LUR2024-00024_2130 ARAPAHOE AVE_INITIAL REVIEW COMMENTS (2)CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
May 3, 2024DATE OF COMMENTS:
CASE MANAGER:Alison Blaine
2130 ARAPAHOEPROJECT NAME:
2130 ARAPAHOE AVELOCATION:
REVIEW TYPE:Site Review
REVIEW NUMBER:LUR2024-00024
APPLICANT:BOB WILSON
CHARLES LIEF
DESCRIPTION:Proposed site review amendment for Naropa University (SI-99-4 and UR-99-7) to
remove 2111 Arapahoe from the existing PUD and overall campus plan. The removal
of the 2111 Arapahoe property will remove 22 parking stalls from the overall site plan,
resulting in a parking reduction over 25%. No new development is proposed for the
remaining existing main campus located at 2130 Arapahoe Ave. A Traffic Demand
Management Plan (TDM) has been provided to further support any required
adjustments to the parking requirements.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Minor plan set corrections are required before staff can approve the application and start the call-up period. Refer to the
review comments below. Please feel free to 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
Kyle Gillitzer, 303-441-4336
1.Within the TDM plan please expand further on how the current parking at the site is utilized. Is the parking engaging in
the principals of SUMP (Separated, Unbundled, Managed, Paid)? If so please provide some details on parking rates
per space/pass and utilization rates.
Corrective Action: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Comment - Expand On Existing Parking Use
2.Given the site has a wait list for your bicycle rental program, has Naropa considered coordinating with B-Cycle to be
able to provide a discounted membership program to students as CU does. Please evaluate if this is a viable option and
advise so in the TDM plan.
Corrective Action: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Comment - B-Cycle Expansion
Legal Documents
Julia Chase, 303-441-3052
The Applicant must provide a Vested Rights form. This is a requirement of a Site Review application, but none was
provided.
Parking
Kyle Gillitzer, 303-441-4336
Please see Case Manager Alison Blaine's comments regarding corrections being required to the parking totals and percent
of parking reduction requested.
Corrective Action: Correct Parking Counts
2130 ARAPAHOE AVE Page 2 of 3
Plan Documents
Alison Blaine, 303-441-4410
1.Provide a response to the Site Review criteria listed in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. Note that due to the proposed
scope, some of the site review criteria may not be applicable. Provide responses to the applicable site review criteria.
2.Include in the written statement, a response to the parking reduction criteria found in Section 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981.
3.Revise the written statement with correct parking calculations. See other comments below.
Zoning
Alison Blaine, 303-441-4410
1.The submitted parking table does not comply with parking calculations per the code. Parking requirements are
determined using the total existing floor area on site. Area that meets the definition of “floor area” (see definition in
Section 9-16) counts towards the parking requirements, including bathrooms, stairways, etc. Floor area that meets the
definition of “uninhabitable space” may be precluded from floor area calculations and therefore does not contribute to
parking counts. The parking calculations cannot discount the areas called “auxiliary/support” unless additional
information is provided to verify those areas are considered “uninhabitable space,” per the code. Based on the gross
square footage listed on the parking table (59,126 square feet), a total of 197 spaces are required where 117 are
provided. Therefore, the parking reduction request is 40%. Please update all documentation accordingly to comply with
current code regulations. Remove option A and B from the table and written statement. See mark-ups to plans.
2.The parking reduction is not calculated correctly. The 46% reduction is based on the original approval in 1999.
However, the site received approvals for several minor modifications since the original approval, which has also
impacted parking. The proposed parking reduction should reflect current conditions. Staff calculates the parking
reduction as 40%. Update the plans accordingly.
3.The site plans indicate that the site is providing 10 spaces in a small lot to the southeast. Staff cannot confirm the small
lot provides 10 spaces because the area is unstriped. Provide more information demonstrating that the parking lot
provides some form of parking dimensioning, such as curb stops, so that staff can verify parking counts. Additionally,
confirm that the lot to the southwest (30 spaces) is striped.
4.The current site does not appear to meet bike parking requirements. Per Table 9-8, 5 spaces are required per
classroom. Update the plans accordingly.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
1.Area Characteristics and Zoning History, Alison Blaine, 303-441-4410
The property is in the Public (P) zoning district. Per Section 9-5-2(c)(3), the P zone district is defined as “Public
areas in which public and semi-public facilities and uses are located, including without limitation, governmental and
educational uses.” The existing use is for Naropa University, which was approved in 1999 (UR-99-7 and SI-99-4).
Subsequent minor modifications have been granted since 1999 for the addition and removal of accessory buildings
and related parking reductions/deferrals (ADR2004-00055, ADR2004-00056, ADR2008-00167, ADR2012-00267).
The surrounding zones include P to the east and south, and RMX-1, RH-2, and Rh-1 to the west and north.
2.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.
3.Next Steps, Alison Blaine, 303-441-4410 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://bouldercolorado.gov/media/1447/download?attachment. 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).
2130 ARAPAHOE AVE Page 3 of 3
• 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.
4.Review Process, Alison Blaine, 303-441-4410
The development proposal involves amending the previous Site Review approval to remove the lot at 2111 Arapahoe
from the boundaries of the existing previous review. Additionally, a parking reduction request of greater than 25%must
be reviewed through a Site Review process. Therefore, a Site Review Amendment is required. Pursuant to section
9-2-14(m), which states that “no proposal to modify, enlarge or expand any approved site review will be approved
unless the site plan is amended and approved in accordance with the procedures prescribed by this section for
approval of site review.” A Site Review Amendment is subject to a staff level decision and a 14-day Planning Board
call-up period. During the call-up period any member of the board of public may call the item up for public hearing. In
which case, a public hearing will be scheduled within 60 days.
IV. FEES
Please note that the new 2024 application fee includes an initial and two subsequent reviews. If further substantive review is
required following the third review, an additional fee will need to be paid for the fourth and each subsequent review. This
additional fee does not apply for: Annexation/Initial Zoning, Concept Plan Review, BVCP land use designation change,
Vacation Feasibility Study, Right-of-Way/Access Easement Vacation, or CDOT Access Permit.
For 2023 or earlier cases, hourly billing still applies for reviewer time spent on any reviews following the initial review.
Date:Plot Date:Project:Revisions:Project Issue Date: 04.12.2024Caddis Project #: 1311s04.12.2024This document contains proprietary information belonging toCaddis, or its affiliated companies and shall be used only for thepurpose for which it was supplied with the prior written consentof CaddisRev#DateDescriptionFull Size:0"1"2"Archive:StampConsultant1521 Easy Rider Ln #102Boulder, CO 80304tel: 303.443.3629hello@caddispc.comwww.caddispc.comAMENDMENT TO APPROVEDSITE PLANSITE PLANAMENDMENTA1.1NAROPA UNIVERSITY
2130 Arapahoe Ave
Boulder, CO 80302
Amendment to Approved Site Plan GREENHOUSE - 380 SFSHED - 95 SFEXISTINGTEAHOUSE, FIELDVERIFY LOCATIONLAND USE ANALYSISP (PUBLIC) ZONE PER CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE CODE SITE AREA:161,825 SFTOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA:37,482 SFDRAWING BASED ON PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PUD SITE PLAN.CASE NUMBERS UR-99-7, SI-99-4, AR-94-108, ADR-2004-00056,ADR2012-00267BUILT SITE AREA:23.1%EXISTINGPARKING &ALLEYEXISTING CAMPUS CONSTRUCTION1. LINCOLN BUILDING2. PERFORMING ARTS CENTER3. DAY HOUSE - REMOVED IN 19994. GINSBERG LIBRARY5. UPAYA COTTAGE6. LITTLE HOUSE7. ARAPAHOE HOUSE9. CHESTNUT HOUSE10. STORAGE8. TEA HOUSE11. PRAJNA COTTAGE12. SAGE COTTAGE - REMOVED IN 200013. CEDAR COTTAGE14. SYCAMORE HALL15. JUNIPER COTTAGE16. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAILER11,980 SF5,622 SF-2,718 SF5,341 SF849 SF1,000 SF1,500 SF19. ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING100 SF921 SF375 SF814 SF-680 SF790 SF5,564 SF1,025 SF812 SF18,560 SFTOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA:59,126 GSFTOTAL NET BUILDING AREA:48,311 NSFPARKING ANALYSIS27. SHED/GREENHOUSE: 475 SF1:300 PARKING REQUIREMENT 30EXISTING PERVIOUSPAVER PARKING LOT,30 SPACES AS DRAWN11EXISTING PARKINGRE-DRAWN PEREXISTINGCONDITIONS,SHADED FORCLARITY10EXISTINGDIRT LOTEXISTING ALLEYBUILDING 12REMOVED IN 2000RESTRIPE PARKINGFOR COMPACT CARSTALLS AS SHOWN219PROPERTY LINE BUILDINGSSF% OF TOTAL161,825100%37,48223.1%79,94249.4%1OPENSPACE, LANDSCAPE,& SIDEWALKSHARDSCAPE (PARKING LOTS,ALLEYS)44,40127.5%±±HANDICAP PARKING REQUIRED: 87 SPACES PROVIDED: 117 SPACESSTANDARD PARKING SPACES60 SPACES5 SPACES5 SPACESBIKE PARKING10% OF PARKING SPACES (12)+/-60 BICYCLE STALLS (SEE TDM)PARKING REDUCTION: 46% REDUCTION GRANTED PER ADR2012-00267 AS PART OF UR-99-7 AND SI-99-45HCPAVILION CONNECTOR1382 SFLANDMARK PROPERTYBOUNDARY10% MINOR MOD THRESHOLD BASED ON PUD:5,912 SFPREVIOUS ADDITION SINCE PUD (PAVILION):1,382 SF4PREVIOUS MINOR MOD APPROVAL: ADR2012-00267COMPACT CAR SPACESUP TO 60% OF TOTAL (69)52 SPACES117 TOTAL PARKING SPACESPREVIOUS ADDITION SINCE PUD (GREENHOUSE):442 SF4,088 SF REMAININGOPT. 'A': NET FLOOR AREA 48,311 / 300 = 161 SPACES - 74 (.46 REDUCTION) = 87 SPACES(AXILLARY/SUPPORT) HCHCHC111181128. PAVILION 1382 SF13HC28REQUIRED: 117 SPACES PROVIDED: 117 SPACESOPT 'B': ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA 65,333 / 300 = 217 SPACES - 100 (.46 REDUCTION) = 117 SPACESMAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA:65,333 SFOPTION 'B'PARKINGCALCULATIONOPTIONS(ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA) OPTION 'A'ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA REMAINING