for all site furnishings proposed.
4. UPDATED COMMENT (9/29/22) -- MINIMUM OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPING: Staff’s review of all landscape
related design and development plans for this Site Review submittal, inclusive of existing tree inventory/preservation
data, is not exhaustive in nature with the understanding that tree preservation interior to the site may drive significant
changes in the site design and architectural layout. Following ongoing direction from staff relating to existing trees,
the design team will present potential solutions in the next submittal. Staff will provide detailed analysis and review
comments at that time. -- Land Use Code section 9-9-12(d)(8), B.R.C. 1981 requires the following for overall
landscaping - "In all zones except A, P, RR, RE, RL and RM, one tree and five shrubs are planted for each 1,500
square feet of lot area not covered by a building or required parking." The Landscape Requirements Table included
on L5.1 of the submitted plan set states the Total Landscape Area as 180,024 SF. Following the Land Use Code to
determine the Minimal Overall Site Landscaping, the applicant is required to begin with the total lot size (689,526 SF),
subtracting building area (116,837 SF) and required parking area (130,055 SF) to establish the Minimal Overall Site
Landscaping area of 442,634 SF. There is a distinct discrepancy between the applicant stated total landscape area
and the Minimal Overall Site Landscaping area required by code. Revise all landscape quantities, calculations, etc.
based on the correct landscape area required by City Code. Keep in mind that the one tree and five shrubs
calculation is a basis for landscape development. Land Use Code Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(C) Landscaping Site Review
Criteria requires an applicant to further enhance proposed landscape development by applying the criteria listed.
Revise landscape design to accommodate Site Review Landscaping Criteria. Legal Documents
Julia Chase, 303-441-3052
Development Plan - Add a sheet to depict "Proposed Lot Layout" to clarify whether each parcel line is to be removed.
Please indicate whether the applicant plans to create one lot for the whole site. It is recommended that the Applicant
submit an application for a Preliminary Plat to remove the parcel lines and show the proposed easements.
Miscellaneous
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1. General Comment - Landscape Plans: Revise the landscape plans to remove non-standard landscape materials that
are being shown encroaching into the public access easements for the multi-use paths.
2. TDM Plan: Per staff's previous comment the TDM Plan is incomplete because it does not include a TDM Plan for the
commercial businesses occupying the bungalows south of Boulder Creek. Revise the TDM Plan accordingly.
3. Per staff's previous comment the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) did not use the “new” peak hour trips that were
reviewed and approved for the project by staff in the project’s Trip Generation and Assignment Report dated July 27,
2021. Revise the TIA to use the “new” peak hour trips shown in the project’s Trip Generation and Assignment Report
dated July 27, 2021. The applicant can expect additional review comments from staff when the revised TIA is
reviewed by staff. A revised traffic study wasn't included in the resubmittal documents for the site review.
4. This comment was received by staff from CDOT R4. Per staff's previous comment revise the traffic study to include
a discussion to identify if the existing left-turn lane on northbound US-36 must be reconstructed to meet the CDOT
State Highway Access Code design standards for the peak hour turning volumes that will be generated by the project.
A revised traffic study wasn't included with the resubmittal of the site review documents.
5. The applicant should anticipate receiving new review comments from staff once the site plans are modified to
address staff’s comment regarding the existing trees on the site.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
48 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 6 of 13
Doug Godfrey, 303-413-7229
6. UPDATED COMMENT (9/29/2022) General Planning, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department,
720.470.1499: The applicant has provided a proposed easement for the Fish Observatory.
The City Attorney's Office is in the process of developing draft easement language and will distribute for review when
ready.
Corrective Action: Provide any proposed changes to the existing Trails and Recreation and Fish Observatory
Easement
7. Fish Observatory, Operations and Maintenance, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department, 720.470.1499:
The applicant should provide information for the proposed operation and maintenance of the fish observatory. It
would be a condition of approval that a new Maintenance Agreement for the Fish Observatory be entered into
between the City and the new property owner.
Corrective Action: Provide information for the proposed operation and maintenance of the fish observatory.
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
8. Full evaluation of the grading and drainage design of the site cannot be satisfactorily performed until the impacts of
retaining some groups of the identified high-value trees have been addressed. Site layout could change somewhat or
significantly and existing/proposed contours will likely be altered around tree groupings that are targeted to be saved.
Additional comments should be expected once the final site configuration has been settled.
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
9. As discussed during the review track, please continue to work with staff to resolve the outstanding issues with the
design of the site as they relate to preservation of existing mature trees within the developable area. Balancing tree
preservation with the other constraints on the site will work toward achieving multiple site review criteria including:
(2)(F)(xi): “Buildings minimize or mitigate energy use; support on-site renewable energy generation and/or energy
management systems; construction wastes are minimized; the project mitigates urban heat island effects; and the
project reasonably mitigates or minimizes water use and impacts on water quality.”
(2)(A)(iii) “The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, including,
without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian
areas, drainage areas and species on the federal Endangered Species List, "Species of Special Concern in Boulder
County" designated by Boulder County, or prairie dogs (Cynomys ludiovicianus), which is a species of local concern,
and their habitat.”
(2)(C)(ii) “Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on and off site to important native
species, healthy, long lived trees, plant communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and
habitat by integrating the existing natural environment into the project.”
10. Please ensure that the tree inventory meets all requirements of 9-2-14(d)(13) Tree Inventory: “A tree inventory
prepared by a certified arborist that has a valid contractor license pursuant to Chapter 4-28, "Tree Contractor
License," B.R.C. 1981, shall include the following:
(A)The location, size, species and general health of all trees with a diameter of six inches and over, measured
fifty-four inches above the ground, on the property or in the landscape setback of any property adjacent to the
development;
(B) Existing and proposed topography;
(C) Existing and proposed paving and structures; and
(D) An indication of which trees will be adversely affected and what, if any, steps will be taken to mitigate the impact
on the trees.”
Parking
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1. Per staff's previous comment the Site Review Application does not support the 52% parking reduction being
requested by the project. The TDM Strategies included in the TDM Plan along with the proposed site improvements
support a much lower parking reduction. Staff will require additional TDM Strategies and site improvements in
support of the requested parking reduction.
2. Per staff's previous comment the site plans do not include the design details of the long-term bicycle parking to allow
staff to verify the parking is meeting the design criteria for parking per Section 9-9-6(g)(4), B.R.C. 1981. Revise the
plans to show the lighting and security to be provided for the long-term bicycle parking.
3. Per staff's previous comment. This is a follow-up to a comment made during staff’s review of the Concept Plan for
the Project. In support of the parking reduction the project will be required to submit a Parking Management Plan for
the vehicle parking spaces being provided on the site. The Parking Management Plan must be submitted when the
Attachment E - DRC Comments
49 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 7 of 13
site review application is resubmitted for staff’s review. At a minimum staff will require the parking to be unbundled
and how the parking spaces will be allocated and managed.
4. Parking Analysis: The Parking Analysis is incomplete because there’s no discussion on the parking requirements or
impacts of the commercial businesses on the south side of the creek. Given the uncertainty of the impacts of staff’s
comment regarding the existing trees on the land uses and vehicle parking proposed for the site the parking analysis
will be reviewed by staff at time of resubmittal of the site review application.
5. Parking Analysis / Page 1: The analysis incorrectly describes the multi-use path on 28th Street as a wide sidewalk.
Correct the discrepancy. Given the uncertainty of the impacts of staff’s comment regarding the existing trees on the
land uses and vehicle parking proposed for the site the parking analysis will be reviewed by staff at time of
resubmittal of the site review application.
6. Parking Analysis / Page 1: The analysis describes the Folsom Street sidewalk as wide; however, the width of the
existing sidewalk on the east side of Folsom Street is less than the standard width for a sidewalk for a minor arterial
street. Revise the sentence in the analysis. Given the uncertainty of the impacts of staff’s comment regarding the
existing trees on the land uses and vehicle parking proposed for the site the parking analysis will be reviewed by staff
at time of resubmittal of the site review application.
7. Parking Analysis / Page 2: The analysis doesn’t include a discussion that supports / justifies using “Multi-Family
Housing (Mid-Rise) as an appropriate substitution for off campus student housing. The response to this comment
should be discussed with staff prior to revising the Parking Analysis. Given the uncertainty of the impacts of staff’s
comment regarding the existing trees on the land uses and vehicle parking proposed for the site the parking analysis
will be reviewed by staff at time of resubmittal of the site review application.
8. Parking Analysis / Page 3: The analysis does not include a discussion on either the methodology or accepted
professional practice that supports/justifies the 82% trip adjustment. The response to this comment should be
discussed with staff prior to revising the Parking Analysis. Given the uncertainty of the impacts of staff’s comment
regarding the existing trees on the land uses and vehicle parking proposed for the site the parking analysis will be
reviewed by staff at time of resubmittal of the site review application.
9. Parking Analysis / Page 4: The analysis does not include a discussion from the transportation engineer on the
comments provided by the property staff and how it’s relevant to the parking analysis for the project. Given the
uncertainty of the impacts of staff’s comment regarding the existing trees on the land uses and vehicle parking
proposed for the site the parking analysis will be reviewed by staff at time of resubmittal of the site review application.
10. Parking Analysis / Page 4: The analysis does not include a discussion if the properties listed in Table 3 “Local
Parking Supply and Demand Data” have a TDM Plan or provide bicycle parking on the site in support of the number
of parking spaces being provided on the property. Revise the analysis to include the discussion for staff’s review and
comment. Given the uncertainty of the impacts of staff’s comment regarding the existing trees on the land uses and
vehicle parking proposed for the site the parking analysis will be reviewed by staff at time of resubmittal of the site
review application.
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
11. Please update the parking information on the cover sheet for consistency with the parking study and vice-versa,
including adding required/provided vehicle and bike parking information for the remaining cottages to the cover sheet.
Plan Documents
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
1. Provide additional detail on how trash, recyclables, and compost will be managed on the site since freestanding trash
enclosures are not proposed. Staff notes that there are “trash” spaces located on the ground level of each building;
how do residents including upper-level residents interact with these spaces and do they accommodate trash,
recycling, and composting per city requirements?
2. Please correct the height of the building from low point on sheet A23, Building 3 - North Elevation. Additionally,
please note that the maximum height of a parapet wall to not contribute to the overall height of a building is 18" per
9-7-7(a) (5), B.R.C. 1981. Parapets in excess of 18" would contribute to the overall building height as measured per
code.
3. On the floor plans, please clarify unlabeled / grayed out rooms; are these storage, laundry, utility rooms, etc.
Review Process
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
1. Subdivision. The property is made up of unplatted parcels. Thus, a subdivision (preliminary and final plat) is
necessary as part of the development proposal. Necessary vacations of certain easements and dedications of
easements and right-of-way could be completed on the final plat. The preliminary plat is necessary with the site
Attachment E - DRC Comments
50 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 8 of 13
review so that staff can coordinate necessary easements and right-of-way dedications. The final plat will be
necessary with the tec. doc. review. Please submit an LUR application for the preliminary plat with the resubmitted
plans.
2. City Council referred the project to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and Design Advisory Board (DAB) for
review and input at their meeting on Nov. 30, 2021 (9-0, motion by Friend, seconded by Wallach). Regarding TAB,
staff recommends presenting the project to the board for input prior to resubmittal of revised site review and use
review plans. TAB generally meets on the second Monday (and the fourth Monday, as-needed) of each month at 6
p.m. Please contact Natalie Stiffler at StifflerN@BoulderColorado.gov to schedule the item for TAB consideration.
Regarding DAB, staff recommends waiting for staff to review the revised site and use review plans before scheduling
for DAB review. This would ensure that there are no major changes to the site plans or building locations prior to DAB
review. The Design Advisory Board typically meets on the second Wednesday of each month at 4 p.m. Please work
with the case manager as the project moves forward to schedule the item for DAB consideration.
Site Design
Doug Godfrey, 303-413-7229
1. UPDATED COMMENT (9/29/2022) Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department, 720.470.1499: As of the last
submittal, it remains unclear from the drawings and information that have been provided what are the exterior private
and public spaces and amenities.
Corrective Action: Provide a clear graphic or narrative showing or describing all public versus private spaces and
amenities. Provide a written statement or other information describing proposed maintenance and operation of these
spaces.
2. UPDATED COMMENT (9/29/2022) Fish Observatory, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department,
720.470.1499: The planning, construction, and funding of the existing fish observatory involved much input from the
community and Council. For this reason, the Parks and Recreation Department would like to ensure that the fish
observatory is integrated into any proposed redevelopment plans and that it can continue to provide recreation and
educational opportunities along Boulder Creek.
As changes to the overall site plan may be necessary, continue to work with the Parks and Recreation Department on
integrating the Fish Observatory into the overall design.
The Parks and Recreation Department will, as part of the recently approved Community, Culture, Resilience, and
Safety Tax, be preparing a Boulder Creek Management Plan in coordination with multiple city departments. The plan
will promote environmental and ecological stewardship of the creek corridor with responsible recreation and
enjoyment by the public. An area of focus for the plan will be the fish observatory.
The timing of the start and completion of this project has not yet been determined. However, through the course of
the site and technical document review process, the department would like to coordinate with the applicant on the
best way to incorporate the fish observatory into the plans.
Corrective Action: Continue to work with the Parks and Recreation Department on the integration of the Fish
Observatory into the overall design. Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
3. Please provide additional information regarding the proposed use of the roll-up doors on the west elevations of
Building 3. What is the expected extent of use of these doors and how will this interact with the use of the adjacent
pedestrian walkway?
4. The proposed areas between the east and west head-in parking areas, sidewalk, and the ground-floor residential
units lacks a clear separation and buffer. Staff is concerned that vehicle headlights, noise, and landscaping in these
areas have not been addressed. In particular vehicle headlights will enter units facing west with windows and patio
doors extending close to ground level; and units facing east having no specific foundation plantings proposed to
soften the raised mass of the building in this area. Additionally please consider ways to provide an additional sense of
privacy and safety for residents with ground-floor patio doors on all building elevations.
5. Public/Private Delineation:
a) Staff was unable to find a copy of the Public/Private delineation exhibit that was mentioned as provided in
response to the prior set of review comments. Provision of such an exhibit as part of the plan should be provided with
the next resubmittal.
b) Please update the written statement and proposed good neighbor policy to include additional details regarding
the programming proposed in the public/private areas of open space and how the proposed amenities were arrived at
e.g. dog park(s), pickleball courts, design of creek/lawn spaces, etc. Staff would like to understand the anticipated
hours of access, are residents and the public both able to access these facilities, maintenance considerations/plans,
how potential impacts such as noise, lighting, trash, odors, etc. are planned to be addressed.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
51 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 9 of 13
Utilities
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
1. The Utility Report indicates the water demand forecasting is based on medium density residential development,
(statement and highlighting), however, the high density multiplier is used for Peak Day computations and medium
density demand factor is used for Max Hour and Max Day computations. Given the number of intended residents,
this project should be considered high density for all water demand forecasting. Revise Report accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
There continue to be page/ calculations headings labeled as "Medium Density". Update accordingly.
2. The Utility Report states that small sections of the existing 8" water main along the north side of the site require
upsizing in order to satisfy operational parameters for the distribution system. If the main must be upgraded to meet
standards, then the upsizing must extend from the main distribution network connection to the most downstream
branch connection. Revise layout accordingly and update modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
Revised modelling output shows velocities in excess of 8 fps within sections of the distribution main even under flow
conditions less than peak w/ fire (1500 gpm min). Revise system design and update Utility Report as necessary to
ensure flow velocities do not exceed 8 fps.
3. The plans show numerous locations where required minimum horizontal utilities separations are not met. In addition,
the separation between trees and utilities does not meet the 10' minimum required clearance in several locations.
Review utilities layouts and planting plan. Revise and update as necessary.
4. Private storm piping and appurtenances are shown to be constructed within public utility easements. Private utilities
improvements within public easements are limited to roughly orthogonal crossings only. Revise plans accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
Private improvements continue to be proposed to be constructed within existing public easements. Revise plans
accordingly.
5. The Sanitary Capacity Analysis worksheets indicate several of the pipe sections exceed maximum flow depth for
peak flow design as given in section 6.06 (A)(2) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, (DCS).
However, since no system layout or pipe identifiers were provided, staff's ability to evaluate the proposed system
design is limited. Provide system layout and include infiltration and inflow contributions as detailed in Report
requirements given in section 6.02(B). In addition, the capacity analysis must use a Manning's roughness coefficient
of 0.013 per section 6.06(A)(1). Revise Utility Report as necessary to ensure the Report is prepared in accordance
with 6.02 of the DCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
The updated sanitary worksheets contain erroneous inputs for discharge in all but the most upstream pipe sections.
The west property plus Bldg 3 at peak flow should be 0.26 cfs; add Bldg 2 and peak flow is 0.49 cfs add Bldg 1 and
peak goes to 0.64 cfs in pipe 7. In addition, as previously stated, Manning's roughness coefficient should be set at
0.013 rather than 0.010 per section 6.06(A)(1) of the DCS. Revise worksheets and system design as necessary.
6. Required fire flows of 1750 gpm or less should be modeled as no less than 1500 gpm being supplied from a single
hydrant. Revise Utility Report and system design accordingly.
Zoning
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
1. Please include a copy of the solar analysis worksheet
(https://bouldercolorado.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/solar-access-guide.pdf) on sheet A17 for shadows near the
RH-5 zoning district line/Solar Access Area II for verification of shadow lengths.
2. On the cover sheet, in the Project Data chart, please split out the Studio units into the 28 studio ELU units and the 4
studio non-ELU units.
3. Open Space: The intensity of development in the BT-1 zone district is controlled by the required provision of open
space. Thus, it is imperative that the open space calculations are correct and only include usable open space
meeting the requirements of Section 9-9-11, B.R.C. 1981. Please revise the open space information as follows:
• Include interior spaces like pedestrian ways, plazas or atria within a building that are designed for the specific use
and enjoyment of the residents or tenants of that structure that include passive recreational amenities. Note, such
areas shall constitute no more than 25% of the required useable open space.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
52 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 10 of
13
• Include individual balconies for the residential use. These may count toward the requirement up to 25% of the
required open space.
• Please clarify if there are any areas of land with a slope in excess of 15% that are proposed to contribute to
useable open space.
• Remove all exterior paved surfaces that do not have a pavement surface decorated with elements such as brick,
stone, concrete pavers, exposed aggregate, textured concrete, patterned concrete or colored concrete. A decorative
surface shall not include a standard, uncolored concrete or asphalt surface, unless it is stamped with a pattern.
Additional information regarding paved surfaces is needed; please provide details or images of paving materials. It
would be atypical for a multi-use path or similar walkways through the site to be paved in such as way as to meet the
requirement to be considered useable open space.
• Is the entirety of the creek proposed to be counted as useable open space?
4. Outdoor Lighting/Photometric:
a. Please review the requirements in 9-9-16(g), B.R.C. 1981 for required photometric information. Please include the
CCT and lumens of each fixture/bulb.
b. There appear to be dozens or hundreds of maximum to minimum uniformities in the chart on sheet E1.2. Please
reduce the number of areas and make them relevant to the proposed site, and identify each on the photometric
plan, such as specific parking and circulation areas, pedestrian areas, and other common public areas.
c. Please ensure cutsheets are legible and not blurry.
d. Please circle or otherwise indicate on each cutsheet the selected features of the fixture.
e. Ensure that lighting levels at exterior property lines does not exceed 0.1 footcandles within or adjacent to a
residential zone or 0.2 footcandles in nonresidential zones per 9-9-16(d)(1), B.R.C. 1981.
f. Please ensure the placements of light poles and trees are not in conflict. A separation of approximately 10’ is
recommended.
g. There is little to no lighting at the recreation spaces on the site such as the pickleball court, half-court, and dog
park. Providing lighting in these areas may conflict with the intent of protecting the creek area from undue light
interference. Are these amenities intended to be used during daylight hours only?
h. Please ensure there is a cohesive appearance for lighting fixtures across the site as much as possible through
similar finishes, fixture shapes/styles, etc.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
1. Flood
A FEMA Approved CLOMR will be a condition of TEC DOC approval.
2. Access / Circulation
Staff has discussed the project with CDOT R-4 and CDOT has agreed in concept to the two
access points off US-36 (28th Street) shown in the project’s site review application. That said, CDOT R-4 will
require additional design information for the access points prior to concurring with the two access points.
3. Addressing, Alison Blaine, Address Administrator - 303-441-4410, blainea@bouldercolorado.gov
Each new building is required to be assigned a street address following the city’s addressing policy. The city is
required to notify utility companies, the County Assessor’s office, emergency services and the U.S. Post Office of
proposed addressing for development projects. Please submit an Address Plat and list of all proposed addresses
as part of the Technical Document Review process.
4. Addressing, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
The proposed street name of “Olson Drive” meets the city’s addressing policy. The official naming of the section of
street abutting the site would be done through the final plat for subdivision.
5. Architectural Inspections, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
The applicant should note the "rough and final architecture" inspection for buildings with discretionary approvals
such as site and use reviews will require that building architecture, materials and window details are consistent with
approvals. The inspection would occur as a part of the regular building permit inspection process.
6. Boulder Creek Path, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department, 720.470.1499: The Parks and Recreation
Department will continue to provide minor maintenance and snow removal along the east/west section of the
proposed Boulder Creek Path, consistent with practices along other areas of the Boulder Creek Path. The Parks
and Recreation Department should continue to be consulted on the details and alignment of the Boulder Creek
Path so staff can provide feedback related to snow removal and other maintenance activities the department
performs.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
53 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 11 of
13
7. Easements
As a condition of approval, the city will require the Trail and Recreation Easement (Film # 1378, Rec#
00721036) be replaced with one or more easements to better identify the existing and proposed recreational
and multi-use path infrastructure and clarify management and maintenance obligations and flood control rights.
The new easements are proposed as follows:
a. a new “public access easement” over the portions (both existing and proposed) of the Boulder Creek multi-
use path;
b. a new easement to address the area surrounding the Fish Observatory; and
c. any other easement rights which may be necessary, including but not limited to the city’s rights related to
Boulder Creek and associated floodplain.
8. Fish Observatory, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department, 720.470.1499: The applicant should provide
information on their proposal for the operations and maintenance of the fish observatory. It would be a condition of
approval that a new Maintenance Agreement for the Fish Observatory be entered into between the City and the
new property owner.
9. Fish Observatory, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department, 720.470.1499: The planning, construction,
and funding of the observatory involved much input from the community and Council. For this reason, the Parks
and Recreation Department would like to ensure that the fish observatory is integrated into any proposed
redevelopment plans and that it can continue to provide recreation and educational opportunities along Boulder
Creek.
In looking at the fish observatory, provide detailed information on how the observatory is integrated into the
proposed plan. Indicate how ADA access will be addressed and any proposed improvements to the observatory or
adjacent areas. The applicant will need to coordinate with the Parks and Recreation Department on any proposed
renovations or improvements to the observatory or adjacent areas.
The Parks and Recreation Department will, as part of the recently approved Community, Culture, Resilience, and
Safety Tax, be preparing a Boulder Creek Management Plan in coordination with multiple city departments. The
plan will promote environmental and ecological stewardship of the creek corridor with responsible recreation and
enjoyment by the public. An area of focus for the plan will be the fish observatory.
The timing of the start and completion of this project has not yet been determined. However, through the course of
the site and technical document review process, the department would like to coordinate with the applicant on the
best way to incorporate the fish observatory into the plans.
10. Inclusionary Housing, Michelle Allen allenm@bouldercolorad.gov
a. Each new residential unit developed on the property is subject to 9-13 B.R.C., 1981, “Inclusionary Housing”
which requires that all residential developments with 5 or more dwelling units contribute 25% of the total
dwelling units as housing affordable to low/moderate and middle-income households. The means for satisfying
the inclusionary requirement will be reviewed by staff concurrent with any land use review.
b. Affordable Housing Case #AFH2021-00030 has been created for this development and is viewable through the
Customer Self Service (CSS) portal.
c. Rental developments may satisfy the inclusionary requirement through the provision of on-site affordable rental
units or comparable existing or newly built off-site permanently affordable rental or for-sale units, through the
dedication of land appropriate for affordable housing or by payment of a cash-in-lieu contribution.
d. The applicant has indicated that they will meet the requirement with a CIL contribution. Cash-in-lieu amounts
are adjusted annually on the first of July and the amount in place when the payment is made will apply. Any
applicable cash-in-lieu contribution must be made prior to receipt of a residential building permit.
11. Inclusionary Housing, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
a. Thank you for providing the Affordable Housing Unit Data Spread Sheet. Going forward, please update the
spreadsheet with any changes to the number of units, unit sizes, bedrooms, etc. and send to the email above in
an unlocked excel format.
b. A Determination of Inclusionary Housing Compliance form must be signed prior to application for any residential
building permit.
c. Any applicable cash-in-lieu contribution must be made prior to submittal of a residential building permit.
d. Conversion of rental to for-sale units. If an applicant chooses to provide fewer than half of the affordable units
on-site additional community benefit of a minimum of 50% additional cash-in-lieu (CIL) will be required.
Accordingly, if the applicant contributed cash-in-lieu and chooses to convert rental units to for-sale units within
Attachment E - DRC Comments
54 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 12 of
13
five years they will be required to pay the difference between the rental and for-sale CIL amounts.
e. Applicant has indicated they will pursue a height waiver for all three proposed buildings. Per Land Use Code,
Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K): Community Benefit a building proposed with a fourth story that exceeds the permitted
height requirements of Section 9-7-5, "Building Height," or 9-7-6, "Building Height, Conditional," B.R.C. 1981,
together with any additional floor area or residential density approved under Subparagraph (h)(2)(I)(iii), may be
approved if it meets the requirements of Subparagraph (h)(2)(K) which increases the Inclusionary requirement
for the proposed bonus units from 25% of the units to 36%.
f. A Unit and Cash-in-lieu Calculator for estimating the Inclusionary Housing requirement for your development
may be found on the city website at https://bouldercolorado.gov/unit-cash-lieu-calculator. Note that this
calculator does not include any additional units/cash-in-lieu required for compliance with 9-2-14(h)(2)(K):
Community Benefit.
12. Legal Documents, Julia Chase, 303-441-3052
The Applicant will be required to sign a Development Agreement, if approved. When staff requests, the Applicant
shall provide the following:
a. an updated title commitment current within 30 days; and
b. documentation confirming authority to bind.
13. Next Steps, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
Revisions to the plan documents are required. Resubmittal materials that address the comments herein shall
be uploaded through the “Attachments” tab in the CSS portal using the naming conventions in the Electronic
Submittal Requirements for Development Review/ Plan case document.
Resubmittals should have the following components:
• Development Review Resubmittal form.
• A written response identifying all changes made, saved as a PDF file. (See requirements).
• FULL set of electronic drawings and/or affected documentation addressing the review comments. (Named
as specified in the requirements).
• Revised plans must include the date of ALL revisions. These must be saved as PDFs. (See requirements).
• ALL documents, including forms and specifications supplied at the time of submittal.
The application deadlines for the review track system can be found at https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan-
develop. Fees shall be paid, and files uploaded to the customer self-service portal for resubmittals by 10 AM
on the application deadline. Staff is happy to meet with you to discuss these comments in detail at your
convenience.
14. OSMP – Bethany Collins – collinsb@bouldercolorado.gov, (720) 415-1543
- Due to the project’s adjacency to the Boulder Creek corridor, OSMP requests that all lighting be enclosed and
focused downward to mitigate wildlife impacts.
- OSMP staff is not supportive of the concrete steps leading to the creek and encourages use of natural
materials such as boulders and cobble.
- OSMP staff notes there is turf lawn proposed on the site and recommends that fertilizer not be used on these
areas as it would increase nutrient inputs into the creek.
- OSMP would like additional understanding regarding the reconstruction of the parking lot on the eastern
portion of the site as it pertains to any rip rap or other proposed impacts to the streambank.
15. Other Proposed Paths, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department, 720.470.1499
The Parks and Recreation Department will not be responsible for any operations and maintenance activities along
any path or sidewalk systems other than the Boulder Creek Path.
16. Plan Documents, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
Upon site review approval, the applicant will be required to submit a 3D model for inclusion in the city’s mapping.
17. Review Processes, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
A Site Review is required because the site is over two acres and includes 30,000 square feet of floor area.
Additionally, the proposed buildings exceed the permitted building height in Section 9-7-5, "Building Height,"
B.R.C. 1981. Per Table 7-1 of the land use code, buildings are limited to three stories and 35 feet in the BT-1
Attachment E - DRC Comments
55 of 141
1345 28TH ST Page 13 of
13
zone. A modification to Section 9-7-5, "Building Height” is required as part of site review to allow the height of
the structure to exceed 35 feet. In addition, a modification would be necessary to Section 9-7-1, “Schedule of
Form and Bulk Standards,” to allow four stories where three are permitted. Per Section 9-2-14(g) a public
hearing before Planning Board is required for an application for any principal building above the permitted
height for buildings set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981.
Per Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K) of the land use code, properties within the BT zone districts are eligible for height
modification requests. The project is subject to the adopted Community Benefit requirements of Section 9-2-
14(h) (2)(K)(i), B.R.C. 1981 as there is floor area above a third story in a fourth floor above the zoning district
height limit. Conditions of approval for the Site Review will be applied to any approved development that would
ensure compliance with the community benefit regulations.
The Use Review is required for a residential use on the ground floor per the Land Use Code Table 6-1, “Use
Table,” B.R.C. 1981. In 2019 the Use Tables within the land use code were changed under adopted Ordinance
8337, including allowed uses within the BT-1 zone district. Attached dwelling units are identified as an L1 use
in Table 6-1, Use Table, B.R.C. 1981. The L1 use limitation states that attached housing is allowed by right if
the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street, with the exception of minimum necessary ground
level access. Since this use limitation is not met the use may only be allowed pursuant to Use Review.
Additional uses within the development may require use review, depending on the applicants plans for the
cottages south of the creek. These uses could be considered as a part of the same application as a part of a
comprehensive development proposal.
18. Review Process
It is recommended to provide a LUR application for Preliminary Plat.
19. Review Process
It will be a condition of approval that the property owner will be required to subdivide the property prior to a building
permit approval (to eliminate parcel lines and to dedicate easements and right-of-way.)
20. Site Planning, Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Department, 720.470.1499: It is unclear from the drawings
and information that have been provided what are the exterior private and public spaces and amenities. Provide a
clear graphic or narrative showing or describing all public versus private spaces and amenities. Provide a written
statement or other information describing proposed maintenance and operation of these spaces.
21. Zoning, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov
The project site is zoned Business - Transitional 1 (BT-1), which is defined as: “Transitional business areas which
generally buffer a residential area from a major street and are primarily used for commercial and complementary
residential uses, including without limitation, temporary lodging and office uses” (Section 9-5-2(c), B.R.C. 1981).
IV. FEES
Please note that current development review fees include a $131 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city
written comments. Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing
system.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
56 of 141
DATE OF COMMENTS: December 23, 2022
CASE MANAGER: Shannon Moeller
PROJECT NAME: MILLENIUM HARVEST HOUSE HOTEL
LOCATION: 1345 28TH ST
REVIEW TYPE: Site & Use Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2022-00021
APPLICANT: ROB TURK, LANDMARK PROPERTIES
JASON DOORNBOS, LCD ACQUISITIONS, LLC
DESCRIPTION: Site and Use Review to redevelop the property at 1345 28th St. with three 4-story
buildings approximately 54-feet in height. The development is proposed to contain 303
residential apartments, in a mix of studio, one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom
configurations. A 52% parking reduction is proposed to allow for 348 parking spaces,
where approximately 726 are required per the underlying zoning. A Use Review is
required for a residential use on the ground floor.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Additional information and revisions to the plan documents are required as indicated below. Refer to ‘Next Steps’
comments below for directions on how the project can be resubmitted for staff review. Please contact staff with any
questions or concerns.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
The section below addresses issues that must be resolved prior to project approval.
Access/Circulation
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1. Olson Drive: Per staff's previous comment the site review application did not include documentation that supports
the public has the right to access the existing access drive west of Olson Drive. At time of resubmittal either provide
the supporting documentation or design a cul-de-sac at the west end of Olson Drive. The draft reciprocal easement
agreement does not address staff's comment. This is because a reciprocal easement is not necessary given that
Olson Drive will be a public street and it's not clear in the agreement the general public has the right to access and
circulation through the property.
2. Landscape Plan / Sheet L1.3: Consistent with the proposed design of the south parking area revise the sheet to
replace the crusher fines paving with a concrete sidewalk for the walkway that is perpendicular to the three (3) head
in vehicle parking spaces.
3. Landscape Plan / Sheet L1.3 / Landscape Enlargement Plan: Revise the plan to show a six-foot wide concrete
sidewalk being constructed perpendicular to the head-in vehicle parking.
4. Landscape Plan / Sheet L1.2: Revise the sheet to show colored concrete (Davis Colors Flagstone Brown) being
used for the 2’ shoulder area of the north / south middle multi-use path where the path is adjacent to the concrete
terrace and the concrete stairs and adjust the design of the terrace and stairs accordingly.
Building Design
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
1. The proposal was reviewed by the Design Advisory Board (DAB) on Dec. 14, 2022. A copy of the draft DAB minutes
and recommendations will be forwarded once prepared and the proposal will be reviewed for consistency with the
DAB recommendations upon the next resubmittal.
2. Consideration should be given to ensuring architectural distinct design for each building in the development.
Comment retained to review again as the DAB recommendations are incorporated into the design.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
57 of 141
3. Consideration should be given to emphasizing building entries (primary and secondary) on each building elevation,
through the use of awnings, fenestration, or specific building materials. This will help with architectural legibility and to
meet site review criteria on pedestrian scale building elements. Comment retained to review again as the DAB
recommendations are incorporated into the design.
4. Please note that section 9-7-7(a)(4), B.R.C. 1981 requires all mechanical equipment to be screened from view,
regardless of the height of the building. As previously noted, screening is not only required from a ground level
vantagepoint or from certain areas or properties as implied from the provided mechanical screening study. Staff
understands the intent of the proposal to allow as much rooftop solar as possible. In an effort to demonstrate that the
proposal will be fully screed the applicant could provide screening study that addresses views from adjacent
properties where the units need to be screened at other than ground level. Please also confirm how rooftop
mechanical would be fully screened from the proposed outdoor roof decks on the subject property.
Drainage
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
1. The Preliminary Stormwater Report (Report), makes reference to underground/ proprietary SCMs in several locations
yet the hydrodynamic separator has been eliminated from the proposed treatment methods. Review and update
Report as necessary.
2. The Report states that detention is not required due to the site's location within the 100-yr floodplain, however
presence within the floodplain is not one of the criteria for the determination of a detention requirement. Revise
Report as necessary to justify exclusion of detention based on the criteria presented in section 7.12 of the DCS.
3. The proposed permeable pavement section has been shown to be located on the north side of Bldg 1, however, the
existing sanitary sewer main also occupies this area of the site. Permeable pavements are not to be installed over
areas containing underground utilities due to the potential need to redesign, reconstruct and recertify the SCM should
excavation be necessary to maintain the existing utilities. Revise plans and Report as necessary.
Note: updated design of sanitary sewer to address capacity issues may alleviate the utility conflict in the area of the
proposed permeable pavement section.
Engineering
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1. Per staff's previous comment the slope of the street ramp at the raised crossings are not consistent with the city
design policy for raised crossings. Revise the engineering drawings to provide a ramp slope between 5% and 8% for
the raised crossings to be constructed on Olson Drive and the access point serving the site from US-36 (28th Street).
Staff was unable to locate the slopes of the street ramps on the Detailed Grading & Drainage Plan.
2. General Comment for the Multi-Use Paths: Per staff's previous comment revise the engineering drawings to add
edge of pavement elevations in order to verify the cross slope between the edge elevations for the multi-use paths.
Pursuant to Section 1.03(D)(3)(e)(xi) of the City’s Design and Construction Standards (DCS) the city requires that
paths be constructed to have a cross slope of less than 2%. The path shall be designed and constructed with cross
slopes sufficiently less than 2% to ensure that they do not exceed the 2% maximum. The western north / south path
does not include cross slope information.
3. MU Path West (path) Profile: The vertical profile of the path does not meet minimum standards. In accordance with
Section1.03(E)(2)(e) of the DCS revise the profile drawing for the path such that a minimum slope of 0.5% is provided
rather than the 0.4% that is shown on the detailed grading and drainage sheet.
4. Olson Drive Sidewalk: This is a follow-up on staff’s previous comment regarding the proposed vertical and horizontal
slopes being proposed for the Olson Drive sidewalk. Revise the engineering plans to redesign the sidewalk such that
the cross-slope of the Olson Dr sidewalk drains away from the private property, has a minimum vertical slope of .5%
and is designed without any low points. These minimum design standards will improve the drainage of the sidewalk
and reduce impacts to the private property.
5. Engineering Plans / Traffic Impact Analysis: Revise the engineering plans to include a scaled engineering plan
drawing sheet for the existing northbound left-turn lane on U.S. 36. This plan sheet will be used by staff to verify the
design of the existing left-turn lane meets current CDOT standards per Section 4 of the State Highway Access Code.
6. Landscape Plan / Sheet L1.1: It appears the post-tension basketball half court is encroaching into the public access
Attachment E - DRC Comments
58 of 141
easement to be dedicated to the city for the path. Per Section 8-6-3, B.R.C. 1981 revise the plans to remove the
encroachment.
7. Landscape Plan / Sheet L1.1: Pursuant to Section 8-6-3, B.R.C. 1981 revise the sheet to remove the access gate for
the fenced dog run / pet relief area from encroaching into the public access easement to be dedicated to the city for
the north / south multi-use path (path).
8. Landscape Plans / General Comment: The Landscape Plan shows crusher fines paving adjacent to the concrete
multi-use path (path) which will present a hazard to bicyclists when the crusher fines spills onto the path. To address
this comment to meet the site review criteria for circulation, revise the plans to replace the crusher fines paving
material with concrete to a length of ten feet where the crusher fines paving is shown adjacent to the multi-use path.
Floodplain
Christin Shepherd, 303-441-3425
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) Required: A CLOMR is required for the proposed scope of work. A
separate floodplain development permit application is required for the CLOMR submittal. City approval of the supplied
CLOMR is a condition of Site & Use Review approval. City Staff must approve the CLOMR before this application can be
scheduled for Planning Board.
Land Use
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
Thank you for providing additional detail on the uses to remain in the cottages on the south side of the creek. Please
provide additional detail on how parking would be managed in the area of the cottages to ensure that adequate parking
will be available at the times when these uses will require parking, such as day car drop off/pick up times. Please clarify
the intent of the drop-off areas noted in the parking lot, are these intended to be used by the day care users or by the
cyclist/ski groups?
Landscape
Christopher Ricciardiello, 303-441-3138
1. COURTYARD FENCING: The courtyards formed by the wings of each building are shown to be fenced to provide for
security and spatial delineation between public outdoor space (closer to and around the Boulder Creek Path) and
private space for residents of the development (defined by courtyard areas). Illustrative renderings indicate that the
fencing is composed of black framed panels with a mesh of indeterminate material. The heights of the fencing seem
to vary between approximately 10’ at the gated portion of the fence to 5’-6’. Staff has concerns that the fencing as
shown will appear from the public side and the private side to be somewhat institutional in form, color, and material.
Staff requests that the applicant provide more alternatives consistent with the architectural and landscape
development context. The fence should integrate well into the courtyard and building design and appear to have more
intentional design cohesion with the surroundings. Materials should be consistent with the adjacent architectural and
landscape materials palette. Revise the fence design accordingly.
2. OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS CHART (LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS): Possible inaccuracies in the Open
Space Calculations Chart relative to the Total Street Trees Required @ ROW data. Staff measured the total street
frontage as 1,598 LF. This equates to a total number of street trees requirement of 40. The applicant is stating a total
street tree requirement of 34. Staff measured the ROW street frontage at Olsen Dr. as 891 LF. This equates to a
required number of street trees along the Olsen Dr. frontage of 22 street trees. Staff measured the ROW street
frontage at 28th St. as 706 LF. This equates to a required number of street trees along the 28th St. frontage of 18
street trees. Staff Counted 11 Existing Street Trees to be Preserved in the 28th St ROW. The applicant is showing
Only 10. Review the Open Space Calculations Chart for Landscape Requirements in accordance with Land Use
Code 9-9-12(d)(1)(J), B.R.C. 1981 and revise as needed. As a note, when determining the number of street trees
required along a public right-of-way, divide the ROW dimension by 40 LF.
3. SYNTHETIC TURF: In accordance with Land Use Code section 9-9-12(d)(9), B.R.C. 1981, synthetic turf is not an
allowable material for use in the landscape. Revise the landscape plan set to redesignate synthetic turf treatment in
Building 1 and Building 2 courtyards to live plant material or alternate hardscape material.
4. TRANSFORMER ACCESS: Transformers are shown proposed for installation in a landscape area adjacent to the
north face of Building 2 and south face of Building 1. Ensure that tree plantings in these landscape areas will not
obstruct service access to the transformers.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
59 of 141
5. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND TREE PLANTINGS: All proposed tree plantings, whether in the rights-of-way or
on private property, shall be offset from underground utility service lines or main lines a minimum of 10’. Adjust tree
plantings in accordance with this standard as need on the landscape plans.
6. MAINTENANCE PLAN: The applicant has stated within the previously submitted comprehensive tree exhibit, “The
project preserves (193) out of (466) existing trees and adds (413) new trees, for a total of
(606) trees on site. Of the healthy, long-lived trees along Boulder Creek contributing to the
riparian plant community, 87% of mature trees will be preserved. The healthy trees being
removed are replaced at more than a 3:1 ratio. Over time this will double the site’s existing tree
canopy, providing ample cooling and shading of the site, helping to minimize effects on micro
climates from heat island affect.” With this impactful statement comes an owner’s responsibility to manage the tree
canopy and all existing and proposed landscape/plantings as efficiently and effectively as possible. City of Boulder
staff requests the applicant provide a comprehensive landscape management/maintenance plan to ensure
successful installation and long-term health, viability, and sustainability of the installed landscape. The following
outline indicating potential subject areas is provided by staff to inform the compilation of the
management/maintenance plan:
i. Description of site characteristics and specific landscape zones, and operational areas
ii. Establishment Period Special Needs
iii. Pest, Disease, and Noxious Weed Management, Integrated Pest Management - must conform to City of Boulder
standards
iv. Plants and Vegetated Areas (Shrubs, Ornamental Grasses, Ground Covers, Herbaceous Perennials/Annuals)
• Health Best Practices
• Pruning Best Practices
• Mulch Best Practices
• Fertilizer Best Practices
• Fruit or Leaf Cleanup Best Practices
• Plant removal, disposal, and replacement following decline or failure
v. Trees
• Regular Maintenance Best Practices
• Tree Pruning Best Practices
• Fruit or Leaf Cleanup Best Practices
• Diagnosing Tree Health, Insect and Disease Problems
• Do I Need a Licensed Certified Arborist?
vi. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Natural Landscape Areas
vii. Irrigation System/Water Conservation
viii. Lawn, Native Grass Areas, and Turf Care and Best Practices / Mowing Operations
ix. Soils and Soil Amendments
x. Snow Removal Operations
xi. Courtyards, Infrastructure, and Hardscape
xii. Problem Areas, Erosion Control, Sediment Control, Stormwater Management
7. FORESTRY: Boulder Forestry staff reviewed all newly submitted existing tree data from the updated SavATree
arborist report. The following are a summary of Forestry comments:
A. Tree Inventory Assessment –
Trees Boulder Forestry staff asked to be removed and disposed of that are still not listed as removals: #11 – Still not
designated for removal; #194 - Still not designated for removal, listed as off site and tree protection shown around
tree; #260 - Still not designated for removal, split stem was observed.
B. Tree Mitigation Chart: The data in this chart appears to be inaccurate or confusing in places with plant counts
differing from staff’s assessment of existing trees and the inventory. The applicant shall review all chart data and
correct or clarify as needed. Rectify this table and provide clarity as to what is included.
C. Tree Diversity Standards –The applicant shall utilize the newly adopted tree diversity standards conveyed by staff
in the December 20, 2022 coordination meeting with the project landscape architects in the selection of public
right-of-way tree genus and species for Olsen Ave and 28th St. Review all recently submitted tree diversity data and
revise chart and related tree selection as needed to conform to new standards.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
60 of 141
D. Street Tree Spacing in Rights-of-Way – In accordance with the newly published City of Boulder Forestry
Approved Tree List, right-of-way trees shall be spaced 30’-35’ on center in ROW planting strips. Revise as tree
planting plans needed. See Approved Tree List at the following internet address
https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/9642/download?inline=
E. Private Property Tree Species Selection – While the newly revised and published Boulder Forestry Approved
Tree List applies expressly to proposed trees in public rights-of-way, Forestry staff have provided tree species
selection recommendations for private property as follows for consideration by the applicant. Keep in mind that if
species are revised on private property plantings, large maturing trees shall comprise 85% of all tree species.
• Acer negundo/Boxelder- Must be ‘Sensation’ cultivar (seedless) for all sizes of plant stock.
• Betula occidentalis – high bronze birch borer susceptibility – utilize other genus
• Betula populifolia – high bronze birch borer susceptibility - utilize other genus
• Ginkgo biloba ‘princeton sentry’ – not hardy, extremely slow growing in our region– try other genus
• Gleditsia triacanthos – must be ‘inermis’ variety (thornless) and of the following cultivars: ‘Imperial’,
‘Shademaster’ or ‘Skyline’
• Gynmocaldus dioica – recommend ‘Espresso’ for seedless quality
• Populus tremuloides – not hardy at this elevation- highly susceptible to numerous insects/diseases- utilize other
genus
• Populus tremula ‘Erecta’ – not hardy at this elevation- highly susceptible to numerous insects/diseases- utilize
other genus
• Populus deltoides – must be ‘Monilifera’ or other native species (e.g. narrowleaf cottonwood – Populus
angustifolia or lanceleaf cottonwood – Populus x acuminata)
• Quercus robur ‘fastigiata’ – gamble oak borer susceptibility, columnar not recommended - utilize other species.
• Tilia cordata ‘Greenspire’ – high Japanese beetle susceptibility – utilize other genus
• Ulmus americana ‘New Harmony’ – high European Elm Scale susceptibility – try ‘Accolade’ elm
• Ulmus parvifolia ‘A. Ross Central Park’ – not hardy - utilize other species or genus
• Zelkova serrata ‘Village Green’ – not hardy - utilize other genus
As a standard practice, planting species that are hardy to our region and not highly susceptible to insects, diseases,
or environmental factors ensures that the trees have a higher probability of survival long term.
Recommended species to incorporate in private property plant schedule –
Large stature trees not on current Tree Schedule (options to replace Gingko biloba, Ulmus American ‘New Harmony’,
Zelkova serrata, Tilia cordata, Acer rubrum, Ulmus parvifolia, Betula occidentalis):
• Acer saccharum (Caddo, Legacy)
• Quercus alba
• Quercus muehlenbergii
• Quercus imbricaria
• Quercus macrocarpa
o Medium Stature trees not on current Tree Schedule (options to replace Betula populifolia):
• Acer campestre
• Aesculus x carnea
• Aesculus flava
• Koelreuteria paniculata
o Small Statured trees not on current Tree Schedule (options to replace Populus tremuloides):
• Syringa reticulata
• Malus sylvestris ‘Spring snow’
F. Other Tree Species Selection Items:
• Populus deltoides as a species currently comprises over 14% of the proposed tree plantings on private property.
Recommendation is to reduce this number to 10% on the species level. (Currently proposed to be 58 out of 413).
• Populus as a genus currently comprises over 27% of the proposed tree plantings on private property.
Recommendation is to reduce this number to 20% on the genus level. (Currently proposed to be 114 trees out of
413).
G. Columnar Species: The specification of columnar tree species on the subject development property is not
recommended unless the specific planting location has spatial or physical constraints that otherwise limit the planting
of large maturing trees. Many columnar cultivars are selected in areas that could otherwise be planted with trees with
normal canopy spread. Revise landscape plans to replace columnar tree species with large maturing tree species
Attachment E - DRC Comments
61 of 141
where applicable.
H. Plant Sizes and Root Condition: Landscape Plans as submitted indicate that some proposed trees are specified
as 5-gallon container grown and 15-gallon container grown at the time of planting.
I. Container-Grown Trees Restriction: The current edition of the Boulder Design and Construction Standards,
Section 10.03(B)(8)((d)(v) states the following: “All trees shall be balled and burlapped. Root balls shall have a
sufficient diameter for the fiberous and feeding root system necessary to provide for full recovery of the tree following
planting. Minimum root ball sizes shall meet the following specifications outlined in Table 10-2.” Revise all plant
schedules designating all trees as balled and burlapped stock. Also, specify all trees as single leader habit/form.
Legal Documents
Julia Chase, 303-441-3052
1. Development Plan - Add a sheet to depict "Proposed Lot Layout" to clarify whether each parcel line is to be removed.
Please indicate whether the applicant plans to create one lot for the whole site. It is recommended that the Applicant
submit an application for a Preliminary Plat to remove the parcel lines and show the proposed easements.
Corrective Action: The City is not requiring a Preliminary Plat. However, the City is requesting that existing parcel
lines be shown on the Site Plans to facilitate staff's understanding of whether the proposed buildings cross parcel
lines. There are 4 parcels shown on the survey provided with this application.
2. The applicant provided a draft Reciprocal Easement which shows a proposed “FW Access Easement” over the area
of “Public ROW for Olson Drive.” The City can only accept the dedication of Olson Drive if it is free and clear of
underlying easements and encumbrances. Please provide information how this issue will be addressed.
Miscellaneous
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1. Landscape Plan / Sheet L1.1: Revise the sheet to correct the label and the pointers for the multi-use path easement.
The label needs to refer to a public access easement and the pointers must point to the edges of the easement.
2. Landscape Plan / Sheet L1.1: Revise the sheet to correct the “8’ walk pedestrian concrete walkway“ label that is
pointing to the 12’ wide concrete multi-use path.
3. TDM Plan / Page 8: Revise the TDM Plan to clarify the conclusions of the TDM Plan and Parking Study in support of
the requested parking reduction.
4. TDM Plan / Page 8: The lease agreement language has been forwarded to the City Attorney’s Office for review and
comment. If review comments are received, staff will forward them via e-mail.
5. TDM Plan / Table 4: Revise the managed off-street parking section of the table to describe the number of vehicle
parking spaces that will be available for use by the non-residential uses on the site and that the spaces will be shared
between the different uses.
6. TDM Plan / Non-residential uses: Revise the TDM Plan for staff’s review and concurrence to discuss why the
non-residential uses on the site will not be required to pay for vehicle parking.
Parking
David Thompson, 303-441-4417
1. Per staff's previous comment. This is a follow-up to a comment made during staff’s review of the Concept Plan for
the Project. In support of the parking reduction the project will be required to submit a Parking Management Plan for
the vehicle parking spaces being provided on the site. Staff was unable to locate the Parking Management Plan in
the resubmittal documents.
2. Millennium Existing Cottages Document: Revise the document to include the hours of operation for the SMBA /
LERT business to better understand how the parking spaces will be sharded between the employees and customers
of the Day Care and SMBA / LERT businesses.
3. Landscape Plans / General Comment: Revise the Landscape Plans to include a standard drawing for the types of
bike racks being proposed with the project for staff’s concurrence. The standard drawing must also include the color
Attachment E - DRC Comments
62 of 141
for the bike rack.
Plan Documents
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
1. Please include the measurements both to the top of parapet wall and top of roof on the plan elevations for
consistency with typical height measurement standards.
2. Fencing is depicted at the entries to the courtyard spaces in various renderings (see also, landscape comments).
a) Please provide a detail or elevation of a typical fence design including height and material information. Please
ensure that the fencing design is integrated with the courtyard and building design. A request to include a fence
height greater than 7’ would need to be included as a modification request through site review.
b) Please clarify emergency access availability through the fencing. Do the fences serve a security purpose
(locked?) or is there just an intent to provide a sense of separation for these spaces?
3. Please include proposed elevations of the pool equipment room including typical materials, height as measured from
low point within 25’ of the building, and any mechanical equipment depicted and screened.
Review Process
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
1. The property is made up of unplatted parcels.
Please refer to ‘Legal Documents’ comments for
additional information. Please clarify if the proposal
is located across any parcel lines by depicting
parcel lines on an exhibit or plan sheet, and
whether the parcel lines need to be eliminated
through a future platting process.
2. City Council referred the project to the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and Design
Advisory Board (DAB) for review and input at their
meeting on Nov. 30, 2021 (9-0, motion by Friend,
seconded by Wallach). The proposal was heard by
the Design Advisory Board (DAB) on Dec. 14th and
is scheduled for TAB for the February meeting.
3. CLOMR. The site requires approval of a CLOMR by
the city. It is necessary for the CLOMR to be
approved prior to Planning Board review of the Site
Review. See Floodplain comments for additional
information.
4. Public Access Easement. Prior to scheduling a hearing for Planning Board review of the Site Review, the off-site
public access easement for access from Olson Drive through property to the north/west of the site needs to be
dedicated and recorded through the standard public access easement dedication process (not as a reciprocal
easement).
5. Please provide a resubmittal of the proposed Good Neighbor Agreement with the next review. Staff would like to
ensure this can be reviewed by CAO for incorporation into the final packet for Planning Board.
Utilities
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
1. The Utility Report states that small sections of the existing 8" water main along the north side of the site require
upsizing in order to satisfy operational parameters for the distribution system. If the main must be upgraded to meet
standards, then the upsizing must extend from the main distribution network connection to the most downstream
branch connection. Revise layout accordingly and update modeling.
------------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
Revised modelling output shows velocities in excess of 8 fps within sections of the distribution main even under flow
Attachment E - DRC Comments
63 of 141
conditions less than peak w/ fire (1500 gpm min). Revise system design and update Utility Report as necessary to
ensure flow velocities do not exceed 8 fps.
----------------------------------------------
Updated 12/20/22:
The water distribution system design and/or input parameters continue to generate flow velocities in excess of 8 fps.
Revise design, layout and/or flow input as necessary to ensure velocities do not exceed 8.0 fps within the distribution
network. In addition, Peak Day, Max Hour and Max Day demand calculations are shown based on building resident
counts that are inconsistent with those listed elsewhere throughout the Report. Update calculations and Table 1
values as necessary.
2. The plans show numerous locations where required minimum horizontal utilities separations are not met. In addition,
the separation between trees and utilities does not meet the 10' minimum required clearance in several locations.
Review utilities layouts and planting plan. Revise and update as necessary.
----------------------------------------------
Updated 12/20/22:
There continue to be numerous trees shown to be planted in locations resulting in less than the minimum horizontal
separation of 10 feet between the proposed trees and the existing sanitary sewer main. Revise plans as necessary.
3. Private storm piping and appurtenances are shown to be constructed within public utility easements. Private utilities
improvements within public easements are limited to roughly orthogonal crossings only. Revise plans accordingly.
----------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
Private improvements continue to be proposed to be constructed within existing public easements. Revise plans
accordingly.
----------------------------------------------
Updated 12/20/22:
Carry-over of previous comment, (see markup Utility Plan sheet C200). Revise accordingly
4. The Sanitary Capacity Analysis worksheets indicate several of the pipe sections exceed maximum flow depth for
peak flow design as given in section 6.06 (A)(2) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, (DCS).
However, since no system layout or pipe identifiers were provided, staff's ability to evaluate the proposed system
design is limited. Provide system layout and include infiltration and inflow contributions as detailed in Report
requirements given in section 6.02(B). In addition, the capacity analysis must use a Manning's roughness coefficient
of 0.013 per section 6.06(A)(1). Revise Utility Report as necessary to ensure the Report is prepared in accordance
with 6.02 of the DCS.
----------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
The updated sanitary worksheets contain erroneous inputs for discharge in all but the most upstream pipe sections.
The west property plus Bldg 3 at peak flow should be 0.26 cfs; add Bldg 2 and peak flow is 0.49 cfs add Bldg 1 and
peak goes to 0.64 cfs in pipe 7. In addition, as previously stated, Manning's roughness coefficient should be set at
0.013 rather than 0.010 per section 6.06(A)(1) of the DCS. Revise worksheets and system design as necessary.
----------------------------------------------
Updated 12/20/22:
The updated sanitary worksheets with the correct peak flow discharge and Manning's coefficient show pipes 6 and 7
to exceed max design flow capacity of 50% full. As such, it shall be necessary to upsize the sanitary collection main
downstream of manhole between Bldgs. 1 and 2. Upsizing must extend as far as necessary to a suitable point of
connection with appropriate sized main. Site Review approval will not be granted until such time as a suitable
sanitary sewer collection main design has been shown to meet all applicable city standards with demonstrated
constructability. Revise plans as necessary. In addition, the narrative and Table 4 in the Utility Report must be
revised to reflect the sanitary worksheet output and updated conclusions drawn therefrom.
Zoning
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
1. In the solar analysis worksheet, given that the only protected property adjacent to the site is to the west, only points
1-8 on building 1 need to be calculated/shown in the chart. Please provide USGS elevations for the “elevation of roof
element” and “elevation at grade at property line” numbers in the chart. There is a note regarding elevation of
elements being taken relative to building 1; each measurement should be specific the relevant building.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
64 of 141
2. Thank you for the detailed open space analysis. The open space information includes ROW landscaping which
requires a modification through Site Review in order to contribute to the minimum open space requirements per
9-2-14(c)(15); because it does not appear that the ROW landscaping is necessary to meet minimum open space
requirements staff recommends removing this from the open space calculations.
3. Outdoor Lighting/Photometric:
a. Ensure that lighting levels at exterior property lines does not exceed 0.1 footcandles within or adjacent to a
residential zone or 0.2 footcandles in nonresidential zones per 9 9 16(d)(1), B.R.C. 1981. There is light spill shown
due to the proposed fixtures on the subject property along the southern property line into the residentially-zoned
property to the south; revise.
b. Please ensure that the proposed string lighting in the courtyard space meets the requirements of 9-9-16(d)(10),
B.R.C. 1981. Please note that each bulb must not be greater than fifty lumens per bulb, among other requirements.
c. Staff’s understanding is that there may be additional revisions proposed to the lighting plan and will review those
if submitted.
4. On the cover sheet, in the Project Data chart:
a) please include parking requirements for the non-residential uses in the total required (daycare, office in cottages);
b) Please ensure SF listed for cottage spaces in the bicycle section is accurate and matches the SF information in
the CottageAndBusinessesSummary PDF.
c) The number of units and parking requirements needs to be coordinate amongst the Parking Plan, and other
relevant documents. The parking plan lists 35 2-bedroom units whereas the cover sheets lists 36.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
1. Prior Informational Comments, Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
Please refer to prior review comment letters for previously provided informational comments.
2. Boulder Fire, David Lowrey, 303-441-4356
Boulder Fire has no issues or concerns with the variance to omit the turn-around on the west drive area.
3. Next Steps, Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
Revisions to the plan documents are required. Resubmittal materials that address the comments herein shall be
uploaded through the “Attachments” tab in the CSS portal
(https://energovcss.bouldercolorado.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/#/home) using the naming conventions in the
Electronic Submittal Requirements for Development Review/ Plan case document available here:
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/PLAN_Electronic_Submittal_Requirements-1-202003271056.pdf?_ga=
260365892.81114261.1618766662-289936432.1616386805.
Resubmittals should have the following components:
• Development Review Resubmittal form
(https://bouldercolorado.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/PLNResub.pdf)
• A written response identifying all changes made, saved as a PDF file. (See requirements).
• FULL set of electronic drawings and/or affected documentation addressing the review comments. (Named as
specified in the requirements).
• Revised plans must include the date of ALL revisions. These must be saved as PDFs. (See requirements).
The application deadlines for the review track system can be found at https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan-develop.
Fees shall be paid, and files uploaded to the customer self-service portal for resubmittals by 10 AM on the
application deadline. Staff is happy to meet with you to discuss these comments in detail at your convenience.
IV. FEES
Please note that current development review fees include a $131 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city
written comments. Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing
system.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
65 of 141
DATE OF COMMENTS: March 3, 2023
CASE MANAGER: Shannon Moeller
PROJECT NAME: MILLENIUM HARVEST HOUSE HOTEL
LOCATION: 1345 28TH ST
REVIEW TYPE: Site & Use Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2022-00021
APPLICANT: ROB TURK, LANDMARK PROPERTIES
JASON DOORNBOS, LCD ACQUISITIONS, LLC
DESCRIPTION: Site and Use Review to redevelop the property at 1345 28th St. with three 4 story
buildings approximately 53 feet in height. The development is proposed to contain 303
residential apartments, in a mix of studio, one, two, three, and four bedroom
configurations. A 52% parking reduction is proposed to allow for 348 parking spaces,
where approximately 726 are required per the underlying zoning. A Use Review is
required for a residential use on the ground floor.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Additional information and revisions to the plan documents are required as indicated below. Refer to ‘Next Steps’
comments below for directions on how the project can be resubmitted for staff review. Please contact staff with any
questions or concerns.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
The section below addresses issues that must be resolved prior to project approval.
Building Design
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
The proposal was reviewed by the Design Advisory Board (DAB) on Dec. 14, 2022. Several of the DAB
recommendations were not adequately addressed through the submittal. Please coordinate with staff prior to the next
resubmittal.
Drainage
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
1. The plans show proposed 15" storm piping on the north sides of the structures to be constructed under the proposed
site walkway with area drains shown at branch connections and changes of direction to be set in the walkway. It is
unclear as to the value of these drains given the cross-sloped construction and the potential safety issues related to
grated elements in the walkway surface. Provide narrative as necessary to describe functionality and justify inclusion
within a walking surface. Revise plans as necessary.
2. The proposed swales along the north sides of the buildings, between the public sidewalk and the private site
walkway, are shown with trees planted at the invert of the swale (see markup). Revise plans as necessary to ensure
swales are able to perform as intended.
Engineering
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
The Easement Exhibit Sheet is both missing required easements (e.g. drainage easement for raingarden in the
southeast corner) and retains existing easements (e.g. utility easement for existing sanitary main) no longer necessary
that must be vacated. Revise plans to ensure all proposed easements are shown and appropriately labeled and those
to be vacated are identified and labeled accordingly.
Floodplain
Christin Shepherd, 303-441-3425
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) Required: A CLOMR is required for the proposed scope of work. A
Attachment E - DRC Comments
66 of 141
separate floodplain development permit application is required for the CLOMR submittal. City approval of the suppl ied
CLOMR is a condition of Site & Use Review approval. City Staff must approve the CLOMR before this application can be
scheduled for Planning Board.
Review Process
Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
The proposed Good Neighbor Agreement should be revised to eliminate any references to municipal operations. Please
note that the Good Neighbor Agreement may be included in the proposal documents but would not be a regulatory
document.
Utilities
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
1. The Utility Report states that small sections of the existing 8" water main along the north side of the site require
upsizing in order to satisfy operational parameters for the distribution system. If the main must be upgraded to meet
standards, then the upsizing must extend from the main distribution network connection to the most downstream
branch connection. Revise layout accordingly and update modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
Revised modelling output shows velocities in excess of 8 fps within sections o f the distribution main even under flow
conditions less than peak w/ fire (1500 gpm min). Revise system design and update Utility Report as necessary to
ensure flow velocities do not exceed 8 fps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 12/20/22:
The water distribution system design and/or input parameters continue to generate flow velocities in excess of 8 fps.
Revise design, layout and/or flow input as necessary to ensure velocities do not exceed 8.0 fps within the distribution
network. In addition, Peak Day, Max Hour and Max Day demand calculations are shown based on building resident
counts that are inconsistent with those listed elsewhere throughout the Report. Update calculations and Table 1
values as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 2/28/23:
The Pipe Table shows incorrect values for the Hazen -Williams friction loss coefficients and/or pipe materials (see
mark-ups). Revise model output and Pipe Table as necessary to ensure consistency of specified material and
coefficients. Also, it is unclear why iron pipe is being used for the new distribution main since preferred pipe material
under most circumstances for new construction is PVC. Update accordingly.
2. The Sanitary Capacity Analysis worksheets indicate several of the pipe sections exceed maximum flow depth for
peak flow design as given in section 6.06 (A)(2) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, (DCS).
However, since no system layout or pipe identifiers were provided, staff's ability to evaluate the proposed system
design is limited. Provide system layout and include infiltration and inflow contributions as detailed in Report
requirements given in section 6.02(B). In additio n, the capacity analysis must use a Manning's roughness coefficient
of 0.013 per section 6.06(A)(1). Revise Utility Report as necessary to ensure the Report is prepared in accordance
with 6.02 of the DCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
The updated sanitary worksheets contain erroneous inputs for discharge in all but the most upstream pipe sections.
The west property plus Bldg 3 at peak flow should be 0.26 cfs; add Bldg 2 and peak flow is 0.49 cfs add Bldg 1 and
peak goes to 0.64 cfs in pipe 7. In addition, as previously stated, Manning's roughness coefficient should be set at
0.013 rather than 0.010 per section 6.06(A)(1) of the DCS. Revise worksheets and system design a s necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 12/20/22:
The updated sanitary worksheets with the correct peak flow discharge and Manning's coefficient show pipes 6 and 7
to exceed max design flow capacity of 50% full. As such, it shall be necessary to upsize the sanitary collection main
downstream of manhole between Bldgs. 1 and 2. Upsizing must extend as far as necessary to a suitable point of
connection with appropriate sized main. Site Review approval will not be granted until such time as a suitable
sanitary sewer collection main design has been shown to meet all applicable city standards with demonstrated
constructability. Revise plans as necessary. In addition, the narrative and Table 4 in the Utility Report must be
revised to reflect the sanitary worksheet output and updated conclusions draw n therefrom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 2/28/23:
Per communication from design team related to additional survey regarding proposed sanitary sewer main
connection in 28th, results seem somewhat inconclusive as to actual size of the main extending eastward from the
manhole at the RI entrance on the northeast corner of the site. It will be necessary to verify and confirm the existing
Attachment E - DRC Comments
67 of 141
sanitary main sizing to ensure the proposed 10" collection main through the site has a suitable point of
connection/continuation downstream. Additionally, the modelling results indicate velocities in one section of pipe
(Pipe 2) do not meet the velocity standards of 2 fps. It may be necessary to increase slope or reduce pipe diameter
to ensure flow velocities reach minimum necessary for effective scour. Revise pl ans accordingly.
3. The plans and Utility Report show/state a new 6" main to extend in N -S alignment on the east side of the site. Per
section 5.08 of the DCS, water distribution mains shall be at least 8" in diameter. Revise plans and Report, includ ing
model output, as necessary.
4. The proposed alignments shown for the new water distribution and wastewater collection mains result in horizontal
separations from existing utilities and/or proposed trees to meet standards. It appears the separati on between the
water and existing storm sewer to the north is approximately 4' where 5' is required and the separation between trees
on the south side of Olsen and the proposed sanitary main is between 9'-9.5' where 10' is required. There may be
sufficient space between the water and sanitary main to shift south and north respectively to better provide horizontal
separation in accordance with standards as set forth in section 4.06 of the DCS. Revise plans accordingly.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
1. Prior Informational Comments, Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
Please refer to prior review comment letters for previously provided informational comments.
2. Review Process, Shannon Moeller, moellers@bouldercolorado.gov
Prior to scheduling a hearing for Planning Board review of the Site Review, a) the approval of a CLOMR by the
city; and b) coordination of the off-site access easement; are necessary.
3. Next Steps, Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
Revisions to the plan documents are required. Resubmittal materials that address the comments herein shall be
uploaded through the “Attachments” tab in the CSS portal
(https://energovcss.bouldercolorado.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/#/home ) using the naming conventions in the
Electronic Submittal Requirements for Development Review/ Plan case document available here:
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/PLAN_Electronic_Submittal_Requirements-1-202003271056.pdf?_ga=
260365892.81114261.1618766662-289936432.1616386805.
Resubmittals should have the following components:
• Development Review Resubmittal form
(https://bouldercolorado.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/PLNResub.pdf)
• A written response identifying all changes made, saved as a PDF file. (See requirements).
• FULL set of electronic drawings and/or affected documentation addressing the review comments. (Named as
specified in the requirements).
• Revised plans must include the date of ALL revisions. These must be saved as PDFs. (See requirements).
The application deadlines for the review track system can be found at https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan -develop.
Fees shall be paid, and files uploaded to the customer self-service portal for resubmittals by 10 AM on the
application deadline. Staff is happy to meet with you to discuss these comments in detail at your convenience.
IV. FEES
Please note that current development review fees include a $131 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city
written comments. Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing
system.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
68 of 141
DATE OF COMMENTS: May 4, 2023
CASE MANAGER: Shannon Moeller
PROJECT NAME: MILLENIUM HARVEST HOUSE HOTEL
LOCATION: 1345 28TH ST
REVIEW TYPE: Site & Use Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2022-00021
APPLICANT: ROB TURK, LANDMARK PROPERTIES
JASON DOORNBOS, LCD ACQUISITIONS, LLC
DESCRIPTION: Site and Use Review to redevelop the property at 1345 28th St. with three 4 story
buildings approximately 54 feet in height. The development is proposed to contain 303
residential apartments, in a mix of studio, one , two , three , and four bedroom
configurations. A 52% parking reduction is proposed to allow for 348 parking spaces,
where approximately 726 are required per the underlying zoning. A Use Review is
required for a residential use on the ground floor.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Additional information and revisions to the plan documents are required as indicated below. Refer to ‘Next Steps’
comments below for directions on how the project can be resubmitted for staff review. Please contact staff with any
questions or concerns.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
The section below addresses issues that must be resolved prior to project approval. Engineering
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
The Easement Exhibit Sheet is both missing required easements (e.g. drainage easement for raingarden in the
southeast corner) and retains existing easements (e.g. utility easement for existing sanitary main) no longer necessary
that must be vacated. Revise plans to ensure all proposed easements are shown and appropriately labeled and those
to be vacated are identified and labeled accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 05/02/2023:
Several proposed easements and the existing Trails & Recreation easement include encroachments of private
improvements in the form of structures (fences/ gates/ walls) that must be removed prior to Site Review approval.
Update accordingly.
Utilities
Erik Saunders, 303-441-4493
1. The Utility Report states that small sections of the existing 8" water main along the north side of the site require
upsizing in order to satisfy operational parameters for the distribution system. If the main must be upgraded to meet
standards, then the upsizing must extend from the main distribution network connection to the most downstream
branch connection. Revise layout accordingly and update modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
Revised modelling output shows velocities in excess of 8 fps within sections of the distribution main even under flow
conditions less than peak w/ fire (1500 gpm min). Revise system design and update Utility Report as necessary to
ensure flow velocities do not exceed 8 fps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 12/20/22:
The water distribution system design and/or input parameters continue to generate flow velocities in excess of 8 fps.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
69 of 141
Revise design, layout and/or flow input as necessary to ensure velocities do not exceed 8.0 fps withi n the distribution
network. In addition, Peak Day, Max Hour and Max Day demand calculations are shown based on building resident
counts that are inconsistent with those listed elsewhere throughout the Report. Update calculations and Table 1
values as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 2/28/23:
The Pipe Table shows incorrect values for the Hazen -Williams friction loss coefficients and/or pipe materials (see
mark-ups). Revise model output and Pipe Table as necessary to ensure consistency of specified material and
coefficients. Also, it is unclear why iron pipe is being used for the new distribution main since preferred pipe material
under most circumstances for new construction is PVC. Update accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 05/02/2023:
The Utility Report included with this submittal does not appear to be the most updated version of the report. It
includes numerous erroneous references to pipe sizes, materials, configurations, etc. Most of th e identified elements
were discussed with the Design Engineering Team and have been updated on the plans, the Report has not been
corrected (or the corrected version not included) to match the plans. Update as necessary for consistency.
2. The Sanitary Capacity Analysis worksheets indicate several of the pipe sections exceed maximum flow depth for
peak flow design as given in section 6.06 (A)(2) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, (DCS).
However, since no system layout or pipe identifiers were provided, staff's ability to evaluate the proposed system
design is limited. Provide system layout and include infiltration and inflow contributions as detailed in Report
requirements given in section 6.02(B). In addition, the capacity analysis must use a Manning's roughness coefficient
of 0.013 per section 6.06(A)(1). Revise Utility Report as necessary to ensure the Report is prepared in accordance
with 6.02 of the DCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 9/30/22:
The updated sanitary worksheets contain erroneous inputs for discharge in all but the most upstream pipe sections.
The west property plus Bldg 3 at peak flow should be 0.26 cfs; add Bldg 2 and peak flow is 0.49 cfs add Bldg 1 and
peak goes to 0.64 cfs in pipe 7. In addition, as previously stated, Manning's roughness coefficient should be set at
0.013 rather than 0.010 per section 6.06(A)(1) of the DCS. Revise worksheets and system design as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 12/20/22:
The updated sanitary worksheets with the correct peak flow discharge and Manning's coefficient show pipes 6 and 7
to exceed max design flow capacity of 50% full. As such, it shall be necessary to upsize the sanitary collection main
downstream of manhole between Bldgs. 1 and 2. Upsizing must extend as far as necessary to a suitable point of
connection with appropriate sized main. Site Review approval will not be granted until such time as a suitable
sanitary sewer collection main design has been shown to meet all applicable city standards with demonstrated
constructability. Revise plans as necessary. In addition, the narrative and Table 4 in the Utility Report must be
revised to reflect the sanitary worksheet output and updated conclusions drawn therefrom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 2/28/23:
Per communication from design team related to additional survey regarding proposed sanitary sewer main
connection in 28th, results seem somewhat inconclusive as to actual size of the main extending eastward from the
manhole at the RI entrance on the northeast corner of the site. It will be necessary to verify and confirm the existing
sanitary main sizing to ensure the proposed 10" collection main through the site has a suitable point of
connection/continuation downstream. Additionally, the modelling results indicate velocities in one section of pipe
(Pipe 2) do not meet the velocity standards of 2 fps. It may be necessary to increase slope or reduce pipe diameter
to ensure flow velocities reach minimum necessary for effective scour. Revise plans accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 05/02/2023:
The Utility Report included with this submittal does not reflect the proposed changes to the sanitary sewer main
configuration at the west end nor has it been demonstrated that the proposed chang es satisfy the velocity standards.
Update accordingly.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
70 of 141
3. Per the original request from City of Boulder Utilities, the existing maintenance access location to the creek from the
southeast parking area is to be maintained. The plans show a relocated gravel accessway that does not provide
suitable access to the creek for vehicles and equipment. Revise plans to show the maintenance access in the
current location. Update storm outfall location and easement delineation as necessary.
4. The proposed fire service and domestic water service and meter for Building 3 are shown to conflict with the
proposed tree layout along the west side of the site. A minimum horizontal separation requirement of 10' from
utilities (including appurtenant structures) and trees must be maintained per city standards. Revise as utilities-tree
locations as necessary.
Miscellaneous
Deryn Wagner, 720-601-5048
Per the proposed dog park on the south side of the creek, fencing should stay outside of the boundaries of the trail and
recreation easement that follows the creek path. A dog park is not compatible with publ ic uses as defined by the
easement. Further, maintenance operations of the creek path would be compromised by fencing immediately adjacent to
the path.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
1. Prior Informational Comments, Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
Please refer to prior review comment letters for previously provided informational comments.
2. Next Steps, Shannon Moeller, 303-441-3216
Revisions to the plan documents are required. Resubmittal materials that address the comments herein shall be
uploaded through the “Attachments” tab in the CSS portal
(https://energovcss.bouldercolorado.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/#/home ) using the naming conventions in the
Electronic Submittal Requirements for Development Review/ Plan case document available here:
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/PLAN_Electronic_Submittal_Requirements-1-202003271056.pdf?_ga=
260365892.81114261.1618766662-289936432.1616386805.
Resubmittals should have the following components:
• Development Review Resubmittal form
(https://bouldercolorado.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/PLNResub.pdf)
• A written response identifying all changes made, saved as a PDF file. (See requirements).
• FULL set of electronic drawings and/or affected documentation addressing the review comments. (Named as
specified in the requirements).
• Revised plans must include the date of ALL revisions. These must be saved as PDFs. (See requirements).
***Due to the capacity limitations of the CSS portal under this case number please only upload items that
have been revised and please reduce file sizes as much as possible.***
The application deadlines for the review track system can be found at https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan -develop.
Fees shall be paid, and files uploaded to the customer self-service portal for resubmittals by 10 AM on the
application deadline. Staff is happy to meet with you to discuss these comments in detail at your convenience.
IV. FEES
Please note that current development review fees include a $131 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city
written comments. Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing
system.
Attachment E - DRC Comments
71 of 141
From: jerry greene <psychcowboy@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 15:57
To: Olsen, Laurel <olsenl@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Millennium tennis courts.
External Sender
I gather the north side hotel may be demolished. How about courts on south side by Clarion?
---------------------------------------------------------
Sent by grocery clerks from an errand boy.
[psychcowboy@yahoo.com, 3034491232]
From: jerry greene <psychcowboy@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 12:45 PM
To: Walbert, Sloane <WalbertS@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: Olsen, Laurel <olsenl@bouldercolorado.gov>; Moeller, Shannon <moellers@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Re: Millennium tennis courts.
Below is my recent opinion letter from the Daily Camera.
Basically convert one half of the hotel to revenue generating housing, e.g. affordable, potentially the
City working with CU.
See item 1b.
I am a long term member there and would like to see it return to its former charm. Thanks.
Jerry Greene: City Council priorities: I have a few suggestions
Recent City Council priorities are: Affordable Housing, Green Transportation, and Homelessness.
As a city that seems to champion progressive ways to deal with municipal issues, I don’t really see
Council or staff often proposing anything meeting that lofty criteria; instead we get fancy looking master
plans with expensive visions to achieve ambiguous goals like “transformative and vibrant.”
Here is my invitation for Council/Staff to think out of the box:
1.Affordable Housing and Green Transportation: Create car-free housing complexes where the
residents do not own personal cars. The complex comes with one CarShare car per 10 residents, and co-
op van trips for recreation, shopping, etc. A couple obvious site options for this are:
a)Former Boulder Community Hospital on Broadway; don’t tear down the building, just divide it up into
apartments.
b)Buy or offer to manage either the east or west wing of Millennium Hotel. With half the hotel now
generating rental revenue, the hotel can regain its former charm and profitability as a smaller hotel,
pool and tennis center.
c)Divide the dying Macy’s at 29th Street Mall into Car-Free apartments.
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
72 of 141
2. Green Transportation: Create hiring criteria for Boulder municipal jobs that prioritizes local residents,
rather than contributing to the 60,000 per day in-commuters who can get a job here but can’t afford to
live here.
3. Homelessness and random camping: The only thing that will work for the random camping
population that won’t take advantage of traditional shelter options is sanctioned camping — 50 stacked
and three-sided cabins can be fit on ah half-acre along with a bathroom and cooking community area.
Any person willing to put in 10-15 hours/week helping cleaning, cooking, etc. qualifies for a cabin and
food. The place is incredibly cost effective by reducing police calls for ad-hoc camping, it basically
eliminates tents popping up along the creek, and as resident-managed, the operation costs are minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sent by grocery clerks from an errand boy.
[psychcowboy@yahoo.com, 3034491232]
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
73 of 141
From: Diane Carano <dianecarano@netscape.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 6:35 AM
To: Walbert, Sloane <walberts@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Millenium Harvest House Hotel
Hi Sloane,
I am reaching out regarding the proposed redevelopment. As a nearby homeowner, I appreciate the
opportunity to comment.
My initial opinion is not in favor of granting an allowance to the building height code. This location, not
only near our residence, is a highly visible to all who enter Boulder. This type of development is precisely
why the height limitations were enacted, and should be respected.
I would like to view the documents, however, the web address, when accessed, showed site was moved.
I would appreciate it if you could send and active link.
Regards,
Diane Carano
2815 Cordry Ct.
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
74 of 141
From: Richard Boeye <boeye77@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:12 PM
To: Walbert, Sloane <walberts@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ? Re Millenium Harvest House Hotel
Hello,
Will the parking all be above ground?
The subject area does not show Boulder Creek frontage or access/frontage on Folsom. The site currently
has frontage on Folsom Street, which in my opinion is precarious access.
Richard Boeye
From: Richard Boeye
To: Walbert, Sloane
Subject: Fwd: ? Re Millenium Harvest House Hotel
Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 9:01:39 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Thank you for the development map, I used to live in the Millennium. There will need to be
traffic illuminated warning at Folsom because the students cross without paying much
attention.
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
75 of 141
From: Pamela Arment <pjarment@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 1:01 PM
To: Walbert, Sloane <walberts@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Comment on Millennium Harvest House Hotel Project
Just a quick comment on the plans that were sent on June 7 for the development of the Millennium
Harvest House Hotel Project. The fact that the such a large complex would be built without adequate
parking is unacceptable. During the school year the parking in the area has become awful. I have no
idea what the agreement was long ago when Gold Run was developed but the parking there is
apparently not sufficient to support the units. I imagine this new development which does not provide
for the parking required by zoning by almost 50% is going to create a disaster in the area.
Pam
Gold Run Condo
2802 Sundown Lane Unit #211
pjarment@comcast.net
303.660.9337 (mobile)
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
76 of 141
From: KARL KOENIG <karlkoenig@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2022 1:08 PM
To: Walbert, Sloane <walberts@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: MilleniumHarvest House Hotel Project - 1345 28th Street
Dear Mr. Walbert,
I am writing to comment on the above noted project under consideration for development.
For the record, I assert no specialized skills in evaluating real estate development.
I have been an owner occupier of a Gold Run condominium unit since 2012. My son has lived there full
time, and my wife and I have been frequent visitors/part-time residents.
Parking at Gold Run is a relevant issue related to the Millenium Harvest project, in particular. There has
never been adequate parking at Gold Run and it has caused many inconveniences for residents and
visitors. There has been many abuses of parking spaces. For example, even our assigned space inside the
garage has been occupied without permission.
In my opinion, developing the Millenium property with only 390 spaces versus a code requirement of
718 will result in significant problems, inconveniences and abuses. I know of Gold Run owners parking in
the Millenium Hotel parking lot in the past. If there aren't enough parking spaces, people will have to
find spaces elsewhere. This won't just be an issue for the new development complex, it will affect
surrounding areas as well.
Good luck and regards,
Karl Koenig
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
77 of 141
From: ken <kenstone@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 10:32 AM
To: Walbert, Sloane <walberts@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Millennium Redevelopment
Sloane Walbert, We own the property immediately adjacent to the Millennium. Harvest Manor
Apartments. Inquiring as to whom to contact to voice our concerns over the massive proposed
development. Thanks Best regards Ken Stone
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
78 of 141
From: Matt Peterson <mapeterson@zynga.com>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 7:41 PM
To: Walbert, Sloane <walberts@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Millennium Harvest House Hotel
Hi Sloane,
Is there still opportunity for community to comment on this project? In general I am ok with the idea,
but I have some concerns that I’d like opportunity to share.
Please let me know how I can comment.
Thanks,
-Matt.
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
79 of 141
From: Jeff Brooks <pikespeakhiker@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Walbert, Sloane <walberts@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Millennium harvest house feedback
External Sender
Hi Ms. Walbert-
My name is Jeff Brooks and we just bought a condo last year at 2805 sundown ln.
I am writing to tell you that my wife and I are strongly opposed to three proposed major redevelopment
that is ~1000 feet away from our condo which is on the corner of 28th and sundown. As well, while new
housing options are needed, they have a direct effect on diminishing our property values. And if anyone
is going to benefit from proximity to campus, they should have to compensate all other owners in the
area.
Beyond the significant disruption that the construction will cause, we also do not agree with the height
waiver which will dramatically change the skyline.
Please add this email address to your list for any further communication. And thank you for listening to
our feedback.
Best regards,
Jeff
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
80 of 141
From: Mary Maxwell <jacaranda1957@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 3:51 AM
To: Walbert, Sloane <walberts@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Millennium Hotel redevelopment
Dear Sloane,
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed height and parking plans for the Millenium
project. The Land Code was put in place for good reasons-let it do it’s job. Please keep me informed on
how this issue proceeds.
Thank you,
Mary Maxwell
Citizen of Boulder County
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
81 of 141
From: Lynn Segal <lynnsegal7@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:32 PM
To: TAB <tab@bouldercolorado.gov>; boulderplanningboard
<boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>; Housing Advisory Board Group
<HousingAdvisoryBoardGroup@bouldercolorado.gov>; landmarksboard
<landmarksboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: 13 Feb., '23 TAB
Density.
Intensity of use causes increased financial demand on the system, the actual occupant of high-density
housing, the general trans network they use and the cost of infrastructure and maintenance of
it. Robotic furnished 300 sf. rental units are little more than housing tourism and a gear and/or storage
rental culture with a high demand on transportation that is understated, in the fervor for density.
942 bedrooms at the Millennium. Wow. The impact on the creek trail! $75 per year (not per month, as
you said, Alex) is the reward for no car. That's nothing compared with the income from a parking
space. What are they charging for a parking space? My take is $897/mo. from CAGID. I don't want to
spread misinformation, ergo my question. A 60% parking reduction is requested. We're talking big
money in that remaining 40%. Parking is the new gold rush. This is CU's project dumped on the COB. A
big drain for the city. Uber is having problems with viability at $9/hr. in labor. CarShare, tandem and car
on delivery on- demand are all costly in adding congestion and O and M. What metric are you using to
determine the full lifecycle cost of this density on all these projects, this one, the ones following and all
the others in town. At this rate of change, with the bigger e-bikes, the physical space taken up in
congestion with bikes and peds becomes overwhelming. It's no panacea. The Millennium should have
been landmarked and repurposed. CU doesn't own Boulder, but their power brokers are in
action. Who's your ex- officio to Landmarks and HAB?
22/Pearl project is 45- 300 sf. units $1700-$2600 (80-120%AMI) not including parking, which was hidden
in the fine print. No one asked how much. $897/mo. at CAGID, since they have not disclosed this cost
or even a range. It's real money to manage tandem and unbundled parking, CarShare, high demand
weekends (why do we still have those?) folks living densely often travel together and all of this intensity
of demand is a cost that puts them in an spuriously lower AMI, yet this is precisely how the developer is
pitching the project, for the missing middle AMI group. It's your problem, ultimately.
DRCOG Mitigation Plan is flawed. Growing pop. by way of density in residential and jobs does not
decrease GHG.
The question is this, where are you going, and why are you going there in the first place? Me, every 6
mos. I need to go to Walmart S of Arapahoe in my car to load up on Zote soap, only available there, and
$50 per year gift cards from CIGNA. If I go in the summer in my bike, (because I am too cold in the
winter) I have to dodge heavy duty commercial vehicles with a small or eroded shoulder, and then haul
back heavy gear. That's it. I don't go anywhere beyond my community. I commuted to Denver Health
from 1988 to 2000 by car to do ultrasound imaging. One time it was an 8 hr. one way trip home to BO in
inclement weather. What a waste of productivity to be enclosed in a car 90 min./day. Why is there
extra service put in to Brighton? Are people commuting for service jobs to Boulder?
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
82 of 141
Balance jobs and housing. When you play them off each other without an endgame, you obligate the
system to build an economic deficit as described by Jean Sanson, your own staff.
FastTracks never happened after taxpayers paid for it.
Do small, on-demand e-v shuttle vans to rec. centers in addition to e-bikes with trailers, to divert from
auto use.
But don't make it worse so you have more to solve.
Growth? Stop already. Who's the ex-officio to Planning Board? Can't say it's not your problem.
These questions, like what a parking space costs, should be out front before a lot of funds are sunk into
aspirational architecture that puts an anchor on the transportation department to clean up the mess
later in a rush, and pilfer the money away, like in NOBO.
Lynn
From: Lynn Segal <lynnsegal7@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:46 AM
To: landmarksboard <landmarksboard@bouldercolorado.gov>; Gerwing, Marcy
<GerwingM@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>; Laura
Kaplan <laura.j.kaplan@gmail.com>
Cc: staff@historicboulder.org
Subject: Re: Roger's windows. Millennium/Harvest Manor. 3-1-23
Oh yeah, how big are those Manor apartments?
22/Pearl Middle Income by Ross at Stok are 300 sf. $1700-$2600/mo. 80-120% AMI without a parking
space ($897/mo. extra). Reference was the Walnut prep school annex. The burnt Whittier Square
across the street are $1495/mo. for 450 sf. and include a parking space.
What is the cost of a parking space, surface v. structured above or sub-surface in Boulder?
From: Lynn Segal
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:19 AM
To: landmarksboard@bouldercolorado.gov <landmarksboard@bouldercolorado.gov>; Gerwing, Marcy
<GerwingM@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: staff@historicboulder.org <staff@historicboulder.org>
Subject: Roger's windows. Millennium/Harvest Manor. 3-1-23
I looked at the agenda materials and saw only 3 short issues from Roger about the windows. He cited
costs, thermal improvements and longevity. The fact that many N American manufacturers are
discontinuing manufacture of wood double hungs was not brought up. As a result, price premium.
There was a long discussion. Sorry if I missed his short comment, but why wasn't it brought up? What
happens when you can't get the double hungs at all? Should he defer maintenance and harm the house
beyond repair so he can get aluminum clad eventually? What IS a reasonable price prohibition?
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
83 of 141
Energy efficiency was not brought up, nor costs. These issues may have changed my testimony. At the
very least the public should know the nature of his argument without having to read docs, especially
when it was so short and clear. I kept wondering why he wanted aluminum clad anyway, through the
whole long discussion. It was even brought up why this even came to LB in the first place.
Regards Harvest Manor, what about the flood plain? Millennium next door got an extra story because
of FP
and is increasing 269 rooms to 942 at PB, but Manor has a reduction in capacity of close to half.
Can any action be taken to reverse the Millennium decision and 777 Circle? How did the Millennium
never come before the LB? I never knew that until last night. How WAS demo approved? Just by the
staff? Did it not even make it to LDRC?
I expect these questions to be answered.
Lynn
Attachment F - Written Public Comments
84 of 141
1
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
1.3 - Introducing a secondary tone of metal panel for the two metal profi les offers a subtle variation
in materiality, while maintaining true to the project’s diagrammatic parti. The secondary tone and
profi le of the metal panel cladding offers a 3-over-1 and 1-over-3 language for Buildings 1&2 and
for Building 3 respectively.
1.3 - New north entries are recessed from the primary wall which alleviates fl atness along north
elevation.
1.3 - The team studied the feasibility of elevating planting areas at the base of the buildings on
the north side. Due to fl oodplain limitations, we are only able to add a couple of inches of height
to the planting area due to fl oodplain limitations. However, the north area generally has a greater
depth of planting area than other site locations, so we are able to provide larger plant species that
provide more screening and human scale to the elevated building.
1.4 - The wood cladding at the new north entries introduces more building material across the
north elevation.
3.2 - Variation in parapet heights adds to visual interest and programmatic distinction in
response to diagrammatic parti: lower parapets at entry slots and raised parapet at metal
bar/backbone.
3.2 - Align glazing and mullions throughout amenity spaces to respond to programmatic
distinction.
1.1 - Entries added to north elevation of both Buildings 2 and 3. The new entry slots will be
recessed and clad in wood, programmatically consistent with other entries across the site.
1.1 - Two new north building entrances integrate engaging landscape with stairs, seating terraces,
and enhanced vegetation. These spaces help transition from the lower walkway elevation to the
building Finished Floor Elevation.
1.1 - Increased elevation of the landscape area along the north side is limited to the two building
entrances due to fl oodplain limitations that only allow for a few inches of increased planting height
elsewhere along the north facade.
1.1 - The feasibility of an accessible entrance was studied at each location; however, 4’ of elevation
change at building 2 and 5’ at building 3 would require approximately 50’ length of ramp and
70’ length of ramp respectively. Along with fl oodplain model complications, the design team
determined the ramp’s visual obstruction overshadowed its benefi ts. Building entrances elsewhere
throughout the site better accommodate accessible path of travel without signifi cant visual impact.
2.2 - Northwest corner has been reprogrammed to house residential units with corner
balconies.
2.2 - A corner balcony has been introduced to the northwest corner of Building 3 to
distinguish the approach from Folsom/Olson.
2.2 - Continuous metal panel tone/profi le at corner volume adds variation along north
elevation and identifi es the northwest corner as a beacon that bookends the site.
2.2 - Building 3 Waste has moved to the West elevation, to alleviate the northwest corner
from back-of house program.
2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel
requires truck access to transformers for service, which prevents the Bldg 2 transformers
from being located on another side of Building 2.
2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to southside of building. Landscaping to be revised to
provide Xcel access.
2.3 - Similar to DAB recommendation for transformer screening at north elevation, screening
has been introduced at the transformers on Building 1 to help reduce visual clutter.
3.1 - The design team studied adding a raised planter on the west side of building 3. We are
proposing to add a raised planter along the middle of the building, but would like to keep
the narrow at-grade planter for the rest of the building length. We feel that a raised planter
further accentuates the heaviness of the building podium, whereas small plant material at
grade softens the building transition to the ground plane. The DAB determined that although
the planting depth west of building 3 is minimal, that building and site redesign was not a
worthwhile endeavor to potentially add a few additional feet of planting.
3.1 - The landscape architect studied adding raised planters on the east side of building
1 to transition between the building and fi nished grade elevation, and would like to keep
the planting area at grade, which allows for a wider planting area for larger plant material
including small columnar trees, which better screen units and bridge where the building
meets grade.
3.3 - The depth of the arc along Boulder Creek Trail has been studied and evolved with
design iterations, a few of which are included on this sheet; the design team feels the arc
size is suitable for trail users while simultaneously creating a substantial amount of usable
park space. Additionally, the arc alignment preserves existing honey locust trees within the
lawn that the design team worked closely with Boulder staff to preserve and any revisions
to trail alignment would compromise the preservation of these trees.
3.3 - The creek path intersects with the Boulder Creek Trail at a 65 degree on the west
side and an 85 degree on the east side. We feel that the 4.5’ wide pinch point and angles
of these path intersections will deter cyclists from shortcutting to the bridge. Previous
renditions of this path alignment are included on this sheet to recognize the design studies
and development thought process.
2.1 - An accessible entry has been added to the west elevation of Building 3; the accessible
parking spaces have been relocated further south in the western parking lot for adjacency
to the new accessible building entry. The bike room entry has also shifted share this entry
point; the raised crosswalk across the parking lot has been relocated to align with this new
entry.
1.2 - New corner balconies and landscaping updates help create a portal at the north-south
connection between buildings 2 and 3 to help draw users towards the building entries through the
corridors between buildings.
1.2 - The north site entries between buildings 1&2 and buildings 2&3 have been updated to
look and function more like the building entrances south of the buildings. Reusing site materials
for wayfi nding, concrete linear pavers extend out to the Olson Drive sidewalk to create a
distinguishable plaza-like entry, bringing users into the site. Columnar trees line both sides of the
plaza entrance building buildings 2&3, directing users towards building entrances through the
landscape corridor. Additionally stone seat walls anchor the plaza spaces as an entry feature
carried throughout the rest of the site design.
DESIGN TEAM RESPONSE
2023.04.07
Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
85 of 141
2
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
The fl ood modelling uses existing cross sectional data from the
Millennium Harvest House site; these cross sections are shown
across the site. In order for the fl ood model to succeed, the grading
at the sections must remain similar to the existing conditions.
Bldg 1
Transformers
Entry (non-accessible)
Entry (accessible)
’()*()*’-()*()*/1).11
()*
020010
()*+,()*
104
53
0
Bldg 2 TransformersBldg 3 Transformers
Bldg 3 Waste
2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to 2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to ransformers relocated to
southside of building. Landscaping to be southside of building. Landscaping to be southside osouthside osouthside osouthside osouthside of building. Landscaping to be
revised to provide Xcel access.revised to provide Xcel access.
2.2 - Northwest corner has been
reprogrammed to house residential
units with corner balconies.
2.1 - An accessible entry has been
added to the west elevation of
Building 3; the accessible parking
spaces have been relocated further
south in the western parking lot for
adjacency to the new accessible
building entry. The bike room entry
has also shifted share this entry
point; the raised crosswalk across
the parking lot has been relocated to
align with this new entry.align with this new entry.()-*ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE ()-*()-*PARKINGPARKINGPARKINGPARKINGPARKING2.2 - Building 3 Waste has
moved to the West elevation, to
alleviate the northwest corner
from back-of house program.
DAB PRESENTATION
2022.12.14
fl oodplain cross section104
2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the 2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the creening has been introduced at the
transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Xcel
requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service, requires truck access to transformers for service,
being located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. being located on another side of Building 2. being located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2. ng located on another side of Building 2.
1.1 - Entries added to north
elevation of both Buildings 2 and 3elevation of both Buildings 2 and 3
CROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALKCROSSWALK
Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
86 of 141
3
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
-
! .
-
.
-.
- .
$ -$.
-.
* "
"+ ’+ /
*
* + / ’
!0"""
!1 #0
!*
* "**"
"*
* "#""
0""
* #"
00
+ /&*
* + / "
"""""
"
#*
* !
""+ /&
(2 &2 &2
$&’ ($( )!) ( * *(+
!) 1345 28th | The Standard at Boulder | Design Advisory Board | 2022.12.14
3.2 - Variation in parapet heights adds to programmatic distinction
in response to diagrammatic parti: lower parapets at entr y slots and
raised parapet at metal bar/backbone.
General Discussion - In response to DAB remarks regarding prominence
of this southeast corner as entry marker along 28th into Boulder:
• the shifted balcony to the edge of the building/unit differentiate the
darkest brick mass.
• textured brick coursing between windows adds a fi ner scale of detail
to the design and differentiates this darkest brick mass to create a
bookend to the elevation.
3.2 - Align glazing and mullions throughout
amenity spaces to respond to programmatic
distinction.
3.1 - Refer to design studies
on subsequent sheet regarding
landscape buffer.
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
DAB PRESENTATION
2022.12.14
1.3 - Introducing a secondary tone of metal panel for the two metal
profi les offers a subtle variation in materiality, while maintaining true
to the project’s diagrammatic parti. The secondary tone and profi le
of the metal panel cladding offers a 3-over-1 and 1-over-3 language
for Buildings 1&2 and for Building 3 respectively.
2.3 - Similar to DAB recommendation
for transformer screening at north
elevation, screening has been
introduced at the transformers on
Building 1 to help reduce visual
clutter.
Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
87 of 141
4
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
3.1 - The landscape architect studied adding raised planters on the east
side of building 1 to transition between the building and fi nished grade
elevation, and would like to keep the planting area at grade, which allows
for a wider planting area for larger plant material including small columnar
trees, which better screen units and bridge where the building meets grade.
DESIGN STUDY - Elevation Enlargement - at grade planting
DESIGN STUDY - Elevation Enlargement - raised planters
Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
88 of 141
5
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
1-over-3Building 3 ;
:
1;1
:
1345 28th | The Standard at Boulder | Design Advisory Board | 2022.12.14
:9
T5 :5
:U
1 1T1U
1 ::T1U
1 T1U
:TU
J
:5
TJ 5
5U
-
! .
-
.
-.
- .
$ -$.
-.
DAB PRESENTATION
2022.12.14
2.2 - Continuous metal panel tone/
profi le at corner volume adds
variation to identify the nor thwest
corner as a beacon.
2.2 - A corner balcony has been
introduced to the northwest corner
of Building 3 to distinguish the
approach from Folsom/Olson.
1.2 - New corner balconies and
landscaping updates help create
a portal at the north-south
connection between buildings 2
and 3.
1.1 - Entries added to north elevation
of both Buildings 2 and 3.
2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the
transformers to help reduce visual clutter. Refer to
fl ood model exhibit; the transformer locations are
limited based on site constraints, including Xcel access,
grading, fl ood plain and the 360-degree front-of-house
nature of the buildings.
1.3 - Introducing a secondary tone of metal panel for the two metal
profi les offers a subtle variation in materiality, while maintaining true
to the project’s diagrammatic parti. The secondary tone and profi le
of the metal panel cladding offers a 3-over-1 and 1-over-3 language
for Buildings 1&2 and for Building 3 respectively. Building 2 3-over-1Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
89 of 141
6
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
;
:
;
:
1345 28th | The Standard at Boulder | Design Advisory Board | 2022.12.14
:9T5 :5:U1 1T1U1 ::T1U1 T1U :TUJ :5TJ 55U- ! .- .-. - .$ -$.-.
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
DAB PRESENTATION
2022.12.14
DAB PRESENTATION
2022.12.14
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
2.3 - Screening has been introduced at the
transformers to help reduce visual clutter.
Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
90 of 141
7
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
;
:
;
:
1345 28th | The Standard at Boulder | Design Advisory Board | 2022.12.14
:9T5 :5:U1 1T1U1 ::T1U1 T1U:TUJ:5TJ 55U- ! .- .-. - .$ -$.-.
1.1 / 1.4 - Entries added
to north elevation of both
Buildings 2 and 3.
3.2 - Variation in parapet heights adds
to programmatic distinction in response
to programmatic parti: lower parapets
at entry slots and raised parapet at
metal bar/backbone.
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
DAB PRESENTATION
2022.12.14
10 20 FT
10 20 FT
BLDG 3 NORTH ENTRANCE STAIRS
BLDG 2 NORTH ENTRANCE STAIRS
BLDG 3 NORTH ENTRANCE RAMP
DESIGN STUDY
1.1 - The feasibility of an accessible entrance was studied at each
location; however, 4’ of elevation change at building 2 and 5’ at building
3 would require approximately 50’ length of ramp and 70’ length of ramp
respectively. Along with fl oodplain model complications, the design team
determined the ramp’s visual obstruction overshadowed its benefi ts.
Building entrances elsewhere throughout the site better accommodate
accessible path of travel without signifi cant visual impact.
1.1 - North landscape entrances at
buildings 2 and 3 introduce terraced seating
destinations as feature elements.
BLDG 2 NORTH ENTRANCE RAMP
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
91 of 141
8
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
;
:
;
:
1345 28th | The Standard at Boulder | Design Advisory Board | 2022.12.14
:9T5 :5:U1 1T1U1 ::T1U1 T1U:TUJ:5TJ 55U- ! .- .-. - .$ -$.-.
1.2 - New corner balconies and
landscaping updates help create a
portal at the north-south connection
between buildings 2 and 3.
1.3 - Introducing a secondary tone of metal panel for the two metal
profi les offers a subtle variation in materiality, while maintaining
true to the project’s diagrammatic parti. The secondary tone and
profi le of the metal panel cladding offers a 3-over-1 and 1-over-3
language for Buildings 1&2 and for Building 3 respectively.
DAB PRESENTATION
2022.12.14
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
1-over-3Building 3 Building 2 3-over-1REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
92 of 141
9
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
;
:
;
:
1345 28th | The Standard at Boulder | Design Advisory Board | 2022.12.14
:9T5 :5:U1 1T1U1 ::T1U1 T1U:TUJ:5TJ 55U- ! .- .-. - .$ -$.-.
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
DAB PRESENTATION
2022.12.14
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
West ElevationNorth Elevation
-
! .
- .-. - .
$ -$.
-.
* "
"+ ’+ /
*
* + / ’
!0"""
!1 #0
!*
* "**"
"*
* "#""
0""
* #"
00
+ /&*
* + / "
"""""
"
#*
* !
""+ /&
(2 &2 &2
$&’ ($( )!) ( * *(+
!$) /1345 28th | The Standard at Boulder | Design Advisory Board | 2022.12.14
West ElevationNorth Elevation
SITE REVIEW #4
2023.02,03
2.2 - A corner balcony has been
introduced to the northwest corner
of Building 3 to distinguish the
approach from Folsom/Olson.
2.2 - Building 3 Waste has moved to the West elevation, to
alleviate the northwest corner from back-of house program.alleviate the northwest corner from back-of house program.
2.3 - Bldg 3 Transformers relocated to southside of building.
Landscaping to be revised to provide Xcel access.Landscaping to be revised to provide Xcel access.
Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
93 of 141
10
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
-
! .
-
.
-.
- .
$ -$.
-.
* "
"+ ’+ /
*
* + / ’
!0"""
!1 #0
!*
* "**"
"*
* "#""
0 ""
* #"
00
+ /&*
* + / "
"""""
"
#*
* !
""+ /&
(2 &2 &2
$&’ ($( )!) ( * *(+
!$) /1345 28th | The Standard at Boulder | Design Advisory Board | 2022.12.14
2.1 - An accessible entry has been added to the west elevation
of Building 3; the accessible parking spaces have been relocated
further south in the western parking lot for adjacency to the new
accessible building entry. The bike room entry has also shifted
share this entry point; the raised crosswalk across the parking lot
has been relocated to align with this new entry,
2.2 - Building 3 Waste has moved to the
West elevation, to alleviate the northwest
corner from back-of house program.
2.2 - A corner balcony has been introduced to
the northwest corner of Building 3 to distinguish
the approach from Folsom/Olson.REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
DAB PRESENTATION
2022.12.14
Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
94 of 141
11
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
REVISED DESIGN
2023.04.07
DESIGN STUDY - Elevation Enlargement - at grade planting
DESIGN STUDY - Elevation Enlargement - raised planters
3.1 - The design team studied adding a raised planter on the west side of building 3. We are proposing to
add a raised planter along the middle of the building, but would like to keep the narrow at-grade planter
for the rest of the building length. We feel that a raised planter further accentuates the heaviness of the
building podium, whereas small plant material at grade softens the building transition to the ground
plane. The DAB determined that although the planting depth west of building 3 is minimal, that building
and site redesign was not a worthwhile endeavor to potentially add a few additional feet of planting.
-
! .
-
.
-.
- .
$ -$.
-.
* "
"+ ’+ /
*
* + / ’
!0"""
!1 #0
!*
* "**"
"*
* "#""
0""
* #"
00
+ /&*
* + / "
"""""
"
#*
* !
""+ /&
(2 &2 &2
$&’ ($( )!) ( * *(+
!$) /1345 28th | The Standard at Boulder | Design Advisory Board | 2022.12.14
DAB PRESENTATION
2022.12.14
Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
95 of 141
12
2023.04.07 • RESPONSE TO DAB • 1345 2 8 TH STREE T
Key Issue #1: Review the building relationship to the new street and public access
ways to provide recommendations to help mitigate the visual impact of the service
areas and improve human scale elements like entries.
Regarding Key Issue #1 the Design Advisory Board recommends ....
1.1 ... creating more of an appealing north façade, particularly with an accessible
entrance, possibly a landscape entrance, and more architecturally appealing
elements.
1.2 Additionally, celebrating all other landscape entries can provide a much more
throughout layout and wayfi nding path for the development.
1.3 Relating to the architectural design, the board recommends articulation around
the base of the buildings though texture and design, rather than having a fl at surface
such as the north façade.
1.4 Also, articulate more building material east to west on the north façade to create
a more street-facing façade.
Key Issue #2: Review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation
patterns and wayfi nding for different use types.
Regarding Key Issue #2 the Design Advisory Board advises ...
2.1 ... that accessible parking must coincide with accessible entries.
2.2 The board recommends addressing the northwest corner of the development with
a more appealing street-facing façade and more accessibility to entrances to create a
welcoming beacon.
2.3 Additionally, transformer locations and adequate screening should be evaluated
with the re-evaluation of the north façade.
Key Issue #3 & #4: Staff would like additional attention paid to the buffer space
around the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots of Buildings 1 & 3 and
along the walkways between the buildings. Also, review the buffer space around
the ground fl oor residential units along the parking lots walkways for privacy and
livability.
Regarding Key Issues #3 & 4, the Design Advisory Board recommends ...
3.1 ... applying treatments that are being used in the courtyard to the exterior of the
building, in both architectural and landscape solutions and evaluate additional buffer
solutions to the west side.
3.2 Finally, approaching the project with a fi ner scale to bring functionality should be
considered with furthering the programmatic distinction.
3.3 Regarding the creek path, prevent bridge shortcuts and further evaluate the depth
of which the arc enters the property.
General Discussion: In addition to the formal minutes from the 2022.12.14 DAB
meeting, the Board deliberated further design recommendations.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD
2022.12.14
3.3 - The creek path intersects with the Boulder Creek Trail at a 65
degree on the west side and an 85 degree on the east side. We feel
that the 4.5’ wide pinch point and angles of these path intersections
will deter cyclists from shortcutting to the bridge. Previous renditions
of this path alignment are included on this sheet to recognize the
design studies and development thought process.
DESIGN ITERATION
JULY 2021
EXISTING CONDITION
DESIGN STUDY
CREEK PARK & REGIONAL TRIAL ALIGNMENT
DESIGN ITERATION
MARCH 2022
3.3 - The depth of the arc along Boulder Creek Trail has been studied and
evolved with design iterations, a few of which are included on this sheet; the
design team feels the arc size is suitable for trail users while simultaneously
creating a substantial amount of usable park space. Additionally, the arc
alignment preserves existing honey locust trees within the lawn that the
design team worked closely with Boulder staff to preserve and any revisions
to trail alignment would compromise the preservation of these trees.
CURRENT SITE PLAN
2023.04.07
Attachment G - Applicant's Response to DAB
96 of 141
2023.04.07 • TREE PRESE RVAT ION • 1345 28TH ST REE T
1
1938
The site is essentially undeveloped prairie. The
trees on site are mostly limited to the Boulder
Creek banks with some trees dispersed to the
nor th.
The Boulder Creek edge is more clearly defi ned
and fl anked by trees along the creek. Select
trees have been removed for the construction of
the Millennium Harvest House Hotel and a large
impervious parking lot at eastern edge of site. The
southern side of creek is developed with individual
cottages and associated impervious parking lots.
The site is further developed with impervious
surfaces. The northwest of the site has expanded
parking lots, new tennis courts, and a covered
tennis court. Minimal trees added to building
courtyard and parking area. The south side of
the creek is developed with new tennis courts and
additional parking lot.
The proposed site plan offers bountiful courtyards
and open space filled with permeable surfaces,
which will reduce the urban heat island effect.
Boulder Creek will be flanked with shady trees and
open space. Impervious surfaces are concentrated
to the parking lots and the building footprint area
is routed through on-site water quality gardens
that are held away from the creek. Signifi cant
landscaping has been added in the form of more
trees and a landscape buffer on the eastern edge
of the site.
1971 2023 Proposed Site1999 (- 2021)
1959
Millennium Har vest House Hotel is built .
Historic Timeline
Site Aerials Over the Years
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
97 of 141
2023.04.07 • TREE PRESE RVAT ION • 1345 28TH ST REE T
2
SITE CONSTRAINTS
The Millennium property is located in the Boulder Creek Floodplain, High Hazard Zone and
Conveyance Zone – any development of the site will require a hydraulic analysis that shows that
the proposed project does not adversely affect adjacent structures. Additionally, any proposed
structures will need to be located outside the High Hazard Zone and Conveyance Zone.
The fi gure included in this exhibit shows the modeled fl ow paths with arrows illustrating how water
would be fl owing through the area during a fl ooding event. The Millennium property is adjacent to
three separate fl ow paths and just south of another. Due to how the water is fl owing through this
area, changes to any of the four fl ow paths will push or pull water differently through the site, which
would result in more and less water in each fl ow path. The fl ow path with more water will show an
increase in water surface elevation. Because of this the proposed development cannot signifi cantly
alter how water is fl owing through the site.
JVA and ACE have analyzed multiple confi gurations of the site to develop a grading plan that meets
fl ood criteria. Due to the complexity of balancing fl ow across these four fl ow paths and dealing with
different fl ow regimes this process was extremely complicated and resulted a very sensitive model
where slight changes in the grading can result in large changes in water surface elevations.
EXISTING BUILDING
The existing building could technically be upgraded if the upgrades did not exceed 50% of the
assessed value, however, given the condition of the current building, the amount of work to upgrade
the building would exceed 50% of the assessed value. Consequently, if the existing building were
to be updated it would need to be fl oodproofed to the City of Boulder’s fl ood protection elevation,
which is 5296.41 NAVD (2 ft above the 100-year water surface elevation at the upstream most
corner of the structure). This would result in fl oodproofi ng to a height of approximately 8.5 ft along
the eastern end of the building. It should be noted that the current structure is considered a critical
facility and will need to be fl oodproofed to the lower of 1-foot above the 500-year fl oodplain
elevation (5297.42) or 2-feet above the 100-year fl oodplain elevation.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
Any future development on the site will require an extensive grading plan so that the development
would balance fl ows and not adversely affect adjacent structures. Even removing the current
building and not replacing it would alter fl ow splits and raise water surfaces.
Regardless of the building footprint(s) of future developments, there is not much that can be done on
this site that would not require an extensive hydraulic analysis and signifi cant grading changes to
the site. The fi nish fl oor elevations (FFEs) for the proposed buildings are required to be set at least
2 feet above the 100-year fl oodplain elevation per City of Boulder’s code. To minimize the required
fi ll on-site, separate buildings are proposed and each is approximately 5 feet above existing grade in
order to achieve the 2’ requirement.
Adding small site walls around an existing tree to avoid cut/fi ll at the base of a tree can be done, but
it will need to be done selectively and cannot affect the geometry utilized in the hydraulic model. Due
to the grading required to meet fl ood criteria, the trees that can be saved are very limited.
Saving specifi c trees that would affect the modeled geometry would result in substantial design
changes, and would probably prohibit the project from meeting fl oodplain criteria.
Site Grading and Flood Model
Boulder Creek Floodplain
Civil ▪ Water Resources ▪Environmental375 East Horsetooth Road, Building 5, Fort Collins, CO 80525Phone (970) 226-0120 / Fax (970) 226-0121www.acewater.comAnderson Consulting Engineers, Inc11BOULDER CREEKFLOW PATHSMILLENNIUM PROPERTYREDEVELOPMENTLEGEND
FLOW DIRECTIONS
FLOW PATHS
MODEL CROSS SECTIONS
Flood Zone - Proposed Building Linework
[100-year fl oodplain, conveyance, and high-hazard]
HIGH HAZARD 100-YEAR FLOODPLAINCONVEYANCE BOULDER CREEK
Modeled Flow Paths
[arrows illustrating how water would be fl owing through the area during a fl ooding event]
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
98 of 141
4 story building footprints
10’ building offset
conveyance zone
high hazard zone
city identified trees for preservation
shady courtyards (modified growing
conditions)
1L2023.06.09 • TREE PRESERVATION • 1345 28TH STREET
Site Constraints
Architectural Improvements to Existing Trees
Architectural Improvements
legend
As they mature, trees adjust to succeed in the
environment where they grow. Sudden changes,
above or below ground, stress the tree. One significant
disturbance or stressor may be terminal and small
stressors can compound their effects enough to kill a
tree in months or years. Aside from the trees within
the footprint of the structures, these buildings impose
at least 3 additional disturbances that will severely
decrease the chance of success for nearby trees.
1. Mature trees within 10’ of the proposed building
walls would require significant pruning to their
canopies which weakens them. Moreover, roots
typically spread as far as the tree canopy, so their roots
would be cut for building foundations. Construction
equipment within close proximity will compact the soil
disturbing water infiltration, eliminating air pockets, and
damaging root health. If proper tree protection zones
are created, construction may not be feasible.
2. For the duration of construction as buildings and
neighboring trees are removed, there will be a dramatic
change to the tree’s microclimates, submitting trees to
unfamiliar amounts of sun, wind, snow, and changed
water availability.
3. Finally, even after the long but temporary stresses
of construction, many trees – if saved – would be in
permanently changed environments. Specifically, the
courtyards are surrounded by four-story buildings.
Most of the courtyards will receive between 2-4
hours of limited direct sunlight per day at the peak
of the growing season, drastically modified growing
conditions from the current full sun south exposure.
For any tree in Boulder, these are difficult growing
conditions.
3
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
99 of 141
2L2023.06.09 • TREE PRESERVATION • 1345 28TH STREET
proposed conditions
existing conditions
proposed topography
trees disturbed by architecture
existing trees
existing trees
existing building
boulder creek
boulder creek
proposed building
Site Constraints - Perspective
existing trees selected by City of
Boulder staff as opportunity for
preservation
92.0
91.0 XX
X
1345 28th St, Boulder, CO 80302 | SITE REVIEW #2 | 2022.08.19
Landscape Plan | L1.3
N
0 50 100 200 FT
KEY MAP
existing trees disturbed by proposed building
existing trees remaining
legend
BOULDE
R
C
R
E
E
K 28TH STREETOLSON DRIVE
BLDG 3 BLDG 2
BLDG 1
Architectural Improvements to Existing Trees
When impacts of the proposed building are overlayed on the site, the opportunity trees
shown as highlighted by City staff are greatly impacted.
Along with the building footprint, offset, and courtyard microclimates, the trees are
impacted by the proposed building elevation, which is approximately five feet above
existing grade. The building elevations are determined by flood elevations.
ADA access to each building from multiple entry points requires significant grading to
the areas surrounding the buildings. In addition, a required multi-use path between
buildings one and two designed to meet city standards greatly limits the ability to
adjust grading within direct proximity of the path.
4
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
100 of 141
2023.04.07 • TREE PRESE RVAT ION • 1345 28TH ST REE T
5
Olson Drive
Boulder Transportation Master Plan
The 2019 Boulder Transportation Master Plan envisions
improved multi-modal access through the proposed site that
connects to existing and future infrastructure. The Plan also
identifi es improved vehicular access and circulation through
extension of Olson Drive from 28th Street to Folsom Street.
Several trees of excellent health are located along the northern
property line that are also the centerline of the future Olson
Drive.
A site layout option was presented to City staff early in design
that preserved the trees on the north side of the site by only
providing necessary access and avoiding constructing half of
Olson Drive. This allowed for more parking to be located on the
north side of the buildings and would provide more fl exibility in
accommodating the existing trees. Based on other constraints
such as avoiding impacts to the base fl ood elevations for nearby
Boulder Creek, the parking lots are limited to the east and west
sides of the site. Several trees located in an existing curb island
along the east side of the site are now located within the drive
aisle necessary to accommodate the eastern parking lot.
To preserve tree 117 at the western access drive, the design will
incorporate a slightly taller curb. This tree is in areas of limited
grading, but would require placement of 3-6" of fi ll to avoid
impacting base fl ood elevations.
Tree 117
123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123
116116116116116116
112112
110110
140140140
137137137
157157157157157
135135
138138138138138138138138
111111111111111111111111
110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110
109109109109109109109109109109109109109
118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118
120120120120120120120120
121121121121121121121121121121121121121121121121 122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122122 124124124124124124124124124 125125125125125125125125125125 126126126126 127127127127127127127127 128128128128 129129129129129129129129129129 130130130130130130130130130130130130130130130130130130130 131131131131131131131131131131131131131131131131 132132 133133133133133133133133133133133133133133133133133133133133133133133133133 134134134134134134134134134134134134134 141141141141141141141141141141141141141141141141141141141141141141 142142142142142142142142142142142142142142142142142142142 143143143143143143143143143143143143143143143143143143143 144144144144144144144144144144144144144144144144144144144144144144144 145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145 146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146146 147147147147147147147147147147147147147147147
148148148148148148148148148148148148148148148148148148148148148148148148148
149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149149
152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152152
151151151151
113
136136136
171171171171
300300
Olson Drive
Folsom Street28th Street118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118118
Olson Drive along north edge of Site
2019 Boulder Transportation Master Plan
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
101 of 141
2023.04.07 • TREE PRESE RVAT ION • 1345 28TH ST REE T
6
Site Grading
Cut and Fill
18” + CUT
6” TO 18” CUT
6” CUT TO 6” FILL
6” TO 18” FILL
18”+ FILL
GRADING CUT / FILL
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
102 of 141
3L2023.06.09 • TREE PRESERVATION • 1345 28TH STREET
Site Constraints - Perspective
Grading Impacts on Existing Trees
proposed elevation within 6”
of existing tree elevation
proposed elevation 18” or greater
than existing tree elevation
proposed elevation 6-18” greater
than existing tree elevation
boulder creeklegend
existing topography
proposed fill
existing trees - proposed grading elevation < 6” difference
existing trees - proposed grading elevation > 6-18” difference
existing trees - proposed grading elevation > 18” difference
Note: Proposed grading elevations dictated by
floodplain model requirements. Proposed elevations
have very minimal opportunity for refinement due to
sensitive model implications.
Existing trees beyond the building footprint and offset are adversely impacted by
proposed grading required for the flood model.
Any grade change – cut or fill- greater than 6” will negatively impact the tree’s health
and viability. Both cutting soil elevation to expose the tree root flare and burying the
tree base/roots in more than 6” of soil choking out oxygen to the roots, will likely be
fatal.
In order to preserve trees with greater than 6” difference in the proposed elevations,
site walls for soil retention are needed to preserve the tree’s existing grade. Flood model
requirements determine whether these walls are feasible.
7
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
103 of 141
92.0
91.0 XX
X
1345 28th St, Boulder, CO 80302 | SITE REVIEW #2 | 2022.08.19
Landscape Plan | L1.3
N
0 50 100 200 FT
KEY MAP
existing trees unfeasible for preservation
existing trees remaining
legend
BOULDE
R
C
R
E
E
K 28TH STREETOLSON DRIVE
BLDG 3 BLDG 2
BLDG 1
4L2023.06.09 • TREE PRESERVATION • 1345 28TH STREET
Site Constraints - Sections
existing topography
proposed fill
68
69
86building73
85
74
88
75
84
72
89
76
8390
60
82
63
80
75
proposed topography
existing tree number
buildingbuildingbuilding02
03 07
paving pavingbuilding
sloped lawnboulder creek pathrain garden
walk
Grading Impacts on Existing Trees
Tree Section 02 Profile
Tree Section 03 Profile
Tree Section 07 Profile
20’0’
SCALE 1” = 10’
20’0’
SCALE 1” = 10’
20’0’
SCALE 1” = 10’
87
Sections at critical project locations (both significant grade change and
identified opportunity trees) show the difference between proposed grade
required for flood modeling and existing grade. The grade difference ranges
from less than 6 inches to greater than 5 feet.
The Boulder Creek Path and park programmed uses as previously designed,
are shown in relation to the existing trees and their elevations.
Trees 68, 84-86, and 88 have been identified as within 24” of proposed grade
and feasible for retention.
8
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
104 of 141
92.0
91.0 XX
X
1345 28th St, Boulder, CO 80302 | SITE REVIEW #2 | 2022.08.19
Landscape Plan | L1.3
N
0 50 100 200 FT
KEY MAP
existing trees unfeasible for preservation
existing trees remaining
legend
BOULDE
R
C
R
E
E
K 28TH STREETOLSON DRIVE
BLDG 3 BLDG 2
BLDG 1
03 07
02
5L2023.06.09 • TREE PRESERVATION • 1345 28TH STREET
Site Design - Sections
existing topography
proposed fill
68
69
86building73
85
74
88
75
84
72
89 87
76
8390
60
82
63
80
75
proposed topography
existing tree number
buildingbuildingbuildingpaving pavingproposed tree wellbuilding
trees preserved at existing gradeboulder creek path lawnrain garden
planting planting
Design Revisions to Preserve Trees
Tree Section 02 Profile
Tree Section 03 Profile
Tree Section 07 Profile
20’0’
SCALE 1” = 10’
20’0’
SCALE 1” = 10’
20’0’
SCALE 1” = 10’
walk
The proposed sections integrate the existing trees feasible for retention and
the adjusted programming that accommodates these trees.
Trees 68, 84-86, and 88 are shown as preserved with landscape walls to
retain soil, for proposed grading.
Tree 68 requires a 15” depth tree well around the entire tree and trees 84-
86 and 88 require a 24” tall wall at the highest point. Adding small walls
around existing trees to avoid cut/fill can be done selectively to not affect the
hydraulic model.
9
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
105 of 141
BUILDING 3 BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1
6L2023.06.09 • TREE PRESERVATION • 1345 28TH STREET
Preserved Trees
Existing Trees Feasible for Preservation
existing trees remaining after constraints
architectural improvements
grading disturbances
city requirements
undesirable for preservation
The following site constraints determine trees
eligible for preservation.
Architectural Improvements caused by
construction and drastic changes to trees’
microclimate conditions.
Differences between existing and proposed
grades threaten the health of existing trees.
City’s requirement for east-west Olson
Drive and parking layout standards.
Identified trees that are undesirable for
preservation because of tree size, species,
or growing conditions in raised planters.
After all constraints were identified, (6) potential
trees are feasible for preservation.
legend
Site Constraints Summary
10
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
106 of 141
BUILDING 3 BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 3 BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1
7L2023.06.09 • TREE PRESERVATION • 1345 28TH STREET
health 1 - tree to be removed: 84
health 2 - tree to be removed: 74
Existing Trees
Trees in Declining Health to be Removed
legend
Poor Health
The project is removing (158) existing trees on site
that have been categorized by a licensed arborist
as being in ether:
(1) Dead - Little to no indication of life.
(2) Poor - The tree is in decline and likely will not
recover. Foliage quality and color is poor. Dead or
missing branhces comprise over 50% of the tree
cnaoy. There may be serious structural deficiencies
in the tree.
There are (84) existing trees with a rating (1) very
poor health that are a hazard if not removed. The
additional (74) trees with a rating (2) very poor
health will need to be removed in the near future if
not with this project. Some of these species consist
of Green Ash and Siberian Elm (invasive). Since
these trees are in severe decline, they should be
removed with any development, and should not
be counted as “healthy long-lived trees” requiring
mitigation.
-x
-x
11
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
107 of 141
D
AFBN
0 20 40 80 FT1"=40'-0"
TREE REMOVAL & PROTECTION PLAN - PROPOSED CONDITIONS01
Tree Inventory- Proposed Conditions | EX2
BUILDING 3 BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1
8L2023.06.09 • TREE PRESERVATION • 1345 28TH STREET
NEW TREE
LEGEND
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
Proposed Tree Plan
Existing Preserved Trees and New Trees
TOTAL # OF EXISITING TREES:
TOTAL NEW TREES
TREES TO BE REMOVED:
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN:
TOTAL EXISTING TREES + NEW TREES:
HEALTH CONDITION 1+2
HEALTH CONDITION 3+4
472
440
611
279
171
158
121
PROPOSED TREE LEGEND
Proposed Trees
The project preserves (171 out of (472) existing
trees and adds (440) new trees, for a total of
(611) trees on site. Of the healthy, long-lived
trees along Boulder Creek contributing to the
riparian plant community, 87% of mature trees
will be preserved. The healthy trees being
removed are replaced at more than a 3:1 ratio.
Over time this will double the site’s existing tree
canopy, providing ample cooling and shading
of the site, helping to minimize effects on micro
climates from heat island affect.
The project also decreases site impervious area
by 12%, removing impermeable hard tennis
courts and replacing with soft landscaped and
recreational areas such as lawn, planting areas,
dog park, and crusher fines trails.
12
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
108 of 141
BUILDING 3 BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1
9L2023.06.09 • TREE PRESERVATION • 1345 28TH STREET
Proposed Understory Planting Plan Focused on Creek Habitat
SELECTIVE PLANTING REVEGETATION
RIPARIAN SHRUBLAND
Goldenrod - Solidago Canadensis
Switch Grass- Panicum Virgatum
Lupinus Argenteus- Silvery Lupine
Red Feathers - Echium Amoenum
Chokecherry- Prunus virginiana
Rubber Rabbitbrush - Chrysothamnus Nauseosus
Currant- Ribes
Red Osier Dogwood - Cornus Sericea
American Plum- Prunus americana
American Plum- Prunus americana
Skunkbush Sumac- Rhus Trilobata
Chokecherry- Prunus virginiana
Skunkbush Sumac- Rhus Trilobata
Golden Currant- Ribes Aureum
Wax Currant- Ribes Cereum
POLLINATOR PLANTING
UNDERSTORY PLANTING
Creek Bank Restoration Plan
Riparian Habitat
POPULUS DELTOIDES - 5 GAL
POPULUS X ACUMINATA - 15 GAL
POPULUS X ACUMINATA - 5 GAL
POPULUS X ACUMINATA - 2” CAL
SALIX AMYGDALOIDES - 15 GAL
ULMUS AMERICANA ‘ACCOLADE’ - 15 GAL
ALNUS INCANA TENUIFOLIA - 15 GAL
ALNUS INCANA TENUIFOLIA - 2” CAL
POPULUS DELTOIDES - 15 GAL
POPULUS DELTOIDES - 2” CAL
BOULDER CREEK PARK TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE
ACER NEGUNDO - 5 GAL
ACER NEGUNDO - 15 GAL
ACER NEGUNDO ‘SENSATION’ - 2” CAL
The Boulder Creek corridor is an important aquatic, riparian and upland
habitat in the heart of the city. It is a project priority to preserve and
enhance the corridor’s ecological values.
In addition to increasing the amount of trees on site by 30%, the project
enhances the existing natural ecological function of the site, conserving
and supporting habitat. Invasive species along the creek bank will be
removed, native plant communities established along the riparian edge,
and pollinator pockets incorporated. The understory is important in bank
establishment and erosion control, as well as minimizing recreation use
and unwanted access to riparian areas and steep slopes.
13
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
109 of 141
14
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
110 of 141
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1
11L2023.06.09 • TREE PRESERVATION • 1345 28TH STREET
Existing Tree Inventory
Opportunity Trees Selected by City of Boulder
CITY IDENTIFIED TREES FOR PRESERVATION
TREE HEALTH :
(1) Dead - Little to no indication of life.
(2) Poor - The tree is in decline and likely will not
recover. Foliage quality and color is poor. Dead or
missing branhces comprise over 50% of the tree
cnaoy. There may be serious structural deficiencies
in the tree.
(3) Fair - The vigor is normal or reduce. There
is an accumulation of dead branches. Defects
are present in the canopy that may or may not
be correctable. There may be an active pest
infestation. the cnaopy has been reduced or is
asymmetrical.
(4) Good - The vigor is normal for the tree species
with minor twig dieback. Defects are minor and
easily corrected. The canopy may have minor
asymmetry which could be due to pruning for
clearance.
legend
-x
-x
15
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
111 of 141
89, 83, 90, 82
141-143102113 145-146 149-152
84, 88, 85
117-120 148
85, 86, 87
131-134 157 158 159
60, 61 62, 63 62 64, 65, 6663 65
35, 36
67, 68
41, 4238
67
4339, 40
68
44, 45, 463940
73, 74 75, 76, 72, 77 102, 796970
47, 48
44
49, 50, 51, 54
45
56
46
58, 4957
12L2023.06.09 • TREE PRESERVATION • 1345 28TH STREET
Existing Tree Inventory
Opportunity Trees Selected by City of Boulder
16
Attachment H - Applicant's Tree Exhibit
112 of 141
Standard at Boulder Operating Plan
Draft - 04/06/2023
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
113 of 141
PREAMBLE 2
PURPOSE 3
GUIDING PRINCIPLES 3
Neighborhood 3
Building 3
Residents 3
Property Management 3
PROJECT DESIGN 3
RESIDENT LEASE AGREEMENT 4
Occupancy Limits 4
Legal Use 4
Controlled Substances 4
Smoking Not Allowed 5
Noise and/or Nuisances 5
Trash 5
Bicycles 5
Prohibited Items 5
Security 5
Parking 5
Evictions 6
ADMINISTRATION 6
Landmark Properties Leasing & Operations Office 6
MAINTENANCE 6
Annual Inspections & Repairs 7
Landscaping 7
Boulder Creek Programming & Maintenance 7
Exterior 7
Resident Responsibilities in Property Maintenance 7
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATION 7
Complaint Process 8
Complaint Contact 8
Dispute Resolution 8
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
114 of 141
PREAMBLE
The Standard at Boulder, located at 1345 28th Street in Boulder, is part of the Landmark
Properties suite of communities. Landmark Properties has an established portfolio of
student housing properties across the country in university communities such as Fort
Collins, Berkeley, Austin, and many more.
The Standard at Boulder property is a key gateway to Boulder with its proximity to CU Boulder
and U.S. Hwy 36. Redevelopment of the site brings vibrancy to the area through a development
that is focused on the public realm and activation of Boulder Creek.
This project seeks to provide for the growing demand for quality purpose-built student housing
generated by a steady increase in enrollment and the need of students to be centrally located in
Boulder. The creation of new units of student housing in 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedroom unit
configurations will serve to alleviate student pressure on housing supply in the Boulder market
and provide student housing in direct proximity to CU Boulder. Landmark Properties is pleased
to further its operational experience and excellence in the heart of Boulder.
PURPOSE
This Good Neighbor Statement of Operations is intended to:
●Inform the community of Landmark Properties’ standards of operation
●Educate new Landmark Properties tenants about expectations for behavior, and
share those expectations for behavior with the surrounding community.
●Define and communicate a process for reporting and resolving complaints
and/or conflicts between residents and neighbors
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Standard at Boulder, owned and operated by Landmark Properties, will be operated with
strict adherence to the following guiding principles:
Neighborhood
To contribute to a cohesive neighborhood that embraces diversity, engages in honest and
direct communication, that embraces advancement while celebrating its history, and that is
safe, welcoming and tolerant of all.
Building
To honor the rich history of the Millennium Harvest House and improve the Boulder
Creek experience for the Boulder community.
Residents
To attract responsible young adults seeking safe, high-quality housing while advancing
their education and contributing to the fabric of a diverse, welcoming and engaged
community.
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
115 of 141
Property Management
To ensure the safety and enjoyment of residents that can benefit from quality housing near
CU Boulder Main Campus and improve the quality of the surrounding area.
PROJECT DESIGN
The Standard at Boulder will transform the 15.9 acre property into a residential development
that significantly enhances the Boulder Creek path and its community amenities.
Much of the property is located in the High Hazard and Conveyance flood zones and the
remainder of the site is in the 100-year flood plain, limiting the site’s buildable area and
parking options. The proposed building footprint generally follows the built area of the
existing hotel structure.
Designed to work with the site, the project is planned to activate and improve the creek,
strengthen engagement to natural surroundings, and improve connectivity to existing multi-use
paths and neighborhoods. The buildings are carefully situated in the landscape to
accommodate the floodplain and will step down with the grade, helping to break down the
scale and create various outdoor rooms. Reorientation of the multi-use path is planned to
allow for safer thru-site circulation and to allow for improved access to the creek, creating a
larger public use area than currently exists.
The property is predominantly residential and located in close proximity to the University of
Colorado (CU and along key transportation corridors such as 28th Street and the Boulder Creek
path to enable the property to house a variety of individuals contributing to the Boulder
community. Neighborhood retail is located directly north of the site, with a grocery store and
many other service retail and restaurants within 5 minute walking distance. Given the proximity
to walking, biking, bus and car share, the Standard at Boulder is incredibly accessible for
alternate modes of transportation.
RESIDENT LEASE AGREEMENT
Leases and qualifying guarantors (“A third party, usually a parent, who guarantees fulfillment of
the terms of the lease on behalf of the tenant”)are required of every individual resident of
Landmark Properties’ communities. Each resident signs an individual “by-the-bed” lease
agreement under which they are responsible for abiding by both the terms of the lease and of
our Community Standards and under which Landmark Properties’ interests are secured with a
qualifying guarantor for each individual occupant.
The lease agreement has enumerated restrictions on activities and behaviors with the potential
to adversely impact neighbors including occupancy, outdoor gatherings, overnight guests, pets,
prohibited substances and substance abuse, smoking, noise, other nuisance activities, trash,
open burning and parking. The lease also includes very clear penalties for policy violation that
range from the imposition of fines to eviction depending on the severity of violation or
recurrence of unacceptable behavior. Among the lease policies are:
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
116 of 141
Occupancy Limits
Tenants are bound by the occupancy laws and regulations of the City of Boulder. The limits
for each unit are communicated to the tenant when they sign their lease. Violations can
result in criminal prosecutions and/or fines imposed by the City and/or Landmark
Properties.
Legal Use
Tenants shall use the property for lawful purposes ONLY. Conduct to the contrary shall be
deemed a material breach of the lease.
Controlled Substances
Tenant shall not use the property in any manner in actual or potential violation of federal, state
or local laws, regulations or ordinances, including controlled substance use that violates or
could violate any laws, regulations or ordinances.
Smoking Not Allowed
Smoking is not permitted. Any evidence of any kind of smoking results in an immediate
$1,000 fine plus costs to remediate damage and odor.
Noise and/or Nuisances
Tenants shall not make, create, or permit any noise or nuisance that will disturb the peace
and quiet enjoyment of the other tenants on the premises, neighbors, or other members of
the surrounding community.
Trash
Tenants shall not litter and shall use designated trash and recycling facilities, ensuring
their proper closure, in accordance with all City of Boulder regulations.
Bicycles
Bicycles are to be stored in designated areas only and any bicycles that appear abandoned or
not in working condition will be tagged and then removed within 5-days.
Prohibited Items
Motorcycles, motor scooters, mopeds, or other vehicles with internal combustion engines are
prohibited in any building within the Facility.
All pets and animals are prohibited in the Bedroom, the Unit, or anywhere else on the Facility
unless and until (a) Landlord has approved the pet or animal (which approval shall be granted
or withheld in Landlord’s sole discretion), (b) Landlord and Resident have executed an Animal
Addendum, and (c) paid applicable fees.
Smoking is prohibited in all areas of the Facility.
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
117 of 141
Illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia are prohibited in all areas of the Facility, including the Units.
Security
Landmark Properties uses state-of-the-art electronic access control and electronic locks
to secure individual units and each individual bedroom.
Parking
Landmark Properties purpose-designed a student housing concept that limits vehicle storage
and encourages multi-modes of transportation. Parking at the Standard at Boulder follows
SUMP
Principles (shared, unbundled, managed and paid), and is strictly managed through the
tenant’s lease agreement and 24/7 operations:
●Parking is separate (unbundled) from the tenant’s lease and included as an addendum
if the tenant purchases a parking permit
●Parking permits are required for tenants with vehicles and only a limited number of
permits can be designated by Landmark Properties to ensure availability of parking
onsite
●Parking permits are managed onsite by Landmark Properties and enforced
●Parking permits are paid by each tenant with a permit
●Landmark Properties secures a tow company contract to remove non-permitted
vehicles from the property, and Landmark Properties communicated and encourages
neighbors to report vehicles that may be tenants of Standard at Boulder to be towed
Evictions
In the event of non-payment, repeated or substantial violations of the lease, tenants may
be evicted in accordance with local laws.
Landmark Properties tenants are individually known by the in-house property managers who
oversee the property. In the event of any nuisance or noise complaint, or other lease violation,
immediate and personal contact is made by a Landmark Properties employee. Lease violators
are issued fines and subject to other penalties including lease termination at the discretion of
the manager and Landmark Properties.
All Landmark Properties’ communities participate in our trademarks “You Speak, We Listen”
customer service platform. Our residents self-report an overall customer satisfaction score in
excess of 97%. Community Managers performance bonuses are directly tied to customer
service KPIs including resident satisfaction and community reputation. The close proximity and
around-the-clock availability of Landmark Properties property managers also ensures neighbor
or community complaints receive immediate attention and resolution. All tenant and neighbor
contacts are documented and reported to property ownership for tracking and, if necessary, for
direct intervention with tenants.
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
118 of 141
ADMINISTRATION
Landmark Properties Leasing & Operations Office
There will be an on-site leasing and operations office at the Standard at Boulder to address
resident leasing, daily operations, and neighborhood relationships. Their contact information
will be updated on the community’s website (currently under development).
Community Rules & Regulations
Landmark Properties has a set of Community Rules & Regulations that is an exhibit to their
lease agreement that further establishes the expectations for residency. It is attached to the
Good Neighbor Agreement as a demonstration and is occasionally updated.
MAINTENANCE
Standard at Boulder, and all other Landmark Properties communities are maintained by a
full-time, in-house team of maintenance professionals. The staff is available 24x7 to
resolve maintenance or safety matters and to comply with City snow-removal regulations.
Annual Inspections & Repairs
Landmark Properties’ maintenance staff conducts thorough safety inspections of every unit
each year. In addition, the common areas in each property undergo deep cleaning, painting and,
if necessary, replacement of fixtures,flooring and/or safety equipment.
Landscaping
Landmark Properties’ maintains a commercial landscape maintenance contract or uses
in-house services to maintain the landscaping of the property.During the annual inspection and
summer repair cycle, new plantings are placed as needed.
Boulder Creek Programming & Maintenance
Landmark will enhance the creekfront area on the site to provide a mix of active and passive
recreational uses for the broader community. While there are certain areas within the property
where access will be restricted to residents, the creekfront park and the creek itself will remain
accessible to the community. These spaces will be programmed with uses including a dog park,
pickleball courts, green lawn and creek access. The goal of these programmatic elements are to
provide a combination of both active and passive recreational opportunities for the community
as a whole. Some outdoor areas will be available for community use from dawn until dusk.
While lighting for night activities will not be provided, limited lighting for safety of these spaces
at night is proposed.
Exterior
Annually, all building exteriors, sidewalks and parking areas are pressure washed, inspected,
and repaired if necessary and re-painted on a schedule to ensure optimal appearance and
long-term preservation.
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
119 of 141
Resident Responsibilities in Property Maintenance
Residents are expected to maintain their units in a manner outlined in their lease
agreement. Regular inspections are performed of every unit in the Landmark Properties
portfolio to test safety equipment and ensure tenant compliance with cleaning and
upkeep standards.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATION
Communication between Landmark Properties’ ownership, property managers and neighbors
is critically important to develop and maintain positive relationships.
Methods to ensure good communication, feedback, and monitoring of this Good Neighbor
Statement of Operations will include a contact portal on the Landmark Properties website
connecting stakeholders with property management and providing updates on notable
happenings, contact information for property managers on the Landmark Properties website,
proactive outreach by Landmark Properties to the neighborhood, and, if necessary
neighborhood meetings to address complaints or issues.
Moreover, the entire Landmark Properties team is readily available and very responsive
to neighbor concerns, input, or suggestions for improvement.
Complaint Process
Landmark Properties is committed to open communication with neighborhood stakeholders. In
the event of a problem, neighbors will be asked to call or email the on-call property manager.
The property manager will respond to or acknowledge complaints within 24 hours or the next
business day. The property manager will work with the individual to address the issue in as
timely a manner as possible, and the property manager is expected to resolve the majority of
issues.
Complaint Contact
If a neighbor has a complaint about a resident, noise, trash or other nuisance, it may contact
the Landmark Properties phone line directly at (706)-543-1910 or send email to:
customerservice@landmarkproperties.com. Landmark Properties management is committed to
constructive and positive relations between its tenants and neighbors. Complaints will be
dealt with in a manner consistent with the tenant’s lease.
Dispute Resolution
In the event a community member is unsatisfied with resolution of a complaint, or if the
property manager cannot resolve the problem, the complaint will be elevated, in a timely
manner, to the property owner.
If the problem remains unresolved, the complainants may bring their concerns to the City
of Boulder Community Mediation Service to help resolve the dispute.
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
120 of 141
EXHIBIT A
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Any and all capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in that certain
Housing Contract to which this Exhibit C is attached (the “Contract”). Resident acknowledges that Landlord shall
have the right to assess reasonable charges for violations of these Rules and Regulations, and Resident shall pay
such charges to Landlord in accordance with the Contract, even if the exact amount of any particular charge is not
listed below or in the Contract. All of the Rules and Regulations shall apply to Resident’s guests, and Resident shall
be responsible for ensuring that Resident’s guests comply with the provisions of this Exhibit C. Any reference to
“Resident” in the below provisions shall apply equally to Resident’s guests.
1.FACILITY.
a. Resident shall use the driveways, sidewalks, courtyards, passages, stairs or halls of the Facility for purposes of
ingress and egress only. Resident shall not obstruct (or allow or cause bicycles, vehicles or other items to obstruct)
the driveways, sidewalks, courtyards, passages, stairs or halls of the Facility.
b. Resident may not distribute, post, or hang any signs or notices in any portion of the Facility (other than the
Bedroom and the Unit in accordance with these Rules and Regulations).
c. Resident shall not leave bicycles in any area of the Facility, except on bicycle racks provided by Landlord (if any)
in Landlord’s sole discretion.
d. Motorcycles, motor scooters, mopeds, or other vehicles with internal combustion engines are prohibited in any
building within the Facility.
e. Team sports such as football, baseball, basketball, kickball, soccer, dodgeball, volleyball, etc. shall be limited to
the designated areas (if any) only. In no event shall such sports be played in parking areas or the pool area.
f. Resident shall not move or remove any furniture provided by Landlord in the Facility Common Areas. Moving or
removing such furniture will be considered disorderly conduct or theft, and the person or persons responsible may
incur charges for replacement, fines or other disciplinary actions.
g. Use of the Facility Common Areas (including, but not limited to, the Amenities) shall be limited to Resident,
Resident’s guests, and the other residents (and other residents’ guests) of the Facility. Guests of residents using the
Facility Common Areas and/or the Amenities must be accompanied by Resident at all times. If Resident’s guest is
sixteen (16) years of age or younger, such guest must be accompanied by a parent or guardian at all times.
Landlord shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to prohibit Resident’s guests from using the Facility Common
Areas and/or the Amenities.
h. All household trash and garbage must be placed directly in (and not around or in the vicinity of) the applicable
trash chute, bin, dumpster, or compactor located within the Facility. In no event shall Resident dispose of any
furniture, boxes, or construction debris in any of the trash receptacles provided by Landlord or elsewhere within the
Facility. Resident shall not leave such trash and refuse in the Bedroom, the Unit, or other portions of the Facility.
Landlord reserves the right to charge Resident the Garbage Removal Fee, or such other fee as is reasonable under
the circumstances, as determined by Landlord. In addition, Resident shall be liable for the cost of any additional
clean-up or repairs required as a result of any violation of this provision.
i. Resident shall not operate any business within the Facility, including without limitation, a childcare service.
2.BEDROOM AND/OR UNIT
a. Resident shall not place any signs in the Bedroom or the Unit that are visible from the exterior of the building in
which the Bedroom and the Unit are located. All draperies, drapery linings, shutters or blinds visible from the
exterior of the Unit must show white or off-white. Windows and doors shall not be obstructed. The use of foil and
other similar materials over windows is not permitted. Window screens must remain permanently in place. Neon or
flashing signs cannot be displayed in any window.
b. Resident shall keep clean and uncluttered the patios and balconies that are a part of the Bedroom and/or the
Unit. Resident shall not hang (or allow to be hung) garments, rugs or any other items from any exterior of the
Bedroom or the Unit (including, without limitation, windows, patios, and balconies). Resident shall not throw, drop or
hang any item out of the windows of the Bedroom or the Unit, or off the balconies or patios of the Bedroom and/or
the Unit. Resident shall not use the patios or balconies for storage purposes. Resident shall not fence in, wire, or
otherwise enclose the patios and/or balconies. Furniture on the balconies and patios of the Bedroom and/or the Unit
shall be limited to furniture designed for outdoor use. Resident shall be subject to a written warning, fine, or both for
violation of this provision, in addition to any clean-up costs or repairs required as a result of any violation of this
provision. Landlord reserves the right to deny placement of items deemed inappropriate on or about Resident’s
Unit.
c. Resident may place a welcome mat in front of entry to the Unit; provided, however, in no event shall Resident
place a rug or carpet remnant in front of the entry to the Unit.
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
121 of 141
d. Resident shall not install (or cause to be installed) any electrical or telephone wiring in the Unit or in any portion of
the Facility.
e. Lavatories, sinks, toilets, and all water and plumbing apparatus shall be used by Resident only for the purpose
for which they were constructed. Sweepings, rubbish, rages, ashes, grease, and other foreign substances shall not
be thrown in any plumbing apparatus.
f. Except in the case of a fire, Resident shall not trigger the overhead sprinkler system in the Unit (if applicable).
Resident acknowledges that a simple depression of the sprinkler head will result in a total draining of water from the
overhead sprinkler system. To the full extent permitted by applicable law, Landlord shall not be liable for damages
incurred if the overhead sprinkler system is triggered. If the overhead sprinkler system is triggered in the absence of
a fire, Resident shall be subject to a written warning, the Sprinkler Fine, or both, in addition to any clean-up costs or
repairs required as a result of any violation of this provision.
3.PROHIBITED ITEMS.Resident shall not bring any of the following items into the Bedroom, the Unit or any
other areas of the Facility:
(a) any construction barriers, cones, street signs, newspaper machines, or other stolen property, (b) darts or dart
boards (c) liquid- filled furniture (including, without limitation, waterbeds, hot tubs or spas), (d) hazardous or
dangerous substances and chemicals (including without limitation automobile batteries, gasoline, acids and other
dangerous chemicals), (e) fireworks, fire crackers, or other explosives, (f) weapons (including without limitation
pistols, rifles and other firearms, BB guns, paint pellet guns, numchucks and switch blades), (g) major appliances
not provided by Landlord (including without limitation washers, dryers, and dishwashers),
(h) live-cut Christmas trees, wreaths or other live decorations, (i) pool tables, (j) hot plates, candles, halogen lamps,
space heaters, cooking grills, lighter fluid, or any other item that has a heating element or open flame, (k) aerials,
masts or other short wave radio transmitting equipment, or (l) satellite dishes.
4.ALTERATIONS TO UNIT.Resident shall not modify any portion of the Unit (including, without limitation, the
ceilings, floors, walls, shelves, closets) in any manner without Landlord’s written consent, which consent shall be
granted or withheld in Landlord’s sole discretion. Resident shall not place any decals, stickers or other adhesive
materials on walls, windows or other surfaces of the Bedroom or the Unit. Posters shall be secured to the walls with
push pins or thumb tacks. Framed pictures or heavy wall hangings should be secured using the proper
picture-hanging hooks that do not penetrate through the dry wall boards. Resident shall not change the structure or
appearance of the patios of balconies in the Bedroom and/or the Unit in any manner.
5.ANIMAL.All pets and animals are prohibited in the Bedroom, the Unit, or anywhere else on the Facility unless
and until (a) Landlord has approved the pet or animal (which approval shall be granted or withheld in Landlord’s
sole discretion), (b) Landlord and Resident have executed an Animal Addendum (a copy of which is available at the
Management Office), and (c) paid applicable fees. Animal and pet prohibitions apply to mammals, reptiles, birds,
fish and insects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit service or assistance
animals from residing in the Unit, if Resident submits documentation from a health professional confirming the need
for such service or assistance animal; however, such documentation from a health professional shall not be
required in situations where there is an obvious need for the service or assistance animal. At Landlords option,
Landlord may elect to use a third-party pet screening service (“Pet Screening Service”). Should Landlord elect to
use the Pet Screening Service, in addition to the requirements set forth above, Resident shall be required to enroll
in the Pet Screening Service and comply with all obligations required by the Pet Screening Service, including but
not limited to, the payment of any applicable fees charged by the Pet Screening Service in order to qualify the
presence of such pet or animal at the Facility or in the Unit (“Pet Screening Service Qualification”). If Resident
violates the terms of this provision, the following shall apply: (a) for the first (1st) violation, Landlord will issue
Resident a written warning specifying the complaint, the Animal Violation Fee (First Violation) will be assessed
against Resident, and Resident shall immediately remove the animal or pet from the Facility; and (b) for each
additional violation, the Animal Violation Fee (Additional Violation) will be assessed against Resident, Resident shall
immediately remove the animal or pet from the Facility, and (c) at the option of Landlord for any violation, there shall
be an immediate Event of Default under the Contract. In addition to the Animal Violation Fee (First Violation) and
Animal Violation Fee (Additional Violation), Resident shall be responsible for all costs and expenses related to a
violation of this provision (including, but not limited to, cleaning and/or replacing carpet and pest control treatment).
6.UTILITIES:
a.IF RESIDENT CONTRACTS FOR UTILITIES:Resident must cause all Resident Utilities (as such term is
defined in the Utilities Addendum) except cable television, telephone services and/or internet services (to the extent
such services are Resident Utilities under the Utilities Addendum) to remain active, even during university holidays.
For all periods during freezing weather, unless Landlord instructs otherwise, Resident must, twenty-four (24) hours
per day, (i) keep the Unit heated to at least sixty degrees Fahrenheit (60°F), (ii) keep cabinet and closet doors open,
and (iii) drip water from all faucets. Resident shall not lower thermostat to less than sixty-five degrees Fahrenheit
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
122 of 141
(65°F) during warmer periods as not to cause unit to freeze. Resident shall be liable for all damages incurred in
connection with a violation of this provision, including, but not limited to, damages caused by broken pipes.
b. For the duration of the Contract Term, Resident shall replace, at Resident’s expense, the light bulbs (60-watt
bulbs maximum) in the Unit. Colored bulbs are not allowed in any light fixture visible from the exterior of the Unit.
7. INTERNET POLICY.Resident’s use of internet services and network access (collectively, the “Internet
Services”) in the Facility is subject to the following terms and conditions:
a. Resident may not use the Internet Services in a manner that inordinately drains bandwidth, such as hosting one
or more web sites, operating peer-to-peer file-sharing software, or running one or more servers directly from the
Unit.
b. Resident may not use the Internet Services to operate an Internet-based business. c. To the fullest extent
permitted by law, Resident acknowledges and agrees that Landlord is not liable to Resident for any losses incurred
as a result of day trading, e-commerce, or other financial transactions and activities engaged in by Resident using
the Internet Services. If Resident uses the Internet Services to engage in any of these activities, Resident
acknowledges and agrees that Resident does so at Resident’s own risk.
d. Resident shall not install network devices, whether wireline or wireless, to enable any person who does not
reside in the Unit to access the Internet Services. Any wireless network device installed by a Resident must comply
with applicable FCC rules and regulations, and must not interfere with the Internet Services or wireless systems
operated by Landlord or any service provider at the Facility.
e. To the extent that Landlord provides the Internet Services via a third party service provider, the following
provisions shall also apply:
i. In connection with the Internet Services, the applicable service providers may need to access the Unit. Such
service providers shall be permitted to enter the Unit in accordance with the provisions of the Contract.
ii. Resident shall not damage the equipment provided in connection with the Internet Services, and agrees to
indemnify, defend, and hold Landlord harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, expenses,
and causes of action arising out of, or in any way relating to, actions or inactions by Resident, including, but not
limited to, any amounts Landlord is required to pay to the applicable service provider to cover the costs of any such
damage.
iii. Landlord reserves the right, at any time and for any reason or no reason, to: (i) switch service providers, (ii)
change the quantity and quality of the Internet Services, or (iii) discontinue Internet Services.
iv. If any sums due under the Contract are delinquent, to the extent permitted by applicable law, Landlord shall have
the right to request that the applicable service providers interrupt or terminate Internet Services to the Unit (even if
Resident subscribes services beyond those provided by Landlord) until Resident pays all outstanding sums.
v. Resident shall: (1) install, operate, and regularly update anti-virus software on Resident’s computer; and (2) install
and regularly update any operating system patches available for the operating system running on Resident’s
computer. If, as a result of any failure to comply with the preceding sentence, the Internet Services provider’s ability
to provide the Internet Services to Resident or others at the Facility is adversely affected, Resident may be
disconnected from the Internet Services until such time as Resident demonstrates to the Internet Services
provider’s reasonable satisfaction that Resident’s computer is free of viruses and the operating system is updated.
8.FIRE SAFETY
a. Landlord may, but shall not be obligated to, provide barbeque grills in the Facility Common Areas. No other grills
or hibachis are permitted in the Facility (including, without limitation, in the Units or the Unit Common Areas).
Resident is responsible for any damage caused by improper use or violation of this rule and fines imposed pursuant
to applicable law.
b. Resident shall not tamper with, interfere with, or damage any alarm equipment and/or installations. c. Resident
shall use fire warning devices and safety equipment only in an emergency situation. In the event of an alarm,
Resident shall vacate the Unit immediately, and shall not return until instructed by the
appropriate officials to do so. Residents who do not vacate their units during an alarm shall be subject to disciplinary
action and/or a fine. The intentional sounding of an alarm outside of an emergency situation is a criminal offense
and an immediate Event of Default under the Contract.
d. Landlord will furnish smoke detectors as required by applicable law. For the duration of the Contract Term,
Resident shall test the smoke detectors on a regular basis and pay for and replace batteries as needed, unless
applicable law provides otherwise. Landlord may replace dead or missing batteries at Resident’s expense, without
prior notice to Resident.RESIDENT SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY DAMAGE, DISCONNECT, BLOCK, OR
COVER THE SMOKE DETECTOR OR REMOVE A BATTERY WITHOUT IMMEDIATELY REPLACING IT WITH A
WORKING BATTERY, AND RESIDENT SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT SMOKE DETECTOR MALFUNCTIONS
TO LANDLORD. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOREGOING SHALL BE CONSIDERED AN IMMEDIATE
EVENT OF DEFAULT UNDER THE CONTRACT AND SHALL, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
123 of 141
APPLICABLE LAW, RESULT IN RESIDENT BEING LIABLE TO LANDLORD FOR ALL FINES INCURRED BY
LANDLORD UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, ALL COSTS AND DAMAGES INCURRED BY LANDLORD AS A
DIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT OF THE INOPERATIVE SMOKE DETECTOR, AND THE SMOKE DETECTOR
FINE.
e. Smoking is prohibited in all areas of the Facility. The term “smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, breathing or
carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, electronic/vapor cigarette, tobacco product, marijuana product, illegal drug, or
other product in any manner or in any form. Any violation of this provision shall, at the option of Landlord, be an
immediate Event of Default under the Contract. Resident shall also be responsible for the costs and expenses of
cleaning and/or replacing carpet, furniture, or any other item due to any damage caused by a violation of this
provision.
9.KEYS; LOCK-OUTS.Resident shall not change the locks to the doors of the Unit or the Bedroom. If Resident
requests that Landlord change the locks to the Bedroom, the Unit and/or the mailbox, the Lock Change Fee will be
assessed to Resident. In the event of a lockout, Resident shall contact the Management Office. Landlord may, but is
not obligated, to provide after-hours lockout service and, if so provided, the After-Hours Lockout Fee shall apply.In
the event of an emergency, Resident should call 9-1-1.
10.PARTY GUIDELINES
a. All parties/gatherings of fifteen (15) or more guests must be registered with Landlord. Registration of
parties/gatherings does not release Resident from any of its obligations under the Contract, these Rules and
Regulations, or any other exhibits or addenda attached to the Contract. No party of fifteen (15) or more guests may
take place outside Resident’s Unit at any given time or the party will be shut down.
b. All parties shall be held in accordance with local laws and ordinances.
c. The following shall apply to complaints concerning Resident’s
violation of this Section 10: 1
stcomplaint: A written warning will be
issued and the party will be shut down.
2ndcomplaint: A $100.00 fine will be assessed against Resident and the
party will be shut down. 3
rdcomplaint: A $200.00 fine will be assessed
against Resident and the party will be shut down.
4thcomplaint: A $300.00 fine will be assessed against Resident, the party will be shut down and
Resident will
become subject to eviction.
d. Any violation of this provision may be considered an immediate Event of Default by Landlord.
11.HAZING.Hazing by any club, group, organization or individual on any portion of the Facility (including the
Bedroom or the Unit) is strictly forbidden. Hazing includes any act that injures, degrades, or disgraces, any person.
Pledging activities are prohibited in any portion of the Facility.
12.DRUGS.Illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia are prohibited in all areas of the Facility, including the Units.
Resident shall not possess, manufacture or sell illegal drugs in any portion of the Facility, including the Units. The
term “drug paraphernalia” includes, but is not limited to, bongs, hash pipes, blow tubes, vaporizers, and water pipes.
13.SERVICE REQUESTS
a.RESIDENT SHALL CALL 9-1-1 IN CASE OF FIRE AND OTHER LIFE-THREATENING OR
PROPERTY-THREATENING SITUATIONS.
b. Landlord offers responses to emergency service requests twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days a week.
For after- hours emergencies, Resident shall call the Management Office’s answering service at the Facility, or such
other phone number as provided by Landlord from time to time, and leave a message (i) identifying the affected
Unit, (ii) explaining situation and the requested action, and (iii) providing the best contact number for Resident. If the
Management Office determines, in its commercially reasonable discretion, that (x) the situation requires immediate
attention, the Management Office will contact the proper service personnel, or (y) the situation does not require
immediate attention, the Management Office will address the situation during normal business hours. For
non-emergency service requests, Resident shall call the Management Office during normal business hours or place
a work order online. Resident shall not enter into a contract with an outside vendor for service to the Unit, the
Bedroom or the Facility without Landlord’s consent, which consent shall be granted or withheld in Landlord’s sole
discretion.
14.NOISE.
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
124 of 141
a. Resident may not make or permit to be made any loud, disturbing, or objectionable noises. Musical instruments,
radios, phonographs, television sets, amplifiers and other instruments or devices may not be used or played in such
a manner as may constitute a nuisance or disturbance to other residents. Accordingly, the following shall apply to
complaints concerning Resident’s violation of this provision:
1stcomplaint: A $50.00 fine will be assessed against Resident.
2ndcomplaint: A $100.00 fine will be assessed against Resident.
3rdcomplaint and any subsequent complaint: A $200.00 fine will be imposed and
Landlord may, at its discretion, declare an Event of Default under the Contract.
b. Neither Resident nor Resident’s guests may use the Facility Common Areas, including without limitation, the
parking facilities, in a manner that interferes with the use and enjoyment of other residents. c. Any general noise
disturbances (i.e., noise from pool music, parties, machinery, etc., should be reported to the Management Office
(during business hours) or the answering service (after hours)). If after normal business hours, the answering
service will contact the appropriate personnel to handle the disturbance.
15.Amenities. To the extent available at the Facility, the following provisions shall apply to and govern the use of
following specific Amenities:
a.Pool:The Facility may be equipped with a pool. Resident hereby acknowledges that, unless required pursuant to
applicable law, no lifeguard will be present at the pool, and Landlord shall not be obligated to supervise the pool, or
cause the pool to be supervised. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Resident’s use of the pool is at
Resident’s sole risk. Resident shall abide by, and shall cause its permitted guests to abide by, below-listed rules
applicable to the pool, as well as any additional rules posted by the pool:
i. Resident shall follow all rules posted in the pool area. In the event of a conflict between this Section and the
rules posted at the pool area, the rules posted at the pool area shall govern and control.
ii. Resident shall not be permitted to have any more than one (1) guest in the pool area at any given time.
iii. No glass containers or alcoholic beverages are permitted in the pool area at any time.iv. NO DIVING
IS PERMITTED.
v. Access to the pool area is permitted during the posted hours of operation only. vi. No pets are
permitted in or around the pool area.
vii. Landlord reserves the right to prohibit any person from using the pool or accessing the pool area at any time.
b.Fitness Center:The Facility may be equipped with a fitness center (the “Fitness Center”) which contains a
variety of fitness- related machines and equipment (the “Fitness Equipment”). Resident shall abide by all rules
posted at the Fitness Center. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, use of the Fitness Center and the
Fitness Equipment is at Resident’s sole risk. In no event shall any of Resident’s guests be permitted to use the
Fitness Center or Fitness Equipment.
c.Tanning Bed:The Facility may be equipped with a tanning facility (the “Tanning Facility”) which contains one
(1) or more tanning beds or other sunless tanning devices (each, a “Tanning Device”and collectively, the
“Tanning Devices”). Resident shall abide by the following rules applicable to the Tanning Facility, as well as any
and all additional rules posted at the Tanning Facility: (i) Resident shall use protective eyewear at all times when
using any Tanning Device; (ii) Resident shall utilize a Tanning Device no more than one (1) time in any twenty-four
(24) hour period; (iii) Resident shall obtain approval
from a physician prior to using any Tanning Device if Resident is pregnant, Resident has a history of skin problems,
or Resident is taking prescription or over-the-counter drugs; and (iv) Resident shall comply with all applicable laws
regarding the use of Tanning Devices. In no event shall any of Resident’s guests be permitted to use the Tanning
Facility or any Tanning Device.RESIDENT ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT (I) THE FAILURE TO WEAR
PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR MAY RESULT IN SEVERE BURNS OR PERMANENT INJURY TO RESIDENT’S EYES,
AND (II) EXPOSURE TO ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT CAN CAUSE RESIDENT’S SKIN TO BURN, AND MAY RESULT
IN PREMATURE AGING OR SKIN CANCER. RESIDENT HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT RESIDENT HAS
READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE RULES AND WARNINGS STATED ABOVE, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER
WARNINGS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW WITH RESPECT TO TANNING EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES.
TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, USE OF THE TANNING FACILITY AND THE
TANNING DEVICES IS AT RESIDENT’S SOLE RISK. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, RESIDENT
HEREBY EXPRESSLY ASSUMES THE RISK FOR ANY INJURY (INCLUDING DEATH), SICKNESS (INCLUDING
CANCER) OR ACCIDENT WHICH RELATES TO THE USE OR THE MISUSE OF THE TANNING DEVICES. TO
THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, RESIDENT HEREBY RELEASES LANDLORD
AND THE LANDLORD PARTIES FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND/OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN
ANY WAY RELATED TO (I) THE TANNING FACILITY AND/OR THE TANNING DEVICES, (II) RESIDENT’S USE
OR MISUSE OF THE TANNING FACILITY AND/OR THE TANNING DEVICES, AND (III) THE NEGLIGENT ACTS
OR OMISSIONS OF LANDLORD OR LANDLORD PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE TANNING FACILITY
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
125 of 141
AND/OR THE TANNING DEVICES.
d.Juliette Balconies:Resident acknowledges that the Unit may be equipped with one or more decorative
balconies with narrow ledges and decorative railings. Resident acknowledges that, although the doors to the
balconies open, the balcony is not designed to bear weight. Resident agrees that he/she will not (and shall inform
Resident’s guests that they may not) stand on the balcony, bear weight on the balcony, lean on the railings of the
balcony, or hang over or off of the balcony in any manner. Resident hereby assumes the risk (on behalf of
himself/herself and Resident’s guests) of having a Unit equipped with one or more balconies. Resident
acknowledges and agrees that Landlord shall not be liable for any injuries, damages or losses caused by or related
to the use of the balcony by Resident or Resident’s guests.
e. Balconies, general.Resident acknowledges that the Unit may be equipped with one or more balconies. Resident
agrees that he/she will not sit on the railing of the balcony, place items on the railing of the balcony, permit items to be
thrown from the balcony, or hang over or off the balcony in any manner. Resident hereby assumes the risk (on behalf
of himself/herself and Resident’s guests) of having a Unit equipped with one or more balconies. Resident
acknowledges and agrees that Landlord shall not be liable for any injuries, damages or losses, whether to person or
property, caused by or related to the use of the balcony by Resident or Resident’s guests.
16.PARKING AND TOWING.
a. Resident shall not park any motor vehicle at the Facility until: (i) Landlord and Resident execute the Parking
Addendum, (ii) Resident registers Resident’s vehicle with Landlord, (iii) Resident obtains a parking permit (the
“Parking Permit”) from Landlord, if applicable, and (iv) Resident pays the Parking Fee, if applicable. Resident is not
entitled to a Parking Permit, and Landlord reserves the right to decline to issue Resident a Parking Permit or to
revoke a Parking Permit for any reason. If Landlord declines to issue a Parking Permit to Resident, or if Landlord
revokes the Parking Permit from Resident, Resident shall not park at the Facility.
b. Any motor vehicle parked at the Facility is parked at the risk of Resident or Resident’s guests or invitees. Landlord
is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage by reason of fire, theft, collision or other cause to any motor
vehicle or its contents and Resident hereby waives any claims against Landlord for any such damage. Landlord shall
not be liable for damages or loss to person or property of Resident or Resident’s guests or invitees caused by: i)
Resident’s failure to observe and maintain recommended security practices; b) Resident’s failure to notify landlord of
any problem or defect of the parking facilities; or c) any instance of theft or other criminal activity occurring at the
Facility.
c. If available at the Facility, parking may be provided for guests in the designated guest parking areas on a first
come, first served basis. At no time are guests permitted to park in areas other than the designated guest parking
areas as applicable. Landlord shall not be liable in any manner if there are not available parking spaces for the use
of Resident’s guests
d. Motor homes, campers, trailers, boats, personal water craft, and vehicles with more than (two) 2 axles are not
permitted on the property at any time.
e. Resident shall not park a vehicle in any parking space specifically designated for the specific use of others,
including but not limited to, guests, other residents or future residents, compact vehicles, electronically charged
vehicles, and retail patrons.
f. The parking spaces at the Facility shall not be used for any purpose other than parking. For avoidance of doubt,
Resident shall not perform maintenance on or wash vehicles at the Facility. The parking space may be used only for
parking passenger automobiles. The parking space may not be used for storage or for oversized vehicles, boats,
RV, jet skis, or commercial vehicles. Vehicles not kept in compliance with applicable rules, regulations and law are
subject to towing at the vehicle owner’s expense.
g. Resident must be in compliance with all posted signs on the property, including but not limited to, speed limit
signs and other traffic instructions, and signage related to parking pay stations or meters, or they will be cited and
subject to tow without warning, at Resident’s expense.
h. Resident acknowledges that parking may be inadequate at certain times (including, without limitation, during
sporting events, homecoming, graduation and other special events). In no event shall Landlord be liable to Resident
for any damage or inconvenience caused by the unavailability of parking.
i. Landlord has the right to have Resident’s vehicle towed or booted at Resident’s expense if Resident violates any
provision of this Section 16.
h. NO REPRESENTATION, WARRANTIES, UNDERTAKINGS OR PROMISES, WHETHER ORAL, IMPLIED, OR
OTHERWISE, HAVE BEEN MADE BY LANDLORD TO RESIDENT REGARDING THE PARKING FACILITIES.
LANDLORD NEITHER MAKES NOR ADOPTS ANY WARRANTY OF ANY NATURE REGARDING THE
PARKING FACILITIES AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE AND ALL OTHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES. LANDLORD SHALL NOT BE LIABLE
FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES TO PERSON OR PROPERTY CAUSED BY (A) RESIDENT’S FAILURE TO
NOTIFY LANDLORD OF ANY PROBLEM OR DEFECT RELATED TO THE PARKING FACILITIES, OR (B) ANY
INSTANCE OF THEFT OR OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OCCURRING IN THE PARKING FACILITIES.
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
126 of 141
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Resident have executed this Addendum as of the date and year first
above written.
Draft - 04/06/2023
Attachment I - Applicant's Operating Plan
127 of 141
1580 Logan Street, 6th Floor, Denver, Colorado 80203
PHONE: 303.652.3571 | WWW.FOXTUTTLE.COM
MEMORANDUM
To: Danica Powell, Trestle Strategy Group
From: Cassie Slade, PE, PTOE
Date: June 12, 2023
Project: The Standard at Boulder – Boulder, CO
Subject: Parking Analysis
The Fox Tuttle Transportation Group has completed a review of the proposed project to
redevelop the Millennium Hotel property to become a new housing development to serve
students attending the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU Boulder). The property is located
on the west side of 28th Street, approximately 0.1 mile south of Arapahoe Avenue. The hotel
currently has 269 rooms and various options for indoor and outdoor meeting space. The new
student housing complex, The Standard at Boulder, proposes to construct 303 student housing
units with 944 bedrooms (each bedroom will have one bed). The redevelopment is planning to
maintain two of the businesses located on the south side of the property, south of Boulder Creek.
The existing bike adventure business, Singletrack Mountain Bike Adventures (SMBA) and Lake
Eldora Racing Team (LERT), and the existing daycare center, Dream Makers Preschool, are
anticipated to remain on the property and continue business as usual (194 Taft Drive). SMBA has
varying operations throughout the year with the typical schedule as follows: after school rides,
drop off at 4:15pm and pick up at 6:45pm; Sunday rides, drop off at 1:00 pm and pick up is 4:00
pm; and during the summer, drop off is 8:00 am and pick up is 3:30 pm. The daycare provides
childcare on Monday to Friday and opened from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm with extended hours to 3:15
pm on Tuesday and Thursday. The existing tennis club is proposed vacate from the property.
The Standard at Boulder property is located approximately ¼‐mile from the north edge of the CU
Boulder Main Campus and residents can take advantage of the multi‐modal facilities to/from the
various CU Boulder campuses, downtown Boulder, and other destinations within and near the
site. The site is adjacent to the Boulder Creek Path which extends the length of the City of Boulder
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
128 of 141
The Standard at Boulder
Parking Demand Analysis
June 12, 2023
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
and connects to local and commuter multi‐use paths. There are bike lanes on Folsom Street to
the west (some sections are buffered), sidewalks on both sides of Folsom Street, a multi‐use path
on the west side of 28th Street, and a sidewalk on the east side of 28th Street. Adjacent to the
property and along the same roadways, there are bus stops with frequent service to local and
regional destinations. Residents, visitors, and employees of The Standard at Boulder project will
be able to reduce their need to own a vehicle and rent a parking space. It is understood that there
will be 348 parking spaces to serve residents, visitors, and employees. This memorandum
compares the proposed number of parking spaces to the anticipated parking demand based on
national and local parking data.
ITE Recommendations for Parking Demand
One of leading industry parking resources was reviewed within the context of this project and
discussed in this memorandum: Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation
Manual, 5th Edition (2019). ITE publishes parking generation data for various land uses based on
numerous studies and empirical data calculating average peak parking demand. For majority of
land uses, ITE provides both urban and suburban parking formulas, near and not near rail transit,
to predict peak parking demand.
The proposed redevelopment project is located within an established urban environment near
the CU Boulder Main Campus and downtown Boulder. The Parking Generation Manual does not
have data pertaining to student housing and there is no national standard to estimate parking
demand for student housing. The Parking Generation Manual does have parking demand data
for #221 “Multi‐Family Housing (Mid‐Rise)”. ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021),
provides trip rates for various land uses, including student housing and multi‐family housing. To
utilize national data, it was assumed that the difference between trips rates of the two residential
types would be similar for parking demand. Therefore, the data between the two ITE resources
was utilized to estimate the parking demand for the redevelopment of The Standard at Boulder.
The following steps were taken to estimate the parking demand of the project:
1. Compared trip rates of two residential land use types with available national data.
a. ITE #221 Multi‐Family (Mid‐Rise), PM peak hour = 0.39 trips per unit
b. ITE #225 Off‐Campus Student Housing, PM peak hour = 0.32 trips per unit
c. Calculated comparison = 0.32 ÷ 0.39 = 82%. This indicates that student housing
residents generate 18% less vehicle trips than multi‐family residents.
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
129 of 141
The Standard at Boulder
Parking Demand Analysis
June 12, 2023
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3
d. It was assumed that difference in trip rates would be the same for parking demand
since the national data does not include Student Housing in the Parking
Generation Manual.
2. Gathered parking demand rate for Multi‐Family (Mid‐Rise) = 0.48 spaces per bedroom or
formula 0.53x‐6.28.
3. Applied the average parking demand rate for Multi‐Family (Mid‐Rise) to the proposed
number of bedrooms (944).
4. Reduced parking demand by 18% for Off‐Campus Student Housing.
Table 1 summarizes the calculations of parking demand based on the national data and
comparison between residential land use types.
Table 1. ITE Parking Demand – Residential
Parking
Demand
Rate Type
Multi‐Family Apartments
(Dense Multi‐Use Urban)
Adjust from
Multi‐Family to
Student Housing
(reduced by 18%)
ITE Rate per
Bedroom/Bed
ITE Parking
Demand
Average Rate 0.48 453 spaces 372 spaces
Formula P = 0.53x – 6.28 494 spaces 405 spaces
Based on the national parking demand rates, it is anticipated that the new student apartments
will have a parking demand between 372 to 405 parking spaces.
It is planned that the existing SMBA/LERT and Dream Maker daycare center will remain in
business even with the development of The Standard at Boulder. The ITE Parking Generation
Manual has data for a daycare center. The Dream Maker Daycare is approximately 850 square
feet with four (4) employees and up to 15 children. The national database does not have data for
a bike adventure and racing team business; therefore, the parking demand rate for single tenant
office was applied. The mountain bike program is located in the front of the building
(approximately 400 square feet) and is used as a meeting place for staff (5) and athletes to travel
together to events. The existing number employees per business was utilized in the parking
demand calculation since the square footage is lower than the data range of ITE. Table 2
summarizes the parking demand for the commercial land uses to remain on site.
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
130 of 141
The Standard at Boulder
Parking Demand Analysis
June 12, 2023
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4
Table 2. ITE Parking Demand – Commercial
Land Use Type Parking Demand
Rate Type ITE Rate ITE Parking
Demand
SMBA
(ITE #715 Single Tenant Office) Average Rate 0.78 / employee 4 spaces
Dream Makers
(ITE #565 Day Care Center) Average Rate 1.22 / employee 5 spaces
Total 9 spaces
Based on the national parking demand rates, it is anticipated that the existing commercial
spaces will need a total of nine (9) designated parking spaces to accommodate peak periods of
customers. Ten (10) parking spaces will be provided for the commercial businesses.
Combining the commercial parking demand with the residential parking demand indicates that
The Standard at Boulder project, residential and commercial, will have a demand of 381 and 414
parking spaces, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Total Parking Demand and Supply Reduction
Scenario Highest Parking
Demand
Proposed Parking
Supply Reduction
from Demand
Multi‐Family + Commercial
Average
Formula
453 + 9 = 462 spaces
494 + 9 = 503 spaces
25%
31%
Student Housing + Commercial
Average
Formula
372 + 9 = 381 spaces
405 + 9 = 414 spaces
9%
16%
The proposed parking supply of 348 parking spaces is 31% less than the anticipated parking
demand based on the most conservative assumptions and 52% less than Code requirements,
which is anticipated to be achievable since the property is within 0.25 mile of the main CU
campus and with the proposed aggressive TDM plan that will discourage students from
bringing a car to the City. Please note that the remainder of this report refers to the most
conservative assumption of a 31% demand reduction.
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
131 of 141
The Standard at Boulder
Parking Demand Analysis
June 12, 2023
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5
On‐Site Survey of Parking Availability
Fox Tuttle staff gathered parking demand data from other student housing apartment complexes
that are located in Boulder near the CU Boulder Main Campus to understand the supply and
demand of parking by students. Staff visited each site to determine the feasibility of including in the
study and then each property was called to ask permission to enter the private parking facilities in the
early morning hours to document parking occupancy. Unfortunately, none of the properties would
allow staff to perform field observations on the private properties for the purposes of this study.
Therefore, phone surveys were conducted with property managers to document the data regarding
each property, including the number of apartments, number of parking spaces on‐site, number of
parking spaces rented, number of spaces available for rent, and any observational data regarding
parking operations, availability, or complaints.
Seven (7) properties were contacted, and five (5) properties obliged to answer questions regarding
their student housing. The data from the following apartment complexes was collected: Union
9Seventy, The Province, Lotus, University Village, and Sterling Boulder. These were chosen due to the
majority of residents being a student at CU Boulder and the proximity to the campus. On average, the
studied apartment complexes provide 0.59 parking spaces per bed. The gathered parking data and
parking demand calculations are detailed in Table 4.
Table 4. Local Parking Supply and Demand Data
# Property Name # of Beds
# of
Parking
Spaces
Occupied
Spaces
Occupancy
Rate
1 The Hive (Union 9Seventy) 251 153 153 100% 0.61 /bed
2 The Province 323 150 142 95% 0.44 /bed
3 Lotus 235 148 148 100% 0.63 /bed
4 U Club at 28th 392 230 230 100% 0.59 /bed
5 Sterling Boulder 192 127 127 100% 0.66 /bed
Overall Average 100% 0.59 /bed
Demand: (by bed)
The Standard: 553 spaces
Higher Bed Count => Lower Anticipated Rate 415 spaces
Exponential Equation of Data 286 spaces
944 Beds
Existing Data Parking Calculations (per
Bed)
Demand
Rate
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
132 of 141
The Standard at Boulder
Parking Demand Analysis
June 12, 2023
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6
To better understand the
existing properties and
representation to The
Standard, number of beds
and demand rates were
further evaluated. It was
calculated that the studied
properties have an average
279 beds which is only 30% of
the proposed number of beds
at The Standard. The data also
indicated that the more beds
there were, the less vehicles
were parked, as shown in
Graph 1.
The exponential equation for the plotted data indicates that a property with 944 beds would likely
have a parking demand rate of 0.30 vehicles per bed, which would equate to 286 parking spaces of
demand. The studied properties indicated that the highest demand rate was 0.44 vehicles per bed,
which would equate to 415 spaces. It is reasonable to conclude that The Standard would have a
parking demand similar to the other nearby properties for student housing.
In regard to parking of local sites, some qualitative comments from property staff were provided
during the phone surveys, which may be informative to City staff but does not impact the
quantitative analysis:
All of the properties have unbundled parking which requires residents to rent a parking space
with their lease to be allowed to park on‐site.
All properties stated that on‐street parking is difficult to find at all times of day; therefore,
they were of the opinion that there were few residents with vehicles parked on‐street.
One (1) property stated that parking permits did not sell out until recently with colder
weather.
One (1) property provides two (2) free parking spaces on a first come, first serve basis.
The other spaces require a monthly rental fee with some parking spaces reserved for a
specific unit/resident and others as first come, first serve.
Three (3) properties stated that they have not received complaints regarding the parking
Graph 1. Plotted Parking Demand
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
133 of 141
The Standard at Boulder
Parking Demand Analysis
June 12, 2023
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7
supply. The other two properties did not comment.
For informational purposes, the Fox Tuttle team discussed the requirements of student housing
projects for implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. TDM for
student housing is fairly standard in the City of Boulder. Since the future occupants of The
Standard of Boulder are anticipated to be CU students, they are provided the College Eco‐passes
and they have access to the CU Bike Share program. Therefore, the only remaining standard TDM
requirements are for unbundled parking (students pay extra to have a parking space on‐site) and
a robust supply of secure, covered long‐term bike parking per City Municipal Code requirements.
Table 5 summarizes the TDM measures implemented at the studied apartment complexes which
impacts the need for parking on‐site.
Table 5. TDM Strategies and Amenities at Nearby Student Housing Apartments
# Property
Name
Approved
Parking
Reduction
Implemented TDM Strategies
Other Amenities College
Eco‐Passes
CU Bike
Share
Secured Bike
Parking
Unbundled
Parking
1
The Hive
(Union
9Seventy)
7% Yes Yes Yes Yes
$90
Bike/Ski Wash & Repair
Station
Pet Wash Station
Fitness Center & Pool
Conference Room
Study Lounge
2 The
Province 20% Yes Yes Yes Yes
$75‐$100
Fitness Center
Business Center
Outdoor Seating & Firepits
3 Lotus Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes
$125
Tanning Salon
Study Lounge
Fitness Center
Cyber Cafe
4 University
Village 7% Yes Yes Yes Yes
$30‐$45
Fitness and Games Center
Media Room and Gaming
Study Lounge
5 Sterling
Boulder Unknown Yes Yes Yes
Reserved
$50‐$75
Unreserved
Free
Fitness Center
Business Center
Outdoor Seating & Firepits
Study Rooms
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
134 of 141
The Standard at Boulder
Parking Demand Analysis
June 12, 2023
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8
City of Boulder Requirements
The off‐street parking requirements listed in the City of Boulder’s Municipal Code Section 9‐9‐6
(Zoning BT‐1) does not have parking requirements specifically for student housing projects.
Therefore, the required parking supply for multi‐family housing was applied to determine the
potential City requirement of off‐street parking for The Standard at Boulder project. Table 6 lists
the off‐street parking supply required by the City of Boulder for the proposed student housing
and existing commercial businesses.
Table 6: Required Off-Street Parking per City Municipal Code
City Requirement The Standard at Boulder Project
Land Use
Parking Rate Size Required Parking
Spaces
Multi‐Family Housing 1 per 1‐bed unit
1.5 per 2‐bed unit
2 per 3‐bed unit
3 per 4‐bed unit
62 units
36 units
10 units
195 units
62
54
20
585
Day Care Based on Review 850 sq. ft. 5
Bike Adventure 1 per 300 square feet 400 sq. ft. 2
Total 728 spaces
The proposed 348 parking spaces is a 52% reduction from the Municipal Code, which is
anticipated to be achieved with the proposed TDM plan.
Transportation Demand Management
It is agreed that the parking reduction cannot be realized without Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies implemented and enforced. The Standard at Boulder project has
a detailed TDM plan with strategies that will be available for resident’s and employees, which is
provided under a separate letter by LSC Transportation Consultants. The proposed TDM plan is
aggressive and is anticipated to further reduce the need for parking at The Standard.
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
135 of 141
The Standard at Boulder
Parking Demand Analysis
June 12, 2023
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 9
A summary of the TDM measures is listed below:
Orientation Packets for each new resident
Evaluation of TDM programs by residents
Unbundled parking spaces will require residents to pay an additional fee to utilize a
parking space for the length of their lease
Alternative Transportation Fund is available to residents that agree in their lease to not
bring a vehicle ($75 per year)
Pedestrian Enhancements including improvements to the existing sidewalks on
surrounding roadways and connecting to the Boulder Creek multi‐use path
Bike Enhancements including improvements to the sidewalks and connectivity to the
Boulder Creek multi‐use path and on‐street bike lanes
CU Bike Share program is available for all CU students
Bike Share Program for residents with ten (10) bikes with trailers and basket options
Short‐Term Bike Parking provided externally near the entrances to each building
Long‐Term Bike Parking provided in a secured, covered space within the courtyard and
in secured locations within the buildings
Transportation Coordinator will be an on‐site employee that inform, direct, and
encourage residents to utilize the TDM measures
NECO Pass Program will be provided to all employees and non‐student residents for
three (3) years
College EcoPass is already provided to all CU students
Changing Facilities in existing and proposed restrooms will serve as areas to change
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
136 of 141
The Standard at Boulder
Parking Demand Analysis
June 12, 2023
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 10
Summary
The Standard at Boulder project is proposing to construct 303 apartments with 944 bedrooms,
located on the west side of 28th Street and just north of Boulder Creek. In addition to the st udent
housing, two of the existing businesses will remain on site and continue to need parking. Without
taking site specifics into account and relying on national data for multi‐family apartments, the
maximum parking demand would be calculated to be 503 spaces [Table 3]. Since The Standard
at Boulder will most likely have student residents, in the most conservative case this number
should be adjusted down to 414 spaces (18% less) to account for differences between multi‐
family and student housing. From there, a further parking demand reduction is warranted given
project specifics not accounted for in the ITE national data such as The Standard at Boulder’s
proposed TDM measures, close proximity to CU Boulder (main campus), close proximity
commercial retail and services, and easy access to alternative transportation modes. The project
proposes to provide 348 parking spaces on site which represents a 16% reduction from the
parking demand calculated from ITE national student housing data (348/414 = 84%), a 30%
reduction calculated from national ITE multifamily data (348/503 = 70%), and a 52% reduction
from Boulder City code (348/728 = 48%). Based on the analysis, the reduction to the parking
supply at The Standard at Boulder is supported by national and local data and is anticipated to
meet the project’s parking demand.
Nine (9) spaces are required, but it is recommended that 10 parking spaces be designated and
reserved for SMBA/LERT and Dream Makers daycare. The commercial parking spaces will be
signed and designated for the businesses. Residents will not be allowed to park within these
spaces and violators will be ticketed or towed. The drop‐off areas near the cottages will be
allowed to be utilized by SMBA/LERT and Dream Makers daycare for quick drop‐off and pick‐up
activities and parking will not be allowed.
Figure 1 illustrates the Parking Management Plan, where parking will be reserved for commercial
use and where residents will be allowed to park on‐site. Additional information regarding the
Parking Management Plan is under a separate letter. The proposed TDM strategies are expected
to encourage residents to not bring a vehicle to the project and need a parking space. Refer to
the project’s TDM plan that is a separate document for details (LSC Transportation Consultants).
The Standards commitment to reducing the need for parking on site are supporting the policies
and goals of the City of Boulder’s Transportation Master Plan (2019), including Initiative 3 to
provide mobility options and initiative 8 to manage demand on the system. The reduced parking
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
137 of 141
The Standard at Boulder
Parking Demand Analysis
June 12, 2023
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 11
and aggressive TDM Plan will help with the goals for Citywide reduction in vehicle travel and
emissions and increase the use of multi‐modal facilities and services. The Standard is also aligning
with the goals set forth in the City’s Access Management and Parking Strategy to coordinate the
parking supply rates to with Boulder’s evolving TDM goals, ordinances, and regulations.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (2017) has the guiding principle to encourage parking
management strategies. In the “Enhanced Design for All Projects” section for built environments,
the document states that parking should play a subordinate role to site and projects should be
integrated with TDM programs to reduce single‐occupancy vehicle travel. Under the “Access
Management & Parking” section, the plan states “parking will be consistent with the desire to
reduce single‐occupant vehicle travel, balance the use of public spaces, consider the needs of
residential and commercial areas and address neighborhood parking impacts. The city will
accommodate parking demands in the most efficient way possible with the minimal necessary
number of new spaces and promote parking reductions through a variety of tools, including
parking maximums, shared parking, unbundled parking, parking districts and transportation
demand management programs.” It is the design team’s opinion that the most conservative
parking reduction of 30% for The Standard is consistent with the transportation and parking
management goals of several area plans.
Studies also have shown that students at CU Boulder have been utilizing alternative modes of
transportation for many years. The CU Boulder Transportation Master Plan (May 2020) indicated
that 72% of students travel without the use of their personal car. Other findings included that
approximately 78% of the surveyed students use their College EcoPass and 70% have a bike
parking permit. The study also found that approximately 96% of freshman live in the City of
Boulder, as well as 87% of upperclassman and 72% of graduate students. It is reasonable to
correlate this data to the reduced need for a vehicle while attending CU Boulder and living within
the City of Boulder, which has a significant investment and utilization of multi‐modal
transportation.
/CRS
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
138 of 141
LEGEND
ACCESSIBLE PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
COMMERCIAL PARKING
FT Project #Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure #
T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt
FOX TUTTLE
22009 NTS 12/1/2022 CRS 1
THE STANDARD AT BOULDER (1345 28TH STREET)
PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
139 of 141
89
Land Use: 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)
Description
Mid-rise multifamily housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the
same building with at least three other dwelling units and with between three and 10 levels (floors) of
residence. Multifamily housing (low-rise) (Land Use 220), multifamily housing (high-rise) (Land Use
222), and affordable housing (Land Use 223) are related land uses.
Time of Day Distribution for Parking Demand
The following table presents a time-of-day distribution of parking demand on a weekday (one general
urban/suburban study site), a Saturday (two general urban/suburban study sites), and a Sunday (one
dense multi-use urban study site).
Percent of Peak Parking Demand
Hour Beginning Weekday Saturday Sunday
12:00–4:00 a.m.100 100 100
5:00 a.m.94 99 –
6:00 a.m.83 97 –
7:00 a.m.71 95 –
8:00 a.m.61 88 –
9:00 a.m.55 83 –
10:00 a.m.54 75 –
11:00 a.m.53 71 –
12:00 p.m.50 68 –
1:00 p.m.49 66 33
2:00 p.m.49 70 40
3:00 p.m.50 69 27
4:00 p.m.58 72 13
5:00 p.m.64 74 33
6:00 p.m.67 74 60
7:00 p.m.70 73 67
8:00 p.m.76 75 47
9:00 p.m.83 78 53
10:00 p.m.90 82 73
11:00 p.m.93 88 93
Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
140 of 141
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)
(221)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs:Bedrooms
On a:Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location:Dense Multi-Use Urban (no nearby rail transit)
Peak Period of Parking Demand:10:00 p.m. - 5:00 a.m.
Number of Studies:50
Avg. Num. of Bedrooms:142
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom
Average Rate
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)
95% Confidence
Interval
33rd / 85th
PercentileRange of Rates
0.48 0.16 (33%)0.44 - 0.52/0.710.440.14 - 1.33
Data Plot and Equation
P = Parked VehiclesX = Number of Bedrooms
Study Site Average RateFitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 0.53(X) - 6.28 R²= 0.91
Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers
0 200 400 600 8000
100
200
300
400
Attachment J - Applicant's Parking Study
141 of 141