Loading...
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